The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 3: The War on Cars

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.)
(Click here for an .mp3 download of this presentation)

In the first two parts of this series we discussed the fallacy that man-made global warming is a fact, as well as how the methodologies that the state is using to calculate its supposed effects are not accurate.  We are now going to examine one of the proposals that is constantly offered by state officials as a combative action towards fighting man-made global warming; the reduction of private motor vehicles.

Regular readers of The Goodman Chronicle are already aware that the state of Connecticut has a policy of reducing private motor vehicle usage.  A recent example of this happened on December 3, 2014, when Connecticut state officials met with "transportation advocates" to discuss the future of transportation in Connecticut.  The discussion mainly focused on ways to further restrict private motor vehicle ownership, and usage, through measures such as an increase in the gasoline tax, toll roads, and more.

This analysis will show, using Connecticut climate change documents, how this anti-car philosophy in the state is derived from the idea that man-made global warming is a real and pressing issue in our society.

(It should be pointed out in the beginning of this analysis that this desire to reduce the amount of private motor vehicles is only one part of a much larger plan to concentrate people into highly regulated, dense neighborhoods, with public transportation being the main form of transportation.  This type of centralized planning is known as "smart growth", and will receive its own analysis in a later section of this multi-series report.)

The state believes that they need to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) by one million metric tons per year, over the next forty years.  According to their calculations this is equivalent to the emissions from over 190,000 passenger vehicles each year.

One option that the state has considered to deal with the GHG coming out of vehicles is to increase the taxes on cars that emit high levels of GHG, and offer tax breaks to consumers who purchased low GHG emitting vehicles.  This is known as a feebate program.  As a result of this policy, governments hope to encourage auto manufacturers to produce cars with less GHG emission.  Connecticut has yet to pursue this policy, however the federal government does have a similar program that offers tax incentives to consumers of "eco-friendly" cars.

Encouraging car manufacturers to make cars with less GHG emission is an option that the state continues to pursue, however they admit that this will not be enough to reach their target goal, in terms of passenger vehicle GHG emission:

"Connecticut’s increasingly cleaner cars will be overshadowed by the fact that we continue to drive more"

Because making cars "cleaner" will not be enough to reduce GHG emission to the level that the state would like, they pursue a policy of forcing people out of their cars and onto public transportation.  This is done by increasing the cost of driving:

"Implement a tax on driving (gasoline, toll, or mileage-based insurance) that would be channeled in its entirety to a dedicated fund to subsidize mass transit, walking, and bicycling."

Throughout the Connecticut climate change documents, there are various tactics recommended to state agencies in an effort to discourage the use of private motor vehicles.  One of these tactics includes adding tolls to roads.  Formulas have been developed to calculate how much of an increase in the cost of driving is needed to reduce private motor vehicle trips, as can be seen by this excerpt taken from a 2004 state document pertaining to climate change:

"A recent Connecticut report completed an analysis of travel demand mode shifts that would result from a value-pricing toll of $0.20 per mile in the southwest Connecticut corridor.  ConnDOT’s travel-demand model predicted that this pricing measure alone would create a 6 percent reduction in drive-alone trips, an increase in new rail trips of 72 percent, and an increase in bus use of 25 percent. The results are consistent with the results of the 1994 COMSIS Transportation Control Measure study, which indicated that a highway value toll of $0.10 per mile was expected to reduce VMT by 3.5 percent." 

The 2005 Connecticut Climate Change Action Plan states that getting us out of our cars will not only be good for the environment, but it will also improve our health as a society.  The idea seems to be that if the state can get people to use their bicycle or walk instead of taking their car, this will have health improvements for the individual.

"Health benefits from increased mobility. Auto­centric development patterns have  decreased mobility among adults and children, reducing opportunities for walking and  bike riding. The Surface Transportation Policy Project released a report this year  demonstrating a statistically significant correlation between sprawl, obesity, and  hypertension. Research suggests that people in compact, mixed­use areas reap benefits from increased opportunities to integrate walking and biking into their everyday  routines.  Smart growth seeks to encourage centralized, mixed­use communities with well­ developed pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Given the myriad health costs associated with inactivity, creating opportunities for increased mobility through smart  growth has a clear (although unquantified in this analysis) economic value."

Of course taking your bicycle, or walking, to the park, on a nice sunny day, instead of using your car sounds like a nice idea, but when it is raining, cold, or snowing, and you have to get work, school, appointments, etc., waiting around for public transportation would be a terrible scenario, and in many cases, unfeasible.  The many positive benefits of having your own private motor vehicle is never stressed in these documents.

The possible list of quotes and citations from these Connecticut climate change documents pertaining to the reduction of private motor vehicles is nearly endless.  We could go on, but you get the point.  The state of Connecticut has taken the position that the Earth is warming, humans are causing the warming, and reducing the number of cars on the road will help stop the warming.

In the next analysis we will take an inquisitive look into the groups behind the creation of these policies and their curious connection with Rockefeller family-related organizations.

Previous reports on Connecticut climate change:

• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 1: Is Man-Made Global Warming Real?
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 2: Inaccurate Data

Connecticut: New Controversial Bill Proposing Mandatory Periodic Inspections for Cars Over 100,000 miles

CT Rep. Thomas Vicino, D-35th

A new bill proposed in the Connecticut legislature would require mandatory inspections of motor vehicles that have over 100,000 miles.  The bill was introduced by first-term lawmaker, Rep. Thomas Vicino, D-35th District, and would require drivers to bring their vehicle to the DMV ,"to periodically inspect registered vehicles with an odometer mileage reading of more than 100,000...the list of four items that should be checked: seat belts, wipers, headlights and directional signals."

The state's Department of Motor Vehicles commissioner said Wednesday she opposes the mandatory inspections of vehicles with more than 100,000 miles.  Commissioner Melody Currey told the General Assembly's Transportation Committee that two new vehicle inspections proposed by legislators - one for vehicles with more than 100,000 miles and another requiring annual safety checks for all cars and truck ( introduced by Rep. DebraLee Hovey, R-112th Dist) - are both unnecessary and potentially costly for the agency.

The comments section in many of the online reports of this story are filled with criticism, by CT residents, directed toward Rep. Thomas Vicino, accusing the representative, who is also the owner-operator of Superior Auto in Westbrook, of attempting to use the law to make himself richer.

At CTTalking.com, a person with the username "Mike", gave his quick analysis:

Another user at the same website, with the name "Ed Wood", weighed in on the issue, and raised many of the issues that immediately came to my mind, when hearing about this new proposal:

Many users at TheDay.com, were also critical of the proposed legislation, as one user with the name "caregiver" writes:

Rep. Vicino seems to be more involved in the automotive repair business field of Connecticut, than just being an owner of a small auto shop.  According to his profile at HouseDems.ct.gov, Vicino "is a former member of the Connecticut Auto Body Board of Directors and was State Chairman of I-Car, responsible for certifying insurance adjusters and repair technicians in Connecticut. Tom Vicino is also a member of the Middlesex Automotive Council."

I could not find much more information on these automotive councils, and boards, that Rep. Vicino seems to be associated with, however, judging by their names, one would assume these to be organizations compromised of individuals that would be affected by legislation having to do with automobiles.  Whether, or not, Tom Vicino is being immorally influenced by his connections in the auto industry, has yet to be determined.  However, there is an already, obvious conflict of interest involved with this piece of legislation, and it should terminated immediately.

Other pieces of legislation proposed this year by Rep. Tom Vicino include AN ACT BANNING SMOKING ON BEACHES, and AN ACT CONCERNING THE TAXATION OF GENERIC CIGARETTES, which would "ensure that generic cigarettes are being taxed as cigarettes and not as small cigars."  It is obvious that Representative Vicino is not a friend of liberty.  The majority of his bills are about sticking the American people for more money, with higher taxes, and a stronger police state.  I encourage any readers from the Clinton, Killingworth, and Westbrook area, to inform your community of the destructive philosophical poison that Democrat Rep. Vicino is bringing to the state legislature.

On a related note, this week I wrote an article titled "United Nations Agenda 21 In Connecticut; New Britain-Hartford Busway, CTFastrack", in which I discuss the ongoing war against drivers, waged by governments at all levels, in attempt to force drivers out of their personal forms of transportation, and onto public transportation, to get more control of the population.  It is still unclear whether this recent piece of legislation proposed by Representative Vicino, and the other by DebraLee Hovey, can be directly tied into United Nations Agenda 21, but the extra burden that it will add onto drivers will undoubtedly further the UN's plans to take cars off the road, lowering your standard of living, and making you more dependent on government.