Madison, WI brings the crazy...Ban drive-throughs for global warming.

[Manedwolf]

Yeah, that's about right for Madison. What is it doing in Wisconsin, anyway? Did it fall there from SoCal?

First it was a proposed ban on plastic bags.

Now, a member of the influential Madison Plan Commission wants to ban the restaurant drive-through -- or at least restrict the ubiquitous symbol of America's auto-centric lifestyle.

"Given the concern about all the carbon going into the atmosphere, I'm not sure we should be building more places for people to sit idling in their cars," says Eric Sundquist, who was appointed to the citizen panel by Mayor Dave Cieslewicz this spring.

A former newspaper reporter in Atlanta now working as a researcher at the UW-Madison's Center on Wisconsin Strategy, Sundquist notes that several cities in Canada have recently moved to ban the drive-through coffee shop or stand-alone fast food restaurant (www.ecospace.cc/culture/drive-thru-ban.htm).

"Bans haven't gotten as far in the U.S., although I know San Luis Obispo, Calif., has one," he says.

http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/293046

[Standing Wolf]

...Sundquist notes that several cities in Canada have recently moved to ban the drive-through coffee shop or stand-alone fast food restaurant

Me, too, me, too, me, too!

Leftists are such lemmings!

[Creeping Incrementalism]

The City of Palm Desert, in the Palm Springs area, instituted one of the bans.

The percentage of people who go to these places frequently, and the amount of time people spend idling at them, is negligible, so it won't make and difference.  But what truly makes it truly ironically pathetic is what they won't do.  If Palm Desert really cared about reducing carbon emissions, they would ban air conditioning.  Except, no one would ever live in a city that is between 90-110 degrees every day in the summer, every day.  So by banning something that won't inconvenience them every much, they actually prove that virtually no one is willing to give up the conveniences of modern life for something they publicily say is a great crisis.

Something similar here is going on in the Bay Area.  The local air quality management agency proposed a 10 cent per gallon tax on gas to fight global warming.  Back when gas was $3.00 per gallon, support was at 60-65%.  Now that gas is around $4.40-4.50, support is about 30-35%.

I want to add that I believe global warming is 90% hype, by the way.

[Manedwolf]

The City of Palm Desert, in the Palm Springs area, instituted one of the bans.

The percentage of people who go to these places frequently, and the amount of time people spend idling at them, is negligible, so it won't make and difference.  But what truly makes it truly ironically pathetic is what they won't do.  If Palm Desert really cared about reducing carbon emissions, they would ban air conditioning.  Except, no one would ever live in a city that is between 90-110 degrees every day in the summer, every day.  So by banning something that won't inconvenience them every much, they actually prove that virtually no one is willing to give up the conveniences of modern life for something they publicily say is a great crisis.

Something similar here is going on in the Bay Area.  The local air quality management agency proposed a 10 cent per gallon tax on gas to fight global warming.  Back when gas was $3.00 per gallon, support was at 60-65%.  Now that gas is around $4.40-4.50, support is about 30-35%.

I want to add that I believe global warming is 90% hype, by the way.

Actually, there are studies out that A/C has a negligible effect on carbon emissions.

Also, turning off and starting a car to go in a restaurant uses far more gas than idling a few minutes.

If they really wanted to reduce pollution, they'd just time the damned traffic lights properly to reduce that idling. But they won't.

And if you want to control soot, tell China to ban open-coalpit nickel smelters. They won't.

[Firethorn]

Also, turning off and starting a car to go in a restaurant uses far more gas than idling a few minutes.

I'd be careful of statements like this; still an insignficant time as long as the line moves halfway quickly.

If they really wanted to reduce pollution, they'd just time the damned traffic lights properly to reduce that idling. But they won't.

This and replacing unneccessary stop signs with yield ones(so people can legally do 'rolling stops'), would save millions of gallons.

And if you want to control soot, tell China to ban open-coalpit nickel smelters. They won't.

All sorts of environmental savings to be had with cleaning up china.

[Tallpine]

But the people who buy and eat all that greasy food at the drive-thru's die younger and thus emit less carbon in the long run 

[Gewehr98]

Key Riced All My Tea. It's not a ban, although the smacktards would have you believe that.

Hint: I live there.

He suggested looking into the environmental impact of yet another drive through with a bunch of idling cars - nothing more, nothing less. 

Somehow, it's gotten blown all out of proportion, and is now the topic of blogs and forums everywhere, posted by those looking for something in the way of outrage without first checking more than just a snippet taken out of context (not mentioning names, but we all know who they are):

  http://www.madison.com/wsj/mad/top/293356

A tempest in a teapot, as it were.

Climate change question over Starbucks drive-through gains media attention

A suggestion from a member of Madison's Plan Commission involving cars, climate change and a Starbuck's drive-through ended up combining with Madison's liberal reputation to create a buzz among some international news channels and bloggers Wednesday.

During a discussion June 16 on whether to OK a Starbuck's drive-through on East Washington Avenue, Eric Sundquist asked whether concerns about carbon emissions from cars and global warming should be one of the factors the group considers when it approves drive-throughs.

"In that context, I just raised the question if facilities for idling cars were not worth considering," said Sundquist, a policy analyst with the Center on Wisconsin Strategy who was appointed to the commission in May. "There isn't any proposal on the table."

 
Capital Times business reporter Mike Ivey reported Sundquist's comments in a column posted in the paper's Web site Wednesday. A link to the column was added to the Drudge Report  under the headline "Wisconsin city may ban restaurant drive-throughs over global warming concerns"  and next thing Sundquist knew, he was getting calls from Fox News and CNN.

Sundquist is quick to say he never suggested banning drive-throughs  "ban makes it sound like we're going to shut down every McDonald's in town," he said  and the strongest action he can envision is not letting more drive-throughs open up in Madison. More likely, he said, are restrictions on things such as where the drive-through facilities could be located.

If such restrictions do come to pass, it won't be anytime soon.

Sundquist said he hasn't really talked in any depth about his idea with city officials, and it's not yet been formally placed on any city commission's agenda. He said he will try to get it on the agenda for the next Long Range Transportation Planning Commission, of which he is also a member, but might not be able to if it's already going to be a busy meeting.

"Something like this has to go through a lot of scrutiny before it become law," said fellow plan commission member Judy Bowser, who was at the meeting where Sundquist raised his concerns.

Nevertheless, Googling "Eric Sundquist drive throughs" returns no shortage of not-so-nice commentary on Sundquist and the alleged scourge of liberals.

Sundquist said calls came Wednesday from a Rockford, Ill., television station and radio shows in Seattle and Canada. CNN called but lost interest after he explained himself a little more thoroughly, he said, and Fox called too. He plans to do a phone interview with one of the cable channel's morning shows today  "a live bashing of me," he speculated.

The commission did recommend approving the Starbuck's drive-through.

Now, let's talk about crazies in Wisconsin, shall we?   

Honestly, if Drudge told people to go jump off a bridge, I believe some here would actually do it.

[Tallpine]

Honestly, if Drudge told people to go jump off a bridge, I believe some here would actually do it.

Not again, I won't 

[Gewehr98]

Looking at this thread from the bigger picture (ie, casual visitor to the board, fence-sitters, etc), I've come to the conclusion that it's not in the APS charter to propogate untruths of this sort, and it reflects poorly on the membership here by its mere existence.  Even those of a conservative bend don't have free license to do such things without just retribution.   

Let's try better next time, ok?