CONUNDRUM: The below news item poses a difficult question for operators: Would you rather get government-related business travel, which is ultimately funded by the taxes you pay for bigger and bigger government, OR would you forgo the government travelers in favor of lower taxes?
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- President Barack Obama wants government workers to play a greener role by cutting business travel and reducing the use of vehicles for commuting.
The White House is expected to announce Tuesday that the government will aim to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from indirect sources by 13% in 2020, compared with 2008 levels.
Earlier this year Obama directed agencies to reduce pollution from direct sources, such as buildings and government fleets, by 28%.
The White House says the federal government is the LARGEST ENERGY CONSUMER in the U.S. economy, and the combined reductions would be the equivalent of removing emissions from 235 million barrels of oil.
Employee travel and commuting account for the biggest category of what the White House calls indirect sources of pollution.
Source: The Associated Press
LCT AFTERTHOUGHT: Should travel by government workers really be called "business travel?" After all, they are not traveling for business as do genuine business travelers in the private sector. Maybe the proper term for traveling government workers should be "Tax-Eater Travel?" "Moocher Mobility?" "Public Travel Bitches?" -- Martin Romjue, LCT editor