The National Park Service likes to consider itself at the head of the pack when it comes to conservation and protecting the finest lands in the United States. We hear a lot about climate change, the bad effect it is having across the country and how the NPS is educating the masses on the problems cropping up. We hear about that a lot. Really, quite a lot. But so far we haven’t seen the National Park Service really shake things up, to really let people know climate change is real.
How do you do that? Well, most people enter and leave the parks without ever thinking about climate change at all. That’s fine, most sane people want a nice, positive and enjoyable vacation. But that doesn’t mean we can’t learn something from a quick visit.
Let’s look at Yellowstone as an example. The entrance fee for Yellowstone is $25 for one vehicle per 7 days. The question is, why is a Toyota Prius entering the park and paying the same entrance fee as a Hummer? What sort of example or leadership tone are we setting with that? A very poor one. To get people thinking about their national parks and a little bit of climate change(which the NPS claims is one of their goals), the entrance fee needs to reflect that reality as well. Most people don’t react to things until it affects how much something costs, whether a bargain or if they feel they paid too much.
In line with that, a new fee system that reflects climate change should be put in place. It may look something like this:
Hybrid passenger cars: Free entrance for 7 days
Passenger cars with 30MPG or more highway: $8 for 7 days
All other vehicles: $25 for 7 days
RV’s: $30 for 7 days
RV’s towing SUV’s or ATV’s: $45 for 7 days
This is an easily identifiable list. Sure, some aspects of this could be worked out and compromised, but at this point it seems to be a perfectly fair list.
So how about it, National Park Service? Not everyone is going to pay attention to the climate change lectures, but they will surely pay attention when they open their wallets at the entrances to our great national parks.
Why does this vehicle(pictured in Yellowstone’s Bridge Bay campground) pay the same entrance fee as a Toyota Prius or Honda Civic in the climate change era?
I have to partially disagree with your logic on this one. There are several vehicles that get better fuel economy than any hybrid currently on the market. In addition, why should hybrids get a free pass? Don’t they add to the congestion and wear & tear of the park roads? Except in stop & go driving that is seldom encountered driving on I-90, hybrids are still using gasoline and putting out greenhouse gasses.
Hybrids, except in urban settings, are not all that they’ve been trumped up to be…unless all that one is attempting to achieve is self-perceived status.
Bob – I do agree that hybrids are not the perfect solution. But, they are an evolution towards the perfect solution. Because of that, I believe those vehicles deserve free entrance to national parks. You are right that many hybrids are outdone by non-hybrids. That’s why I put in hybrid passenger cars only.
I also think that hybrids and high MPG passenger cars are the superior vehicles while in the parks. They do much better at the average posted speeds of 25, 35 and 45. They also do not obstruct others views like the larger vehicles, often causing visibility issues at animal casued traffic jams(Yellowstone for example).
Definitely not perfect like you say. But truly an improvement.