A bicycle satisfies points B and C just fine.  And given that most trips are just a few miles or less, a bicycle serves the purpose just fine.  And yes, a bike is just fine in the rain and down to 15 below or so. And arguably better in many snow conditions than a car.

Bike more, drive less?  That oughta help, right?

T.
(Waiting for protests from the "America runs on Dunkins" crowd...)
Full disclosure:
'82 westy diesel
'00 Honda Civic
and 3 bicycles, a unicycle, and a tandem

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Snow" <slowmachine82@GMAIL.COM>
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:45:25 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Re: Vanagon emissions

What is wrong with driving a Vanagon or light truck as your only vehicle?

I would argue that:

A.  Life-cycle emissions include the total of the emissions created
from mining, manufacturing, use, maintenance and disposal of the
vehicle.

B.  [...] there is no vehicle
in existence (and never will be) that emits so few pollutants that the
combined life-cycle emissions of the two vehicles are less than those
of a single pickup or Vanagon.

C.  Completely disregarding all consideration for fuel economy and
emissions, there is no second vehicle in existence (and never will be)
that costs so little to purchase, insure, operate and maintain, that
will enable a lower combined operation cost than is incurred by the
poor fuel economy of a single pickup or Vanagon.

Drive what meets your needs, but understand that two vehicles are
never less expensive than one, and the life-cycle emissions of two
cars are never less than those of a single vehicle.  I think the Prius
is a marvel of engineering.  However, driving a Prius or any other
super-efficient car, as a second car, costs you more, and pollutes the
planet more than driving only a Vanagon.

--
Michael Snow
1982 Westfalia 1.9TD
http://slowmachine82.blogspot.com/