Under What Circumstances Are Environmentalists Hypocritical?
In response to my piece on the Environmental Impact of Electric Transportation, frequent commenter MarcoPolo wonders, mockingly, how it’s possible that many EV advocates don’t own EVs. I suppose that, by extension, he’s implying that any environmentalists who doesn’t adopt every piece of cleantech is a hypocrite.
Needless to say, I’ve heard that argument before, but I have never understood why anyone would find it compelling. As long as there are transportation needs that aren’t addressed cost-effectively with EVs, there going to be people who can’t afford the limitations–or the high price of, e.g., a Tesla. I’m fine with that.
It’s laudable when people make huge sacrifices for the common good, but we shouldn’t resent people who don’t. (Having said that, people of conscience do have a problem with people who won’t make any sacrifices at all, e.g., drivers of gas guzzlers, those who won’t reuse/recycle and food shoppers who don’t support local, organic growers.)
I often use aircraft to travel to clean energy conferences, and I own a (43 MPG) diesel-powered car, since I frequently drive long distances, beyond the range of any EV. I don’t feel at all bad about that. Maybe I’m not being honest myself, but I don’t think so.
The price of EVs is such that they do not make sense for people who do little driving. The range limitations are such that they do not make sense for people who need a longer range.
For people who do a lot of driving but still would rarely need a greater range, EVs make sense. For others, they simply would not make sense on an economic basis although there may be other considerations.
I recently checked the price of a Nissan Leaf; it was almost $30K! Considering that I drive less than 2,000 miles per year, there is no way I could justify replacing my 2004 Mazda 3, which is only 22,000 miles on it, with an EV. Even if I had to replace my present car, it would make no sense for me to get an EV.
Owners of EVs are not paying fuel taxes to support our roads and highways. It is unclear how long that situation will continue, but it is likely that if EVs become more common, ways will be found to tax the electricity they use.
Cvs may well have a bright future, but not until prices drop and ranges increase.
I don’t know how other states are but in PA you get your car inspected every year and the mileage is written on the sticker and in a book that gets sent to the state capital every month. The state knows how many miles you have driven in your car no matter how it is fueled. I could see them employing a formula that involves miles travelled and vehicle weight and various factors like perhaps the number of axels to figure out a tax that replaces the fuel tax. That would be much easier than trying to track fuel use.
Brian, the subject of taxing an EV for highway mileage use is presently mostly a red herring. It is an argument intended to detract from the present cheap operating costs of the EV with some saying that if an EV paid its fair share it would cost as much to operate as a petrol car (very untrue.)
With present market penetration implementing special rules for an EV or changing the system to accommodate EV use would likely cost far more than the value of potential tax revenues.
While it is commonly thought that “fuel taxes” to to highway maintenance and construction in practice they go to a general fund and the common misconception is a bit of a governmental ruse or justification, depending upon your perspective.
Eventually this will become an issue and at that time issues of privacy for trackers will again be raised and your approach may become widespread.
Hi Frank,
Buying an EV isn’t just about money. Nor is EV technology restricted to pure BEV models, EREV’s PIEV’s even hybrids all use the technology to some degree.
For most people, the purchase of an automobile is not completely functional. Personal transport often reflects the aspirations, attitudes and personalities of the owners.
I’m not American but my Kelly’s Blue Book informs me that a new Mazda3 hatchback starts at $19,365. ” These starting prices are higher than a base Toyota Corolla and Kia Forte, but remain in line with the Honda Civic. The 2016 Mazda3 s Grand Touring sedan and hatchback with automatic transmission start at $26,615 and $27,315, respectively. Adding the Technology Package and the i-Eloop fuel-saving system bumps the s Grand Touring’s numbers an additional $2,600.
A check of West coast dealers revels that a Mazda 3 hatchback, with the same options as a Nissan Leaf SL would cost on the road to a cash buyer, $27,000 .
In California Nissan Leaf, once the subsidies and tax credits are applied works out to $ 18,900 ! (even cheaper to lease).
I think the Chevy Volt is better value, with an after subsidy, drive away price of only $24,300. (no range anxiety).
I fully understand your position of not wanting to replace a functioning vehicle you own and barely use. In fact my observations were not directed at you, since I haven’t found your comments anything but sensible and moderate.
My observations were really aimed at those advocates of a more extremist disposition. I find it incongruous for someone to scream abuse about the wickedness of oil companies, while choosing to patronize their local service station.
Even more bizarre when these same advocates claim to victims of a conspiracy by oil companies to force them to buy oil products, which will shortly destroy civilization !
But will they buy an EV ? Nope, not a chance!
(Oh, BTW, in your case the problem of electricity price increase could be solved by buying an additional home Solar panel).
On a personal note, c’mon, at our time of life, what’s the point of stinting ourselves ? Think about the fun, excitement and just plain ‘cool’ factor of cruisin’ in a Tesla model S P100. What better fun can you have for a mere $100 per week ? 🙂
Frank, It could be argued that any car ownership makes little sense for someone who does not drive much. But as you might testify, such is the nature of freedom and choice and economics that some people may want to own a vehicle rather than hire for a short term. \\
So the economics you invoke seems a matter of degree. It is in an absolute sense cheaper to walk, bicycle or hire a vehicle rather than own one and a petrol vehicle may be cheaper personally than an EV.
If we were to add in a longer time the economics change.
If we add in more disposable income and therefore the luxury to consider social as well as personal issues then the EV may then seem the better option.
It might be interesting to see a graph of how much disposable income is required before an EV is a serious option.
Breath,
When I took the course for geriatric drivers to get a discount on my insurance, it was correctly pointed out that for those of us who don’t drive very much, it would be cheaper to take a taxi. What they failed to point out is that taking a taxi is very inconvenient and makes one aware of the cost of every trip. That leads to leaving home less thereby resulting in social isolation. One then concludes over and over that it isn’t worth the trouble to go to a social function, church, or whatever, and then does not.
Actually losing the ability to drive is commonly followed by a rapid down-hill slide. I remember what my mother said when she (voluntarily) stopped driving. She said that in retrospect it was easier to stop smoking than to stop driving because not driving changed her entire life. She could no longer do the things she enjoyed doing. However, in the town where she lived, with a population of about 35K, there was actually no bus service and no taxi service; that made things even worse.
I suggest seeing the movie “Driving Miss Daisy”; I think it is available on DVD. Fortunately, Miss Daisy was able to hire a chauffeur, but before she reluctantly realized the need to, she was not happy with the limitations resulting from not being able to drive.
If self-driving cars become practical, I assure you that they will change the lives of millions of people. People who do not own a car will be able to order a car to pick them up and take them where they want or need to go.
All good points Frank. You have, as I suggested, mitigating circumstances which dictate that economics are not the sole consideration in your transportation choices.
I especially found your mother’s remark very insightful. Thanks for including it.
Miss Daisy, as I recall, did not want a driver. Humorously her son had to tell “the driver” that he was working for him and his mother should never know.
While self driving cars may allow the fiction of “not depending upon others” it may also continue a kind of isolation. I am not sure I would prefer them. Although I enjoy solitude for writing and contemplation, I will pick up a conversation with a (strange) cab driver to understand a bit more of the world from their perspective. Perhaps it is also a bit of “self defense” so as not to be treated like just another ride.
There are all sorts of commitments someone might make to a cleaner world. In my parents time it was not at all uncommon to see someone walking down the street going out of their way to pick up a piece of trash. It wasn’t theirs and it may not have been their responsibility but they nevertheless took the time to make their world a bit better.
Now it is disappointingly common to see the paid street sweepers decline to fill their trucks with water which would help to control the dust and do a better job. Perhaps they are trying to save the water? But it seems likely that they are just trying to save the time and effort.
We do live in an inconsistent world. Not everyone has the means to vote with their wallet. There will always be some who have the financial power, some who can lend expertise and some who have time and willingness. Unfortunately it is part of human nature to value what we have to offer over what another can bring to the equation.
Craig,
Let’s make sure we all clearly understand one another. As I understand your position, you feel the personal adoption of Clean Tech by environmental ‘advocates’, should only be practiced when :
1) Clean technology is cheaper to purchase, operate and offers more convenience.
2) Provided free by the government
3) All other technologies are banned
4) Requires no level of personal commitment or sacrifice
5) It’s up to others to be “first adopters” and lead by example
6) Advocates should preach, not practice.
I must confess, that attitude leaves me a little perplexed and disappointed. This is the sort of attitude I expect from people who are not actively involved in environmental issues, or Clean Technology.
As environmentalists, the policies and concepts we advocate and support are constantly under scrutiny from those who (quite rightly) are suspicious of hidden political agendas.
Joe Public has a right to be suspicious of those who seek to spend other peoples money on “righteous causes”, but refuse to spend their own.
I hate to use personal examples, but well you offered the challenge.
You justify your ownership of a VW diesel-powered vehicle on the basis that you “frequently drive long distances, beyond the range of any EV “.
Now Craig, to the best of my knowledge it would be fair to describe you the following :-
a) resident of California
B)active environmental advocate
c) long time supporter of local industry and employment
d) successful business leader
e) supporter of California’s advanced environmental programs especially CAFE.
F) strident critic of oil companies, etc.
Would that be a fair description ?
So I hope you won’t be offended when I examine the validity of your excuse, “frequently drive long distances, beyond the range of any EV” ,
I don’t know what you mean by “frequently” (daily, weekly, monthly or three times a year ?) but hazarding a guess, I would estimate these trips are at the most, once a month ?
Okay, now unless you are traveling to someplace really remote, Tesla’s range and supercharging facilities cover all of California and the Western USA. Tesla is to be congratulated for providing enough infrastructure to cover 84% of the US within its range.
As a resident of California you would be the recipient of very generous Federal, State and local subsidies, tax benefits and incentives to assist with your purchase. Even more if you use your vehicle for business purposes !
You can drive knowing you are not only helping spread the message of environmental clean tech, but also supporting a US owned, Californian manufacturer, as opposed to a German manufacturer mired in scandal.
For business folk, Tesla’s lease deal means the purchase of a Tesla makes very good financial sense.
(I suspect your allegiance to VW diesel is a hangover from your college days when VW was the fashion among leftist students :).
Not into Tesla ? Okay, GM will offer you the Volt.
The Volt is an EREV. In other words an EV around town, but with the reassurance of no range limitations for your long trips. Again, Volt is manufactured in the US by US workers. The second generation Volt is available, affordable and subject to all federal and state incentives.
Several other PIEV’s are also available, along with really excellent hybrids from Toyota, Lexus, Audi etc.
All of these vehicles deploy EV technology, all suit your needs and most are affordable.
All of these vehicles make nonsense of your claim “”frequently drive long distances, beyond the range of any EV” (technology).
Which brings me to another question. Most US families have more than one vehicle. Why not at least buy a pre-owned EV as an urban vehicle?
No one said clean tech would be cheaper, or offer the same level of convenience, but those negatives should be outweighed by the value of encouraging better environmental principles.
Several years ago, I listened to the new eccentric candidate for Mayor of London, explaining why he rode a bicycle to work. I thought this was just a gimmick, and would be quickly forgotten since he looked to be a most unlikely cyclist.
However, I was wrong. Not only did Boris Johnson gain office as a conservative in a previously leftist stronghold, but over time his environmental credentials proved sincere and effective. His personal example, tempered by his humour and commonsense earned the respect of friend and foe alike. He disarms his critics by his personal commitments. People may not agree with him, but they do at least give him a hearing.
Introducing any environmentally positive technology is going to require a certain level of sacrifice and investment. Environmental advocates must show themselves to be practitioners, not just preachers.
“Join me”, is far more effective than “do as I say, not as I do” !
How can new technology ever attain the volume sales needed to lower prices and invest in further R&D, if the most vocal supporters don’t purchase the technology ?
We can’t just sit around bleating for governments to do everything for us.
Marco, you have a pattern of making wild assumptions. If they were accurate then I might credit you with remarkable intuition. I have known a few who could with little or uncertain information could come to correct conclusions. It is a special talent.
But when you repeatedly make assumptions that are inaccurate and the process is mixed with hyperbole, then it suggests that statements come from a place that is not fully or reasonably considered. When you conclude with “that attitude leaves me… disappointed.” You have constructed the perfect example of a “straw man” fallacy. Perhaps you could do better.
Beyond this a careful reading can reveal a great deal about the writer. Have you seen such examples of this and other fallacies and thought they were “cool.” In this way perhaps you are just following an example or a pattern. But that also suggests a rather unthinking method.
All in all it is a weak start for your comment and detracts from the more incisive analysis of Craig’s vehicle choices and rational.
I may not prefer the use of a Straw man argument. I think it is ineffective and a detraction here, but it is your choice. In the final analysis, Craig’s car choices are his alone. He can hold up his choices as an example and you are free to agree or disagree with them.
But a vocal disagreement is your decision to involve yourself in his choices. We could say you have chosen to lend your expertise to his decisions. You could have decided instead to do a bit of legwork and go through local car adds and suggest alternative purchase options. Or you could do as you advocate “environmentalists” should do and vote with your wallet. You could have offered to purchase an EV for Craig.
You see Craig makes decisions that affect his life and those around him. You do also. You have chosen to limit your involvement to “expertise.” The option to put your money where your mouth is … is always available for someone buying a car or someone making a comment.
@ Breath,
My comment to Craig are in the context of his position as an environmental advocate, including advocacy for political policies involving clean tech.
As an individual, Craig can make any decisions he likes and I wouldn’t comment, but he offered himself as an example and invited comment. (I made that quite clear).
“You could have decided instead to do a bit of legwork and go through local car adds and suggest alternative purchase options”
WTF ? I did exactly that ! I also referred to KBB for new prices !
I think you really reveal your philosophy when you write;
“You could have offered to purchase an EV for Craig “.
That’s always the attitude of the left, someone else should pay for your convictions and principles, the government, taxpayers, the rich, etc. In fact anyone,…just not you !
Re: your last line, LOL!! I get it, though I think it’s an unfair generalization. Lots of leftist make huge sacrifices for the public good.
Marco, once again you make assumptions that are completely false. I am not defending Craig, his choices or his actions. This is not a proxy for his voice or his perspective. He is more than capable should he feel the need.
You have gone on about your justification to comment. That is a bit of a cliche argument. I give you that, that has nothing to do with hypocrisy in this instance.
Perhaps I did not express my thoughts clearly enough for you. Some things we try to point out a bit more delicately.
So I will be more plain. Not buying Craig a car puts you in the same position as someone advocating electric vehicles and not purchasing one. That is what you brought up. Hypocrisy is the topic of this article.
You know there is this little book that is referred to now and again a line that admonishes, “”Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?” … Well there could be a lot of reasons but first we have to find that “beam in our own eye.”
After having exchanged a few notes with you, and seeing your response so far I believe you still won’t “get it.” So I will walk it through more slowly.
For a working definition of hypocrisy: “1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess…[ or ]2. an act or instance of this” http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypocrisy
Someone might imagine them-self standing in Craig’s shoes. Everyone can do this except perhaps someone with a narcissistic personality Disorder. You see your (Craig’s) advocacy and see your purchases. This is all what we consider a 1st person perspective.
Then you might comment, as you have, “he is being hypocritical.” That is a third person perspective.
The last element is a degree, type or kind of action. Look at a charitable organization which may ask for help. They could get donators who will give money or supplies. They could get experts who will provide mental abilities like organization, mental skills and expertise. And there could be others who provide physical effort (which can sometimes also be skilled.)like painters and other trades, guards for the doors, cooks.
With each of these efforts we expect that a person will be giving what they have and are willing and able to offer. I think you will agree that we could say the same thing about supporting a cause as it is similar to a charitable organization.
Already we have come up to the understanding that not everyone is able to give the same thing. Fortunately they don’t all have the same thing to offer as any effort needs a variety of functions. And so if we were to say one way to support environmentalism is to purchase or create an EV as you have done then we would already be allowing that there may be other types of services that could be applied. But there is more distance to go.
Now we have a definition, a voice and a type of action.
Hypocrisy involves beliefs and in this case action rather than words. A belief in “environmentalism” (which can be several different things) can be supported like a charitable organization through donations or spending money in support of the cause, mental/professional skills, or physical work.
From the bottom first physical work may be someone volunteering to distribute flyers, helping to clean out a creek, plant trees or helping someone else to build an EV. It involves time and reasonable physical activity.
Mental/professional skills may be things like Craig does with his writing articles, meeting and advising people.
And then there is everything involving money. Buying an EV would certainly be something to support the cause. So would giving money to an environmental organization. When Tesla gives a car to Robert Llewellyn for a year we can say they are also making a financial donation.
So your claim is that Craig and by extension every EV advocate is hypocritical because he (they) did use his (their) purchasing power to buy an EV. So I will point out for the third time that “Every EV advocate” has more than one thing they could do to support their cause. Buying things or giving money are not the only possible courses of action.
That brings us back to your buying a car for Craig. You also have an environmental belief. To support your belief you have built vehicles which no doubt has taken some time. No doubt you could give many other examples of time and effort you have spent. Some of it may have been to satisfy yourself and some may have been a donation of effort.
You have also acquired knowledge in the subject. You write to spread your knowledge. You have organized operations and in all these things you have used your mental/professional skills.
You have also spoken of your investments in the fields of energy and the environment. While an investment is not a direct influx of capital it will serve like purchasing the investment of an electric vehicle to increase wealth within the environmental field (in addition to direct environmental benefits.)
Finally we come back to perspective or voice. Craig, who in this, kind of represents an “everyman.” Has made decisions. We try to put ourselves into his position in order to judge if the actions match up to the beliefs. This is the first person perspective. It is really the best way, it is the most searching, it is the most compassionate. And still it is hard to know of all the influences on someone else.
If on the other hand we were to try and dictate what he should do then we are in danger of demanding a form of “environmental” political correctness.
You say he should buy an EV. That is not a physical offering that could be one of his choices. It is not a mental or professional offering that we customarily expect from Craig. It is an expenditure of funds.
You choose to make a comment about his buying an EV. Now I am in your shoes. I have switched my perspective to your choices and I am completely forgetting about Craig’s choices. You clearly have environmental beliefs. You could have when presented with the paradox of Craig’s choices have flown to California and looked around for an EV that would be suitable. That would be a physical action to correct an environmental flaw. Instead you choose to use your mental/professional skills to look up values for vehicles and add them to support a comment.
But if I am to judge your actions by the standard you set then physical action is not enough, mental/professional action is not enough. If the standard you set is that every EV advocate should only use financial means to express their environmental beliefs then you should not use legwork, you should not write comments even with the skill of finding used EV values, the only action that would not be hypocritical according to your own standard is to use your financial capacity and buy Craig a car.
As a postscript you demurred: “That’s always the attitude of the left, someone else should pay for your convictions and principles, the government, taxpayers, the rich, etc. In fact anyone,…just not you !”
But you see. You have changed the perspective. We are not talking about “the Left,” “the Right” or “the Center.” We are not talking about some other person’s convictions. We are talking about your stated beliefs and hypocrisy.
So logically you have to buy Craig an electric car or alternatively you might expand your beliefs to allow more than just financial contributions as reasonable ways to support a cause. Frankly I would like to see you stick to your guns and buy the car.
@ Breath on the Wind
I have seldom read such an erudite, but completely bizarre proposition ! It borders on the surreal ! Well done !
However, back in the real world, we are all responsible for our own actions.
Craig offered the challenge, no amount of weird obfuscating can alter the fact that Craig’s rationale of why, despite his long standing disapproval of oil companies and diligent demand for a fossil fuel environment, Craig still prefers to own a diesel car.
(Now, I’ll concede the idea that Craig might consider himself entitled to someone else giving him a free EV, hadn’t occurred to me !)
Back in the real world Craig offered the explanation;- “I own a (43 MPG) diesel-powered car, since I frequently drive long distances, beyond the range of any EV.”
Fair enough,…if that explanation was accurate, but it’s not !
I think any fair minded person reading my reply to Craig would conclude I evidenced a number of vehicles deploying various levels of EV technology, each of which would easily accommodate his needs.
So the discourse runs like this;
C) Oil companies are criminal despoilers of the planet, their activities will destroy civilization!
M)Then why do you continue to use their products?
C) I wouldn’t, but I have no alternative !
M) Good news ! Here are several alternate options..
C) (silence).
( I hadn’t thought of your reply, “well some one else should buy me an alternative “).
It really is that simple !
No weasel words, no obfuscation, no bizarre excuses can avoid the crux of the matter.
When we, ( you, Craig and I) advocate Joe Public needs to avoid using fossil fuels for personal transport, Joe Public expects us to set an example.( not ask him for the price of an EV!).
As a taxpayer, Joe Public is being asked to subsidize EV development and adoption. If those advocating these subsidies have no faith ,personal commitment or interest in EV ownership, then Joe Public is entitled withdraw his support.
We can’t demand Joe Public adopt something we are not willing to do ourselves.
@Breath on the wind
Your earlier question of me deserves an answer Breath:
However I am unable to provide any advice at all on what you have asked. I am not a physicist or scientist or engineer specialising in energy dense generation science, and only experts working in this field would be worth listening to.
I am a commentator on the global greenhouse gas issue which we all know now as scientific fact, which is underpinned by fossil fuel use, and we all also know that fossil fuels dominate global power generation and reciprocating engines.
Greenhouse gas emissions causes are well established and irrefutable, so the next logical step is for our governments and corporate leaders and the world’s best and brightest researchers, physicists, scientists and engineers to step up and promote the development of alternative technologies to fossil fuel based ones, that fully satisfy the global energy imperative of: “low cost, abundant, safe, clean power for all people, and to power the energy intensive industries of the future”.
That’s a no brainer – and that sums up the scope of the technological challenge we must address, and address it we most certainly will (the sooner the better of course).
I am also mindful that commentators (including myself) are just that, commentators, they are a dime a dozen and have no involvement in “technological solutions science” which is the province of select experts, collaborating behind closed doors and without fanfare, which is what is happening in many places at the moment.
I am an electrical engineer involved in renewable energy solutions and systems, and I head up a company involved in designing and installing domestic and commercial on and off grid renewable energy systems and we are also design manufacturers of some specialist hardware and software products for renewable energy systems integration. My expertise is totally inadequate and irrelevant compared to those who we must rely on to bring forth the technological solutions needed to mitigate global greenhouse issues and take us all forward.
The sum of my professional experience over a long time, does frame my comments of course but my expertise does not extend to any knowledge or involvement in “new age energy dense generation science” that will be necessary to reverse the global greenhouse gas crisis permanently, and at the same time fully satisfy the global energy imperative of: “low cost, abundant, safe, clean power for all people, and to power the energy intensive industries of the future”.
There is the answer. It is not what you wanted to hear Breath, but I try to “stick to what I know” rather than wander off aimlessly into the ether.
Lawrence Coomber
Lawrence, I am very sorry, clearly you are writing after some careful consideration, but I am missing the context. I have not previously “asked you a question” among comments here and so you must be referring to a comment under a different post. If you could suggest where I could re-read that thread it would be helpful.
@ Breath on the Wind,
Re-reading your comment, I feel you need to understand that Craig courageously initiated the discussion and used his personal choices as an example to challenge my observations.
I took up that challenge by presenting a fairly detailed analysis of the inaccuracies of Craig’s claims. If I’m wrong, I look or inaccurate, I eagerly look forward to Craig correcting me. If I’m right, I expect Craig will concede the point and add new perspectives.
But, it’s not ‘personal’. Craig has been brave enough to offer himself as an example. As such he become a ‘public figure’ and invites scrutiny and criticism as a symbol of a particular viewpoint. Any criticism is solely restricted to that symbolism, not himself as an individual.
I wait his reply,…..
Marco, sorry to have presented such an “erudite, but completely bizarre proposition” that you couldn’t read it or didn’t understand it.
You are like the little kid on the playground: “He started it…” or in your case here: “Craig offered the challenge…” On the playground the teacher responds “there is no fighting” you can’t “hit him back.” Here it is a bit of the “pot calling the kettle black” if you demonstrate your own hypocrisy whilst trying to say others are hypocritical.
You keep arguing a point that is not being debated. Could more people purchase electric vehicles than do presently, certainly. Does it present a contrast when an environmental advocate drives a less than environmentally optimal vehicle, sure.
But you have gone beyond that to say that every environmental advocate is a hypocrite for not driving an electric vehicle. You would suggest, without understanding any mitigating circumstances, such a broad generalization that it seems to lack a reasonable sense of judgement … but I am not even debating that point.
The point is not Craig’s decisions it is your actions. It is your beliefs, your statements, your hypocrisy. If you want to make such a broad generalization then I am only pointing out that you are caught in the same devastation you seem to want to inflict on others.
If the only non hypocritical option you would allow is to purchase an EV then you are only allowing all environmental advocates to speak with their purchasing power. You are an environmental advocate. By your own standard you are only allowed to “speak” with your purchasing power. So don’t complain about the bed you have made. You have painted yourself into your own corner. Buy the car.
@ Breath on the Wind,
We don’t seem to inhabit the same reality. My definition of “environmentalist” was not broad, in fact if you bothered to read my reply to Frank, you would see it was restricted to those advocates who in the past have demanded the production of EV technology, claimed it was being thwarted by sinister oil company conspiracies and claims oil company control of government preventing alternate transport.
These people are like alcoholics who blame their addiction on the wine producer. No one is “forced’ to drink alcohol, it’s the choice of the individual.
The reason it matters becomes obvious when I campaign for greater EV usage and adoption, and include the environmental benefits. Skeptic’s can quite rightly point to the lack of EV adoption by strident activists saying ” they want you to do as they say, not as they do” ! They can also ask why the taxpayer should continue to fund a technology that even it’s most vocal supporters can’t be bother to spend their own money supporting.
Craig was brave enough to use himself and his own circumstances as an example to be examined. I responded and refuted his information.
The idea that the problem could be solved by an act of philanthropy is absurd. But it does show a certain attitude ” I’ll only drive an EV if I’m given one! ”
Although, come to think of it, your statement does confirm that A vehicle with EV technology can meet Craig’s requirements.
Every day (I hope) I set an example for improving the adoption of EV technology by my own actions. When skeptics or the disinterested see tangible evidence of the advantages, they are more likely to be interested in other environmental practices.
I believe preaching about what others should do, when not practicing your own principles, lacks effectiveness.
Now, you may have invented a little “bizarro ” dimension where every nonsense can be justified, but I live in the real world.
You are correct, we don’t inhabit the same reality. You seem to live in a world of special definitions, cherry picked ideas, private understandings and justifications.
You seem unwilling or unable to read what I have written while the only “threat” I pose is that of a mirror. And so I leave you to pot you have cooked.
I noticed that Clinton is another person who when asked about her emails, didn’t know, didn’t understand, and was confused… Ignorance seems to be an increasingly common excuse from intelligent people.
Thanks Breath.
I was just responding to you because of questions you often put to me around the fact that I never put forward any views about specific technological solutions to the global greenhouse gas crisis, but instead simply roll out a standard repetitious spiel.
Well it is simply because I am not an expert in the field of “global energy dense technologies able to reverse greenhouse gas emissions permanently”, whilst also satisfying the worlds critical energy imperative for “huge power” availability as we move into the next chapter of humankind development.
But I appeal to Craig to bolster the 2GreenEnergy.com forum, by finding some expert physicists and scientists researching in this space. We definitely need to move the debate into a higher gear, and that won’t happen by continually bouncing back and forth with circular discussions about the current crop of minnow-esqe renewable energy technologies; batteries and all of the other “blown out of all proportion” boutique generation technologies that so many seem fixated on.
All of this banter has absolutely nothing to do with the global greenhouse gas crisis. We need to quickly come to terms with that – as I have for over 25 years now. The hysterical and exaggerated claims made by vested interest practitioners with their hands now firmly in the taxpayers pocket through no strings attached government subsidies, is distorting the thinking and understanding of ordinary and extra-ordinary people everywhere.
And it needs a counter-balancing reality check urgently.
Lawrence Coomber
Lawrence there are ways to “not be an expert” yet show your concern. I have sometimes found that it more effective to ask a question than to make a statement. Having said that, and since I am writing under the heading of “hypocrisy,” I also realize that I may not be the most shining example of that approach. It is far too easy for a sense of confidence, certainty or conviction to lapse into didactic writing http://grammar.about.com/od/d/g/didacticterm.htm
So someone might say, “You should write more about specific actions…” or you could ask “What would be specific examples of the general approach you take…?” The first actually presumes a kind of authority that might just as easily be ignored while the second presents a challenge for more details and tends to avoid traps of hypocrisy.
But approach aside you seem to yearn for more discussion of specifics by experts yet affirm your own lack of expertise. There are scientific works you could read, they are available on the web and not all of them are in a “pay to play” format. Unfortunately they can also rather quickly become very detailed and require a great deal more effort to understand reading charts, math and specific vernacular. They tend to presume a level of knowledge and understanding you may have to work to achieve. It really doesn’t do much good to go to the beach and complain that what you really wanted was to climb a mountain. (Though it seems to be a part of human nature as people move from the city to the suburbs and complain about the lack of services.)
Finally, there is in your recent comment a reference to “huge power…” as if the only valuable effort is one that is “huge.” Nature doesn’t really work that way, but too often it is our need to simplify that channels our minds into thinking of single sources. In nature, an invasive species is not Godzilla. It is one tiny plant or animal that grows faster, has more offspring and generally takes over an ecosystem. We think in terms of a “global pandemic” but it is based upon microbes. Solutions are also built up from small pieces. When they are trying to aim a satellite at some distant object the solution is not a monstrous rocket. Rather economics is balanced with finesse and gravity is used to “slingshot” toward the goal.
We didn’t get into the global warming problem last year. It has been 300 years in the making. It is simplified to one problem…carbon, but in reality it is a complex series of problems with other greenhouse gases like methane and many, many different sources of supply and sinks.
You want to simplify the problem to a “huge source of power” but even if we eliminated all the world’s power plants and substituted fusion power … tomorrow, we would continue to have a massive greenhouse gas problem that is going to continue for decades if not many centuries. Some problems are not just “fixed.” They have to be maintained. Cancer, weight loss, even being a type 1 diabetic can be like this. On a social level, crime in a city, potholes, corruption are all things that take continued attention and are never really “fixed.” There is also a personal application I won’t get into here.
The solution for such problems, most problems in fact are lots of little steps. Global warming will require lots of little steps, some of which are discussed here.
Thanks Breath but after all the infil, I disagree with your summary paragraph on this issue.
Your last paragraph said “The solution for such problems, most problems in fact are lots of little steps. Global warming will require lots of little steps, some of which are discussed here.”
Definitely correct for most issues – definitely wrong for greenhouse gasses.
The danger here is that all people need to be encouraged to “scream out loud” on this issue. It is beyond orderly and timid step by step softly-softly approaches, and people should not be seduced into believing that it can be solved by traditional step by step processes as usual.
The situation is as far from usual as it gets. It needs global revolutionary rather than evolutionary technological strategies to be determined and mobilised and worked towards with extreme prejudice.
Your simple steps philosophy simply wont cut it on this one Breath.
Lawrence Coomber
As is often the case after writing, I continue to consider the issue. Over lunch today I reiterated the idea of human nature wanting to simplify the complex and was reminded that we also tend to make what is simple complex by overthinking. (This comment may be a perfect example.)
I had to agree that the “golden rule” is very simple and could solve many complex issues. So we seem to have a paradox of two different tendencies. I will have to more fully considered the matter so it is a work in progress.
But it is curious that in my comment I stressed complexity made simple as a problem and you seem to counter that I was being too simple. Hmmm?, perhaps my English is not so good? Somewhere there is a disconnect.
Is there a confusion between “lots of little steps” and some sort of passive, “wishy-washy” attitude? On the contrary, I have often found that “lots of little steps” requires a higher degree of intensity, focus and concentration as it is very easy to become distracted.
That kind of tenacious concentration is similar to the bite of a snapping turtle. You have to kill the thing before it will let go. Perhaps I was a snapping turtle in a former incarnation. While such focus seems part of my nature it is not necessarily a common quality and such concentration is not something that either comes naturally to most people or they are not inclined to it. Rather they seem to save such concentration and focus for shock, emergencies and life threatening situations. Perhaps noticing this you are looking for the “big bang” that is going to move people to action.
If that is your perspective causing you to suggest people should “scream out loud…” then I would understand your position. That doesn’t immediately work for me as the kind of contemplation I know requires a calm center and intense focus. Passion must be disciplined like a horse to harness. Perhaps it works for most people. I would be curious of your thoughts.
You seem to suggest that “greenhouse gases” are an example of something that does not require “lots of little steps.”
On the contrary, it seems that it took “lots of little steps” to get us in our present position. One coal burning stove did not give us climate change. Rather there was some point where eliminating natural carbon sinks and the release of too much sequestered carbon from fossil fuels imbalanced the carbon cycle. Both of these processes had many details as far flung as recognizing corporations as people, limited liability for owners/shareholders, and requiring the corporation to make money for shareholders divided into quarters of a year. The inventions of steam engines and internal combustion engines played a part. International trade and treaties, and banking played a part. Human greed, cowardice and a narrow self serving vision has played a part. And this is just one greenhouse gas. Methane is perhaps the monster in the shadows.
So when people talk about a carbon market, cap and trade or regulations, I tend to shrug. To me global warming is to my vision only a spot on a vast web of interconnected issues. It is the one we see. But I tend to think the issue is unsolvable with our present narrow focus no matter how loud we shout or stamp our feet.
What stamping and shouting has done is put all the focus on carbon dioxide while methane remains largely behind the curtain as does the multiplier effects of water vapor and the Earth’s changing albedo from deforestation and ice loss.
We tend to be hard wired to go from one crisis to another. The US foreign policy seems to have been based upon “bad guys” for almost 100 years, one after another. We are constantly being told what to be afraid of next… the food, the water, the air, the temperature, more “bad guys.” During this time of moving from one crisis to another hasn’t seemed to stop the flow of disasters, man made or natural. Perhaps there might be some advantage to contemplating a reasoned long term plan and trying to unravel the complex tension knot we seem to have wrapped around ourselves.
Breath I admire your passion and sincerity, but you are being much to moderate and timid on this specific issue. It is no longer an issue for the general public to debate and endorse by plebicite. It requires executive leadership and action urgently.
We have collectively exausted your traditional step by step options on this one Breath.
Lawrence Coomber
Lawrence, perhaps you could notice that my last few lines were a call to do something different than crisis management yet you retort that “we have exhausted your traditional step by step approach.” So there seems to be some even more fundamental divergence concerning what we have been doing that has not worked.
I am not sure we have ever actually decided the issue by plebicite. But I also wonder at your ideal alternative. Should we institute martial law for the military to take control and resolve the issue? I am not sure it is part of their agenda. Should we abolish government or allow a “green coup” to judge every action according to its impact on global climate change? Either way you seem to be in favor of suspending individual rights for goals as you see them. Once you relinquish all control and say how would you then ensure that your green goals would be carried out without self serving corruption? Or perhaps you imagine you making all the decisions and that you would be resolute and un-corruptible? Or perhaps it is only wishful thinking?
@Breath
Well Breath the “go forward solution model” is not a complex one, but necessarily a different one. But it has many precedents and here is one:
Let’s reflect back to 1961. President Kennedy gave a speech that introduced to the public, an American “nation building” project (when one was definitely needed) to send a man to the moon and return to earth by 1970. This speech did not talk about the horse power of the rocket required to get the job done, or the specific gravity of the fuel cell propellant. That minutia was left to America’s best and brightest physicists, scientists and engineers to resolve (the faceless men and women behind the announcement that collectively are able to get the project done).
There were no public hysterical internet forums in those days, more a simple understanding that what could be done, should be.
Well we all know the outcome. Mission accomplished. The greenhouse gas issue is similar but different? It dwarfs the moon mission because it has catastrophic consequences if not “turned into a national (or in this case international) project to be undertaken urgently.
Breath you’re lack of intensity in understanding a simple point like this surprises me a little bit, but not a big bit I add because there are not too many out there who are focussing their thinking on how to make any meaningful comments along the lines of “and this is how the international project can start”.
You may be a part of the problem Breath rather than a part of the solution. I recommend you change camps.
From little things – big things grow; President Kennedy proved this in 1961 as have countless other leaders through time.
It is no big deal mobilising a start on a technological solution project for the permanent reversal of greenhouse gasses and global roll-out deployment of “huge power” energy dense technologies to displace fossil fuel generation within 40 years.
All it requires is visionary leadership, and a public announcement to start the ball rolling.
Within 40 years, we would all be looking on saying “well congratulations world, mission accomplished – and what a masterstroke that collectively we started this “global project” at the right time and not too late”
Now which bit of that confused you Breath?
Lawrence Coomber
@ Lawrence
Breath on the Wind is quite right to express doubts about your proposals.
You seem to adopted a “if I were the ruler of the world ” approach.
The economic realities of the world have moved on since 1961, especially for the US. Even in the Peoples Republic of China those in power must have some regard for popular opinion.
You seem to have the zeal of the newly converted. In your passion you are in danger of allowing rationality, objectivity, and even reality disappear from your perspective.
Last night I was amused to find one of my daughter’s young (and very earnest) student friends passionately upset by a newspaper article featuring a Polar bear siting disconsolately on shrinking piece of ice, staring despairingly at the distant mainland.
The articles implication was that Bear was doomed to drown as a result of global warming. Naturally, our young friend was deeply moved by the plight of the unfortunate bruin and outraged that such events could occur.
Very effective propaganda, but like most propaganda becomes less effective when scrutinized objectively. In reality, the Ursine mariner was in no danger.
Polar bears often choose remote pieces of ice to use as rafts for hunting purposes, or to avoid other bears. They are strong swimmers and float for days if necessary. Polar Bears have been known to swim hundreds of kilometers, and harvest sea food while swimming, including kelp.
Changing the planet to a low carbon economy isn’t going to be easy, but it can only be achieved through persuasion and cooperation. Zealous coercion would prove counter-productive.
OK sounds like a useful analysis so it gets my tick.
I am still more impressed by the bold mega project mobilisation idea though.
Lets run both scenarios in tandem though just to keep the dreams alive.
Lawrence Coomber