Jorj as an individual you may well be outstanding. But we're not interested in personal, we're interested in national and global.
Guess what, this country, this planet...made up of individuals.
Opinions and beliefs are fine but a logical argument supported by facts is persuasive.
Below is your post responding to Rob S. Please point out the logical argument supported by facts. It seems like a bunch of hyperbolic rhetoric to me.
The problem is simple in concept, complex in fact. There are too many entrenched interests and deeply-embedded wasteful practices individually and collectively woven into our economies. Note the plural: the US is not alone.
Upstream, a couple of respondents claimed "Not me!" when self-interest was noted as a factor promoting inertia and resistance to change. By narrow interpretation, they declared their non-involvement with the petroleum industry exempted them. In truth, few of us are exempt. Who here doesn't commute 30 miles to and from work, alone in their car? Who doesn't use coal-fired generation, or its products? Who doesn't use the fast-food drive-through? Who doesn't eat the typical meal, the contents of which have traveled an average 1500 miles, often refrigerated, before ending up on someone's plate? We could list examples in the hundreds and thousands, ranging from urban planning, agricultural and transportation policy to infatuation with the Latest Thing and planned obsolescence. Our landfills are overflowing with the result, decomposing into toxic soup and belching methane from rotting, uneaten food.
Meanwhile, the very corporations that pay millions for PR to create the impression of energy-efficient and environmentally-conscientious behavior lobby vigorously for the opposite - and get what they want. The very market forces that many say will save us are in fact promoting the worst possible outcomes, in the name of profit. And who can blame them? That's the system, and that's how it works. How many here are prepared to sacrifice their jobs and upward mobility to promote energy efficiency?
After advocating mitigation and change for a decade, I can tell you it ain't gonna happen. We're not ready, and we won't be. We don't have what it takes for sufficiently constructive change. We'll have to run into a wall, not once but often, until the brutal realities wreak their havoc. Only then will we change, and in the process many will experience marginalization and suffering.
That has always been the aim of this thread.
I thought that this thread was about technology discussions free from political rhetoric or investment noise.
As Obama and Industry Focus on New Fuel Efficient Cars, Sales of SUVs Surge
"In fact, as Whorisky reports, sales of mid-size SUVs increased more than 40% in 2010 [Graphic]. "You have about 5 percent of the market that is green and committed to fuel efficiency, but the other 95 percent will give up an extra 5 mpg in fuel economy for a better cup holder," says auto retailer Mike Jackson.
The surge in SUV sales signals trouble for American consumers with gas prices expected to rise sharply to as high as $5 a gallon by the 2012 election, as one expert predicts. As Whorisky notes in the article, the sales of SUVs appears to support the thesis that energy efficiency might boomerang to actually increase consumption. The trend has been that gains in fuel efficiency have been used to build bigger cars with more power, instead of cars that use less overall gas consumption."
So let's talk about your "Facts"...otherwise entitled "lies, damn lies and statistics"
Do you believe that anybody will give up 5mpg in fuel economy for a better cup holder? is that a fact or is that hyperbole?
If gasoline rises to $5 gallon, consumers will have to rethink their move to bigger cars and may start thinking a bit more about better gas mileage. All without the help of government intervention. It happened back in the 70s. Then fuel prices went down and big cars came back.
And guess what, a bigger car that has more power that uses the same amount of fuel as a smaller car from 20 years ago IS conserving fuel. I remember back when i was a kid, we had five kids and two parents in my family. When we would go on road trips, we would take two cars because we couldn't all fit in one car. Now, SUVs and mini-vans allow more people in one vehicle and guess what, that conserves fuel. And I am sure that you are saying, "yes, but how often did you take roadtrips?". Often enough. But more importantly, my son goes to school about 10 miles away. Because we have a minivan, we take four other kids from our neighborhood to school. Thus reducing five trips down to one. Currently I have an acura integra and a honda odyssey (mini-van). The mini-van gets slightly better gas mileage than the acura because it is newer and has incorporated more efficient technology. Don't you consider that conserving fuel. Or do you need a hyperbolic article as a reference point rather than personal anecdotes to have a point be meaningful?
But you point out something important, completely contradicting yourself at the same time.
Meanwhile, the very corporations that pay millions for PR to create the impression of energy-efficient and environmentally-conscientious behavior lobby vigorously for the opposite - and get what they want. The very market forces that many say will save us are in fact promoting the worst possible outcomes, in the name of profit. And who can blame them? That's the system, and that's how it works. How many here are prepared to sacrifice their jobs and upward mobility to promote energy efficiency?
You point out that corporations "lobby for the opposite" and in the same breath talk about "market forces". They are lobbying for government regulations that favor them. They aren't using market forces. By having a government that is overly involved in the market, we have given these corporations the tools to legally exclude competition. By having the government intervening in the market forces we are prolonging the process by which change will happen. You make a good point that we won't change until we hit the wall. Well, let's get the government intervention out of the process so that we can hit the wall. |
