|
in response to my letter to ET |
|
|
|
Betreff: cars - your ET letter
Datum: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 08:21:38 -0000
Von: "John Read" <Bestbear@samphire.freeserve.co.uk> An: <Roger.Hicks@spaceship-earth.de> Dear Roger Hicks
In what way is the
car threatening civilisation?
I believed the anti-car
environmental hype until I learned that the car is responsible for 0.5%
of "greenhouse gas" emmissions. No I realise it is merely a PR ploy
by Greenpeace and other gtoups, and a convenient excuse for
Anti-car environmentalism
is now incredible. John
Dear John, Only 0.5% of greenhouse
gases? I think you will find it is a bit more than that. Take a look at one
of the photographs of our beautiful blue planet, like a jewel in the inky
blackness of space, taken by the Apollo astronauts on their way to the
moon. And then try to imagine the amounts of non-renewable resources that
go into produced and then running 500 million motor vehicles. 1 million is so large
a number that it is very difficult to grasp, let alone 500 million. Yet
by the time the rest of the world has caught up with western Europe and
North America it will be 3,000 million motor vehicles. Our planet is pretty
large and resilient, but its life-supporting ecosystems can take this kind
of strain and abuse for only a limited amount of time. Things may hold
together long enough for you and I, but not for our children or grandchildren.
They are going to have a rough time, and will one day curse us for our
selfishness and stupidity. Maybe you do not care
or want to be bothered about those who come after us. But if you do, you
should give some more thought to the matter. At the moment you are
obviously one of the huge majority who are in denial, refusing to face
up to the threatening situation we are in and the disaster we are heading
for. Yours sincerely Roger Hicks
Dear Roger Ah ... Now you introduce
the *manufacturing* of those Edinburgh motor cars into the equation!
But I do not see the relevance of this to the failed car-sharing scheme.
Presumably we can agree that the motor cars of the passengers, left idle
at home for the day, would still have required manufacturing? Presumably
we can also agree that none of the sharers would be expected to abandon
motoring altogether, joining some kind of car-pool of shared ownership?
Therefore my objection to all this stands: the *operation* of motor cars
contributes an insignificant 0.5% of "global
Even if the over-taxation
and demonisation of the motor car succeeded in reducing this 0.5% by 25%,
(and we both know it will not reduce it at all) this would be an insignificant
reduction of the total human output - which is itself insignificant compared
to the outpourings of one decent volcanic eruption. I note that the same
environmentalists who want to get us out of our cars also want to see elderly
cars removed from the roads, because they produce slightly more pollution
than the latest "eco-friendly" machines. Yet, if - as you do, and
we must - we are to take the manufacturing of their replacements into account,
we see just how illogical this notion is. But of course, logic has
nothing to do with environmentalism, which is more akin to religion than
to science. No harm in that, of course! <g> I found your remark:
" At the moment you are obviously one of the huge majority who are in
denial, refusing to face up to the threatening situation we are in and
the disaster we are heading for" quite fascinating! Apocalyptic stuff!
Genuinely "end times"! It's really nice to be in the
minority knowing the true facts and holding the true faith! As a
Greek Orthodox Christian in Protestant/Catholic - and atheistic - old England,
I know that feeling very well <g>! (In this connection
I have yet to hear any environmentalist take into account the inconvenient
potential of nanotechnology and molecular manufacturing, which will probably
be sucking carbon dioxide out of the
On reflection I can
personally claim to be truly environmentally-friendly. We run three cars,
all very old. (Just the sort you lot would like to tax off the roads!)
I make sure they are serviced on schedule and well maintained, which keeps
their emissions as low as possible. But that is incidental. It is
the avoidance of inconvenient breakdowns that motivates me, not emissions. I do not plan to change
any vehicles in the near future, so I shall not be responsible for the
environmental cost of producing any new ones. But that is not my
main concern. Because my cars are all ancient, they did not cost
me much. Because they are all old, they scarcely depreciate.
The last one I sold, after covering more than 30,000 trouble-free miles,
fetched exactly what I had paid for it. Thus my motivation
is self-interest. The environmental advantages are incidental, but
that does not mean they are unreal. I contrast this with the card-holding
"friend-of-the-earth" who changes his car every eighteen months for
the latest eco-friendly model, rejoicing in his extra five miles a gallon
and the recyclability of the right mudguard, while failing to take any
account of the factory that made it, or the electrical generation that
factory consumed! Environmentalists are also motorists, however
angst-ridden as they drive! We live in the country,
where buses are few and infrequent. I could be mealy-mouthed and
claim that this is why I must have a car: it is essential.
Well, it is indeed; but that is not why I use it all the time. Thanks -
if that is the word - to the government's bowing to pressure from people
like yourself, there are rather more empty buses passing through the village
spewing noise and fumes than there were two years ago. Nobody
much uses them unless they are too young - or too old - to drive.
Frankly, (as our great Leader likes to say), I would not use buses if they
ran every
Now, I paint here a
picture of "The Writer as Selfish Pig". It is not quite like that,
of course. All things being equal, I am as keen on the survival of
civilisation as the next person, and I do want to leave the world for my
grand-children in much the same good order as it was when I was born (-
in 1939 of all years, so perhaps not!). I am not against environmentalism
per se, but I am very much against lying propaganda whatever its source.
For example, TV showing "smoke" from cooling towers and the exhaust pipes
of freshly-started cars, calling pure steam "pollution" for goodness sake!
The lie that operating our cars is killing the world, the lie that sharing
journeys would make the slightest difference. You will get
nowhere with the average unreconstructed human being by telling him fairy-tales
about the damage his trip to the school or the shops is doing to the world! So why is "the huge
majority" in "denial"? Because it makes a lot of sense to deny what
is so patently untrue! People can see through this for the propaganda
it is, and - like me - are starting to resent the influence these
damn-fool notions are having on our way of life, with a government that
bows and scrapes to every passing pressure group if they think it is "leftie",
which environmentalism always seems to be, or if there is a donation to
party funds in it, or if it provides an excuse to increase taxes. The point I am trying
to make is that you environmentalists are on a losing wicket in spite of
succeeding in spreading a little human misery around. You are going against
the grain of human nature. People will always do what is best for
them and theirs in their own individual circumstances. The only way
to work with Man is to make sure that what you want him to want, is what
he really will want! Make environmentally-friendly policies people-friendly,
too, and make sure they are based on real science. The Edinburgh scheme
was neither, and it richly deserved to fail. John
|