Actually, that's exactly the opposite of what I mean. if you consider
the total energy costs of producing a new car, there isn't a
sufficient resource saving for that added 10 MPG to justify a new one.
If you want to contribute then keep your car much longer, drive less,
carpool, maintain your car well, keep your tires properly inflated to
the high side. It's trivial, but it's actually positive. Trading your
Hyundai for a Prius is a fashion statement. Nothing more.
Not that I'm criticizing fashion statements. I drive a Ferrari. But
that doesn't mean I can't do math.
The media loves this story--it appeals to their smug and monumentally
uninformed self-righteousness and it's good copy. I loved all the
NASCAR stories about fuel being a big deal for the teams. The stories
were ALL written manipulatively, to make it seem like race fuel was
the issue. Only if you read past the second paragraph (which any
weasel mind-manipulator like me knows 90 percent of the readers won't
do) do you discover that they were talking about fuel for the
airplanes that they transport the teams with.
It's just cynical marketing for event promoters like Nascar to prattle
about fuel considerations. Amid 50,000 cars in the parking lot at a
typical race, each carrying 1.3 people. Teams flying in with a fleet
of Citations or the three Roush 727's, fifty cars driving 500 miles is
a fart in a hurricane.
You've got to admire the blatant duplicity. This morning on Good
Morning they had extensive coverage of the goofballs climbing New York
skyscrapers, with all the hosts looking very concerned about copycats
and how illegal it all was. Then they announced they were going to
have an exclusive interview with the french guy who's climbing...wait
for it...to protest global warming.
The first copycat weenie had to dream something up on the spot--all he
could come up with was "to make people aware of the dangers of
malaria". I nearly blew coffee out my nose.
What a wonderful world.
On Jun 6, 2008, at 8:43 AM, Joe Curry wrote:
> Yeah, Me Too! Not because I think their intensions are not good but
> because
> if they really were interested in "saving the planet" They would
> scrap that
> old car instead of selling it. By selling it, the care remains out
> there
> polluting and burning just as much fuel. Plus people who buy old cars
> typically don't maintain them properly and allow them to become worse
> polluters.
>
> Joe C.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Babcock" <Billb@bnj.com>
> To: "Steven Preiss" <spreiss@verizon.net>
> Cc: <fot@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 8:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [Fot] mileage plus
>
>
>> Actually I'd characterize that among the "running off in the wrong
>> direction" ideas. The cost--even just in resources consumed--would
>> infinitely overwhelm the value. I know, I know, we'd be setting a
>> good
>> example--a justification for all kinds of pointless effort. But no,
>> we
>> wouldn't. It's Sharon Crow touring the US in a bus to save the planet
>> from global warming.
>>
>> Every time I hear of someone selling their 20 MPG car to buy a new 35
>> MPG car because it will be "good for the planet" I want to puke.
> _______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
http://www.team.net/donate.html
Fot mailing list
Fot@autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/fot
|