David Massey wrote:
> I had heard this before, many years ago. I believe that this factoid is
> "swept under the carpet" because building cars provides so many jobs and
> cutting back would have detrimental effects to the economy - at least short
> term. [and briskly condensed from Dave's email: it's an unfair comparison.
> And the study didn't consider environment *costs* of restoration vs. new car
> purchase. But highlighting the *hidden* pollution costs of new cars is kind of
> interesting.]
Good points all. I probably should have distanced myself from the specifics --
as both Gore and Bush have often done lately. <g> Among the many problems with
the argument I cited... well there are lots of problems. But that aside, one of
the challenges of our economic system is that we don't factor the economic
*costs* into the *price* of goods and services. Then we roll up the *cost* of
cleaning up pollution into our GDP as if it were *productivity*. Um, this might
be in Gore's book. <g> Probably not a bi-partisan economic argument. I hung
around with mocha-drinking black-clothes wearing artistes in college. <g>
Then add the social engineering component -- Americans especially don't consider
automobile purchases based on use-value. More of a sex and self image thing, for
whatever incredibly complex reasons [or if it's all marketing mind-control,
maybe it's not all that complex].
And since I drive a shiny black sports car older than I am, I don't have a
particularly strong position on the soapbox. <g> I don't even want to mention my
winter SUV (quite manly with that winch, huge foglights and knobby tires...).
Still, I'm going to boldly maintain that it would sure be cool to think that I
was somehow doing my environment a favor by zipping around in my TR4*. ;-)
*if you're curious about my powers of self-delusion, ask me about my spreadsheet
that supports the low cost of ownership of old British cars and trucks vs.
Hondas. <g>
--
Steven Newell
Denver, CO
Practical, economical '62 TR4
|