From: wallich@ncd.com (Ken Wallich)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: Impact is DEAD [was: Electric Vehicles]
Date: 28 Dec 92 23:45:14 GMT
Reply-To: wallich@ncd.com (Ken Wallich)
Followup-To: talk.environment

bqueiser@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Brian J Queiser) writes:

[... Some good suggestions deleted ...]

While I agree with some of Brian's arguments about why EV's may not
make sense right now (being a solar "freak", I don't buy the polluting
power plant argument, but I do recognize the problems with current
battery technology).

Cleaner running autos are certainly a step in the right direction, but
we do need to develop technology that will provide us with much of the
functionality of fossil fueled devices without the detrimental
environmental impact caused by the collection, processing, and usage
of these fuels.  EV's, or at least what is learned by the development
of them as prototypes, will most likely prove valuable in the future.

Of course, I can't just discuss this thread without getting up on *my*
soapbox, so here it goes...

[I've directed followups to talk.environment, since the rest of this
article has nothing directly to do with automobiles.  If your not
interested, get out now, before it's too late.]

>There are people that believe in EVs no matter what the price.  They are
>the true "eco-freaks," blinded by some passionate fixation to save the
>planet at any cost.  I'm sorry for being so inflammatory, but my comments
>weren't necessarily aimed at this audience.

So, what you're saying is we should only "save the planet" if it is
convienient for us and if it doesn't cost us anything?  Yeah, that'll
work.  I'm sure we can clean up our water supplies and clear our
particulate infested air while still allowing everyone to drive their
very own fossil-fueled machine 70mph in air-conditioned comfort.  We
don't need reduce our use of mass-produced power, even if most of us
*could* install a solar system for less than $5000 that would meet our
needs, since that would not be convienient, and would cause me to
change my carefully constructed habits.  Nope, much better to stick
with what you know, stay in that routine, after all, the government
won't let it get *much* worse.

I was just floored at the implication behind this statement.  Only
'freaks' feel passionately about wanting to save the planet? And I
suppose "normal people" will "do what they can", saying things like:

"I don't have to go extremely out of my way or sacrifice some luxury.
They don't cost me anything; in fact, usually I save money."

I find the relentless apathy of the majority of the people to fixing
or reversing (or even slowing) the ecological destruction that our
additiction to consumerism has wrought sickening.  I personally feel
it is all of our responsibility to do *something* to reduce our
consumption, and when we've gotten comfortable with that, to reduce
something else.  We've become addicted to comfort and convienience and
instantaneous gratification, and at what cost?  We can no longer drink
from any open water source without first treating the poisonous liquid
and filtering or killing off the toxins.  We often are advised to "not
breathe the air", if we live in a congested urban area plagued with
incomprehensible amounts of airborne toxins.  I, for one, am willing
to drive less, buy less, change my diet, my food shopping habits, the
type of packaging I'm willing to buy.  I'm willing to be
inconvienienced, to sacrifice luxury, and to adopt new (or old) and
less wasteful ways of doing things so that one day my grandchildren
(or perhaps *their* grandchildren) can again drink from the streams
and breathe the air with wild abandon.  Yes, it won't be fun, but at
some point someone is going to have to pay for the sins of our
fathers, and their fathers.  The way I look at it, we can all pay a
little bit now in lost convienience and less "luxury", or our
grandchildren can pay by starving in a toxic wasteland no longer able
to sustain the overextended lifestyles of their ancestors.  It's like
the U.S. Debt, we're spending more than we can recoup every year,
except in this case, we're dealing with reality, not just numbers in a
machine.

But I guess that's just me...


Newsgroups: rec.autos