Throwing bricks in (recycled) glass houses

Anita, our lovely Chief of Prose & Comms, is going to be grumpy. But sometimes it's necessary to address things at length. This is key to our philosophy at Junkk.com.

I have just replied to a chap called Sir John Whitmore, writing in the motoring section of the Telegraph.

The links/URLs will take you to the full text (I admire  the Telegraph for allowing such access and keeping it 'live'), but include a few 'samples', so do not take the flow out of context as this would be unfair:

http://motoring.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2005/11/05/emrwhit05.xml

Complex problems require innovative solutions, writes John Whitmore

Since I last wrote about global warming, to the irritation of proud owners of 4x4 Silly Ugly Vehicles and other ego-mobiles, we have had a tsunami, Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma and a huge earthquake.

We have also broken a number of planetary heat records and the icecaps are melting, yet some still bury their heads in the sand.

I recently read about the New Puritans, young people who are against all the unhealthy stuff: fashion, consumerism, brands, smoking, Esso fuel, binge drinking, pollution, junk food etc. 

Of course all movements have rogue or radical arms that we deplore, at least in public. In Paris, Les Dégonflés (The Deflated) are a band of guerrillas, or terrorists if you disapprove, who each night let the air out of the tyres of some 40 SUVs in the city. England's eco-terrorist is Sian Berry, who hands out fake parking tickets informing SUV owners of the error of their ways. If we can't save the world with common sense, let us do what we can with humour; if we are lucky, we might die laughing.

He referred to and linked to another, earlier, piece:

http://motoring.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2005/03/05/mfwhit05.xml

John Whitmore argues that we must change our motoring ways

I was going to write a light-hearted piece this month but the motoring magazine shelf at Heathrow airport persuaded me to tackle something more controversial.

I equipped myself for the first leg of a flight to Australia with three leading motoring titles, 

Such assets become uncomfortable or illegal at a brush of the accelerator, so why should they be of interest or relevance to ordinary motorists? Are the magazine journalists boy racers? Are their readers? Do ordinary motorists read such stuff?

When are we going to wake up to the full implications of environmental degradation? Will we continue to buy and drive greedy status symbols while waiting for the apocalypse? Will we continue to offer the pathetic platitude that "anything I do won't make a difference, so why bother?" 

That is why I support Ken Livingstone, fuel tax, road tolls, lower speed limits, enforcement cameras and traffic calming. I would even be happy to see a ban on cars of more than, say, 100bhp.

Here's my reply (sorry Anita):

"I recall a recent spat in the world of rock god luvvies, where I believe one didn't want to attend another's 'save the whatever' concert because the other hadn't attended his. It seemed to be a case of two rights making a wrong.

Hence I always feel a little circumspect when reading, much more commenting on, passionate views held regarding the behaviour of others, especially in an area of interest we obviously share.

But you have kindly invited a reply in the spirit of good-natured debate, so I thought I'd commit digit to keypad.

Whatever the cause(s), there is no doubt that something very nasty is brewing with our climate, and it's very unlikely that what 'we' are doing with 'our' many and varied manifestations of conspicuous consumption are doing much to help. Though I have to here express doubts that anything 'we' have or have not done, Hummer-wise, would have greatly influenced the Asian tsunami or Kashmir earthquake.

And much as I am concerned for my kids' future about what's going on, I also worry how easy it can be for certain views can take us in ‘unproductive’ directions; especially when these are often from those with greater access to the media, and hence end up predominating.

I wasn't quite sure, but there did seem to be a tacit admiration, and even passive support, on your part regarding certain censorious actions in support of various beliefs. It's easy to be against things. True skill lies in being for things, and promoting them in a positive way.

I live in the country, and I don't own an SUV. My lifestyle does not require it and my wallet would not sustain one. But I do know a few folk who do, with some justification.  If I were one of them, should I decide on a trip to some merry eco-prankster’s urban 'hood, I could easily laugh off a witty fake parking ticket. Perhaps I’d be less impressed by a deflated tyre or, not that it could ever happen, a key down the side.

So I just wonder if it possible to stray a tad into 'my cause is better than your cause' territory, especially when we throw around emotive words like 'selfish' to embolden those more single (simple?)-minded in their means of expression and desire to express.

It's just possible a planeload of these born-again enviro-types leaving behind a Prius-laden carpark may not be so impressed if Greenpeace chained themselves to the 747 about to whisk the family off to a week's skiing in the Rockies.

So I simply caution against any route that involves the pointing of fingers, as this inevitably ends up with fingers being pointed back. Hence valuable emotional resources are consumed defending turf, and egos, when we could better apply our efforts to working together in discovering proactive solutions.

I couldn't agree more that we need to effect change with good humour. But I would like to complement this less with accusations, and more in a constant search for incentive-based solutions designed to inspire folk to move in a 'better' (oh dear, who's to judge?) direction because they WANT to, by seeing the BENEFIT. 

I am not above what I call the odd 'eyebrow twitch' in my personal comment section of our own small attempt at making the difference. But it is usually directed at those in authority who have set themselves up to steer us on path of righteousness with fingers wagging. As a poor slob myself, I have a certain empathy with other poor slobs trying to do their best with what they have got to go on.

So I do try promote wherever possible avoiding the accusatory, guilt or, heaven forbid, 'fabbo fines first, sensible solutions second' paths. It tends to all get a bit ‘them 'n us’ for the humour route to be sustained for long.

I agree with so much of what you advocate, but simply offer the thought that that we do try to do it in ways that don't create competing camps, much as these do create healthy ratings. A plea I often make to the likes of Jeremy Clarkson (who has written some truly insightful, entertaining pieces of journalism on environmental issues and then spoiled them by ladling on the shock-jock bile to bait the pie-wielders). For all the good it does me."

Maybe he'll reply. Possibly he'll agree. At least once he and JC (can you imagine the 'mentalist baiter-in-chief resisting a comeback? have finished duking it out from their respective media bunkers. For the sake of the planet I do hope they may see some of the wisdom of my words.