This chap and I have exchanged views before: A Stern warning
'You find yourself amazed that people are deploying in camps? This was discussed when you accused car journos of being‘selfish’. I felt such absolutes can lead to lines being drawn, and the majority left cowering beneath artillery exchanges of those who think they know best, or at least better than each other, and certainly the rest of us. See what we can read today, from varied but worthy sources: Care needed with carbon offsets - Deal will let airlines carry on polluting - Eat the world
The ‘carbon’ issue is, to me, critical. So I pay heed to those who have sensible things to say, along with credible solutions. Here’s a new word to share – Vorsorgeprinzip – basically, ‘better safe than sorry’. And in this, I believe we are at one. However... We have an all-time low in trust. With a fair reason. Statespersonship has given way to self-interest. Even those once relied upon to be the voice of the public (media) and minority interests (NGOs) are now corporate in structure, with suspect, self-serving agendas. Who to believe? A huge issue we face is population expansion. We can’t handle it now, so no matter how spiffy the toys we deploy, they won’t make much difference, at least in time. It’s an uncomfortable issue, best left to more courageous souls to address. So let’s make the most of what we’ve got and, if possible, make less use of it as well. Who goes first? Drivers? The travel industry? The supermarkets? The utilities? The individual? Trouble is, they all kinda want to stay at the top of the list... human nature. So... leave it to government... who few believe or trust to do anything other than secure revenue to stay in charge. As you point out, do it they must, and will have to. But it’s not as simple as you make out, which brings us back to lines. Some live outside cities. A few through choice; many through circumstance. Most through necessity. So placing the car-load on this segment, simplistically,via cost on fuel or miles (more logical than for drivetrain arrangement), is not going to work. Because . it . would . not . be . fair. Any more than it would hitting someone in a cottage for eco-rates, while an ODPM newbuild on a flood plain gets a subsidy. Equally rationing, while fairer, is a problem allowing that we all share the world’s air (to breathe or pollute). So to avoid a “some of ‘us’ are more equal than others” allusion, you’ll find ‘they’ will need to figure out an equitable trade between ‘us’ and ‘them’, and do it PDQ so we don’t fry. I see fun with a financier or travel writer being given the same allotment as a Kalahari bushman. Done on a global basis, they’re going have to trade with a lot to fly to the annual NYC do. That’s too many negatives, but it’s pragmatic to try to see the totality of the issue, and be at a level of society to sense how those who may not be able to swap a £2k Mondeo for a £17k Prius feels. Or be told by bi-monthly carbon offsetting ski-trippers to forgo a bit of Majorca sun once a year. We’re in it together. So please, while necessary to share the scale of the problem, try and resist the easy route of criticism from on high in fighting a selective cause. That’s why, on a column such as this you will find such spirited views from those who don’t happen to share them, or have other areas of priority they are frustrated at seeing ignored. I'm proactively pushing an area I believe in and can see the potential for making a positive difference: reuse. Concentrate on encouraging the same in your area of expertise, which is automotive. If we have to travel, how do we do it and survive now as families and as a race into the future?'
Also sent it direct to the editor, with this:
ps; I'm guessing the XC90 ad was ironic:)
2 comments:
Well said, you have a way of putting into words things that many of us think but also the ability to do it with eloquence.
The only downside to me occurs when you read the comments that have appeared in response to the article. The more mainstream politicians seem to pick up the ‘climate change’ flag, the more ‘bollocks du jour’ responses appear. The number of Neanderthal ‘grunt’ responses to this particular article is quite astounding. Whether you agree with his points or not, he IS highlighting the fact that GW appears to be here to stay, and we, as the current generation of humans occupying this particular flying lump of planetary rock, have to do whatever we can to ameliorate it. We have no scientific data by which we can measure that what we do now is going to have any effect whatsoever; it may well already be way too late. I guess the coming years will be dominated by the ‘its car travel’; ‘its power stations’; ‘its China, India and the USA’; ‘its aircraft’; ‘its cows farting’; plus thousands of other arguments; all or any combination of which may have their merits. The clear distinction we need to make here is that arguing about the many and varied potential causes is simply ignoring the fact that we MUST do something, and if that requires a sea change in human social, cultural, political and economic attitudes and beliefs, then that’s what we MUST attempt to bring to pass.
Perhaps we should concentrate on trying to make the disbelievers see the error of their ways? But that’s already been done many times throughout human history without any success – all that does is cause war. I guess we all simply need to carry on sending out the message and just ignore the heckling and the Neanderthal grunts. If we turn out to have been wrong in 100 years time then we can live with that. If we turn out to be correct, and GW is accelerating, then at least our grandchildren (with luck) will be able to proudly state their forefathers at least attempted to do something about it before it was too late; which for some, like your Kalahari bushman, it might already be.
Dave.
Thank you for the kind words, but you do raise an issue I need to address.
I don't wish by any means to be seen as unduly negative or, Heaven forbid, as a 'denier'. I would hope that my efforts in creating Junkk.com and the evidence of my own posts here would show that I am nothing of the kind.
What was originally posted was indeed an effort to raise awareness and should be applauded.
However, Sir John has before tended, IMHO , to broadcast his conversion in a manner that is not designed to embrace other converts to the cause in the most effective way possible.
Hence my attempt to explain to him why he was getting what were some rather extreme responses that so shocked him and appalled you, with reason.
I'd guess these guys were beyond reasoned argument, but Sir John does have a pulpit from whisch to access them, and it may behove him to asses not just what he's saying but how he's saying it to put his case and effect change in his area of influence.
Post a Comment