Hi Dawie :-)
I fully agree, "Greener commute" is indeed an oxymoron. It's for "lite greens" who think changing their buying habits will solve the problem, although of course it's consumerism itself that's the problem. Chris Hedges's "A Reality Check From the Brink of Extinction", which I posted the other day, ends with this: >Alexander Herzen, speaking a century ago to a group of Russian >anarchists working to topple the czar, reminded his followers that >they were not there to rescue the system. > >"We think we are the doctors," Herzen said. "We are the disease." <http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg74748.html> Quite so. Hedges just had a debate with Bill McKibben on "How Do We Solve the Environmental Crisis?" "Bill McKibben believes we must reduce our carbon emissions immediately, or else face disaster. Chris Hedges says that until we defeat corporate power, we can't address anything." See: <http://www.alternet.org/environment/143481/mckibben_versus_hedges'_clash_of_worldviews:_how_do_we_solve_the_environmental_crisis_> I think they're both right though. We also have to focus on what people will actually be prepared to do, as opposed to what they like to think they'd do if only... whatever. Many or even most people with greenish sympathies will have to be weaned off their massive carbon footprints. A greener commute would be one of many possible part-"solutions" that would at least in the meantime help to reduce the ovarall carbon footprint, as claimed. It's a start, it can help to encourage lite-greens to take the next step. This is from a 2007 article, still pertinent. With average fuel economy in the US worse still than it was in 1987, and far worse than anywhere else, especially Europe and Japan, something like 85% of Americans had been polled as demanding tougher CAFE fuel economy standards. But: >Consumers talk a good game about fuel economy before they arrive at >the showroom. But they get dazzled by glitzier features when they >walk into a dealership. > >"Customers will trade five miles per gallon to get fancy >cupholders," says Mike Jackson, head of AutoNation, the country's >largest auto retailer. > >Want proof? Back in 2000, when gasoline was the cheapest liquid >around, fuel economy ranked as the 29th most important attribute in >buying a car. Today, when gas costs as much as $3.25 a gallon, good >mileage still ranks only 22nd. Sound systems and convenience >features rank higher as purchase considerations. > >But rather than giving consumers an incentive to change their buying >habits, Bush wants to force automakers to build more fuel efficient >cars by raising the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards >for passenger cars and light trucks. > >By so doing, though, Bush is reviving an urban legend that the >technology is cheaply available if only the lazy old automakers >would bother to use it. > >We should be so lucky. Making people save gas by buying thriftier >cars, as General Motors executive Bob Lutz has said, is like telling >people to lose weight by wearing smaller clothes. -- "Passing the buck on fuel economy - Instead of ensuring that we use less gas, politicians and consumers take the easy way out, says Fortune's Alex Taylor", April 9 2007 <http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/09/autos/pluggedin_taylor_fueleconomy.fortune/index.htm> You can see both McKibben's view and Hedges's at work there. People want to do the right thing but they're drenched in all the consumerist spin. I can't blame them for that, I can only admire those that aren't. However, Hedges is definitely right. To cross threads, Chris just wrote, on "American Public More Complacent About Climate Change", how generally cooler temperatures in the US this year had undermined the urgency, helped along by the MSM's usual lack of real coverage. While that's true, it not all that's true. I've been watching a couple of arguments about global warming on other lists, especialy on two lists composed largely of right-wing "Tea Party" types. What Chris sees is right there, but it comes with all the familiar orchestrated "Tea Party"-type tropes - the facts of the cooler weather are reinforced by all the same old thoroughly debunked denialist crap, the discussions quickly become irrational, and global warming gets buried yet again, despite the brave efforts of the few who try to include the real facts that are being blind-eyed, such as vanishing glaciers and so on. It doesn't work, rational arguments just bounce off. And they'll continue to bounce off just as long as corporatism gets to call the tune as it does now. So, IMHO, the increasing numbers of consumers trying to take their first faltering steps towards sane behaviour really need encouragement, not just dismissal. All best Keith >"Greener commute" is an oxymoron. > >In fact "greener" is an oxymoron, like "deader". > >"Green commute" might be perfectly sensible if it refers to a >ten-minute walk; better if it means merely going downstairs. It is >becoming clear that the problem is the economic need for mobility. >Nothing that preserves that need can be regarded as a solution. And >as for anything involving a Prius, I think I can vouch for the >toxicity of the puffs of smoke that emanate from my ears every time >I see one ... > >-D > >________________________________ >From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org >Sent: Monday, 26 October, 2009 22:44:44 >Subject: [Biofuel] A Greener Commute > >MOTHER JONES > >October 26, 2009 > ><http://ga3.org/ct/hdahf0n1FrqP/>A Greener Commute > >Considering how much car travel affects a ><http://ga3.org/ct/h1ahf0n1Frqp/>person's carbon footprint?, I'm >always looking for ways to cut down on my driving time. Luckily for >me, the commute isn't a problem, since a rapid-transit train whisks >me under the San Francisco Bay practically to MoJo HQ's doorstep >every day. But if you don't live near public transportation or a >bike-friendly commute (and you don't happen to have an extra 25 grand >kicking around for a Prius), you're probably going to have to get >creative. > >One idea: Get a GPS device. The technology company Navteq recently ><http://ga3.org/ct/U7ahf0n1Frqi/>found that German drivers who were >given navigational devices with real-time traffic information >increased their fuel economy by an average of 12 percent. The >researchers calculated that GPS systems could save 2,006 pounds of >carbon per driver per year, a 24 percent reduction from current >emissions levels. > >An ABC <http://ga3.org/ct/ipahf0n1FrqC/>poll estimated the average >American commute at 16 miles one way, creating about 29.3 pounds of >CO2 round-trip every day. According to the Navteq researchers' >findings, then, getting a GPS device is the same as not driving to >work 68 days every year. > >A caveat: Since Navteq, the company behind the study, sells software >to GPS manufacturers, it has a vested interest in touting the >benefits of navigational systems. Still, some independent >traffic-savvy types told me they think that the study is solid, if >taken with a few grains of salt. First, the study was conducted in >Germany-and any American who's been to Europe knows that US freeways >take crowded to an entirely different level. Another problem: Once >everyone starts using the alternate route that a GPS suggests, it's, >well, no longer an alternate route. "The impact for any one driver >may be somewhat smaller if more people use these devices and start to >clog up alternate routes," said Tai Stillwater, a graduate student >who studies traffic and sustainability at the University of >California-Davis. > >If you don't want to shell out for a GPS (they run about $150-$200), >consider these fuel efficiency <http://ga3.org/ct/ydahf0n1Frqo/>tips. >You can also talk to your boss about telecommuting a few days a week. >And for advice on whether to junk your clunker in favor of a hybrid, >read our piece on the subject <http://ga3.org/ct/n7ahf0n1FrqH/>here. ><http://ga3.org/ct/hdahf0n1FrqP/>[READ MORE] > >The bottom line: Public transit's the best way to cut your >commute-related emissions, but if you're stuck with a daily drive, >using a GPS system to find alternate routes could improve your fuel >efficiency considerably. _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
