>> Unless we choose, as individuals, to live a completely > > "hunter/gatherer/grow your own" lifestyle, the best we can do is > > compromise where we can. This is false, if we did that we would very quickly strip all wild lands of everything edible and burnable. The reality of human history is that organized agriculture, which makes very intensive use of land and water resources to grow food, is what has allowed civilization to exist. Nomads exist by stripping a segment of wild land of natural resources, and then moving on. There is nothing "green" about it. The ONLY reason we can now afford the luxury of preserving and protecting wild lands is BECAUSE we have industrialized the way we live, how we grow food, and how we earn a living (by working in specialized areas). To think that going backwards would be an improvement is just plain wrong, and be impossible anyway. ><snip>. After all, if the trend that started in the '70s continued > unabated, we'd collectively be consuming about _half_ as much energy > for personal transportation today. Instead, everyone went crazy as > oil prices dipped in the '80s and early '90s and we are consuming > more than ever. In fact, energy consumption increased faster than > any other index - inflation, economic growth, population etc. We > aren't just using more collectively, we are using more per capita and > vehicles are using more per vehicle-mile. again this is an unfortunate distortion by only looking at part of the picture. We have LESS pollution now, and greater productivity and a BETTER living standard than we did in the 70's and 80's, both on an overall basis and certainly on a per capita basis. It is true the US as a country consumes more energy than most other countries, but we also produce more. In fact if you compare industrial output to engery consumption, the USA is the MOST efficient consumer of energy of any country in the world, the next closet is Germany at 15 percent below the US. You are only looking at half the picture if you only look at consumption, people living in the mud in third world countries who do not produce anything, do not consume energy either (they do consume reissues, yet they contribute nothing). If you are very productive, then you will use more resources, the question is not how much we consume, but how efficiently do we use it. You could argue that a lot of consumption by individuals is wasteful, but that is their choice. Are you going to tell everyone that they can not spend the money they earn in the jobs the way they want? If they choose to buy big SUVs that are expensive and consuming a lot of fuel, they do so with their own money. I have always owned reliable and fairly fuel efficient cars and light trucks because I choose not to spend my money on gasoline, but what right does anyone have to tell people they can not spend their OWN money the way they want? Also consider, especially with a large family, it is less expensive (meaning it takes less resources) to drive them around in one big van or SUV than to take two vehicles, and if they are safer then there is potential life and medical savings should there be an accident as well. Another thing to think about, is that often people are consuming more fuel personally now because they have to commute farther to work. This means they are choosing to live further out of the city to either enjoy rural living or so they can afford a nicer or larger home then they could if they live close to their job in the city. Again this means they are willing to pay the extra travel expense to enjoy a better lifestyle (this is the choice my wife and I made). Again do you propose we out law people from making these kinds of choices? I think not. This also means we are making better use of our land resourses, by allowing individuals and families a broader selection of housing choices (including housing and land costs) when good roads and reliable automobiles are available. I would rather pay the driving expense and travel time to allow my children to grow up and live outside the city. It is my choice and right to do so. So before you make such one sided and mindless statements about the fuel economy of SUV or energy consumption you need to think all the way through the situation. We still have the freedom to choose what kind of car we drive, job we take and where we live. If people do not want to buy the higher fuel consuming Subaru, that is their choice to make, and if they want the size and space of the larger one, that too is their choice, and their money. Let them do it. How you like your plastic kayaks to be outlawed because they unnecessarily use petroleum products? None of mine do, and I build them out of mostly salvaged lumber and components. But that is my choice. Peter *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************Received on Wed Feb 04 2004 - 11:07:56 PST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:31:12 PDT