Dear Folks: I agree with one of Mr. Cherubini's points but beg to differ with the rest.
On Feb 2, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Paul Cherubini wrote: > How about serious energy conservation beginning today? Yes, of course! Anyone who knows anything about this will tell you that the greatest return on one's investment is reducing current energy use rather than just going into new technological solutions. > We almost > never hear professional ecologists or activist organizations (e.g. > Union > of Concerned Scientists) proposing immediately lifestyle sacrifices to > set an example for the rest of society. I must be in a different universe, as this is exactly what 'activist' organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists suggests and proposes; see for yourself: <http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/fuel_economy/> > Very simple, low tech sacrifices. > What would it take, for example, to get todays ecologists and > activists > out of there 3,300 pound, 25 miles per gallon Subaru Forester SUV's > and back into the 2,500 pound, 34 miles per gallon Toyota Tercel > Station Wagon type vehicles they drove 20 years ago? > > I frankly don't think todays ecologists and activists are willing to > drive a Tercel like vehicle anymore because: This is, of course, your opinion, which you are entitled to; however, do you have ANY evidence for this? > > 1) They don't want to drive a car that doesn't have 300 lbs > worth of air bags and structural reinforcements to aid > crashworthiness. I want a safe car, not a BIG car. > > 2) They don't want to drive a car that has fuel economy > optimizing narrow wheels and tires like the Tercel did. All of them!? I do. > > 3) They don't want to drive a car that has a fuel economy > optimizing 70 horsepower engine that takes 15 seconds to > accelerate to 60 MPH like the Tercel did. Really!? are you sure you are not writing about NASCAR fans? > > 4) They don't want to drive a a car that has a 5-speed > manual transmission like the Tercel did. Mine does > > 5). They don't even want to see the national 55 miles per hour > speed limit reinstated. !!!! you have data for this? > > Likewise, I don't think todays professional ecologists (in the USA) > and activists are willing to live in 900-1,400 square foot homes like > they did 20 years ago. Instead, it's typical nowadays to see them > purchasing 1,600 - 2,200 square foot homes just like other people > in society that have household incomes in the $60,000 - $120,000 > per year range. > As far as I can tell, the other ecologists/scientists that I know and work with try to live modestly and set examples for their students. In fact, on campuses I have studied and worked at the students often have vehicles and lifestyles that fit your description more than do the faculty. My colleagues and myself try to teach in the classroom and by example. For the most part, we don't tell people what they are doing is wrong -- instead, we try to show them how each and everyone of them can make lifestyle choices that add up to real differences. Because you have made such sweeping statements about ecologists, please indulge me in one of my ow. Most people would not be comfortable writing and teaching about conservation/environmental issues unless they were also putting at least some of their teachings into practice. And I have to ask: what sort of vehicle do you own? Rene Borgella
