Honorable Forum: It may be that the UCS is a flock of=20 yellow-bellied grantsuckers, but on the other=20 hand, they may be trying to steer our ship of=20 fate toward betterment a degree at a time. The=20 "Queen Mary" ain't exactly a skateboard, and the=20 momentum of exploitation and consumption ain't=20 likely to be overcome by finger-wagging=20 idealists--or will it? Maybe there's a place for=20 the moving finger writing on AND a place for more=20 efficient SUVs, for example, as part of a long,=20 long process. Even a well-placed pop on the=20 nose, a prickly bit of irony, or even a=20 digit-salute might be effective--I suspect,=20 though, it's all in the timing and placing and=20 selecting, as in the flecks of gold from the=20 pyrite. Even a bit of old-fashioned jousting (as=20 if that were rare) might be in order. But please, no mommas, ok?
WT "To be it, or not to be it--is that the question?" --Anon At 06:17 PM 2/2/2007, Paul Cherubini wrote: >Ren=E9_Borgella wrote: > > > 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/> > >Prof. Borgella, the UCS website proposes building safer, cleaner >and more energy efficient big, powerful, SUV's and big homes >and achieving those goals via technology: e.g. UCS website >says: > >"technologies can be used to offer consumers >an SUV that is safer, cleaner, and more cost effective, >WHILE RETAINING THE SIZE AND PERFORMANCE >SUV drivers have today." > >I cannot find anything on the UCS website that suggests >professional scientists and environmental activists should be >willing to SACRIFICE anything; e.g. SACRIFICE present day >standards of living and return to the standards of the 70's >and 80's, i.e. be willing to: > >a) live in downsized homes (900 - 1,500 square feet instead of >1,600 - 2,200 square feet). > >b) drive downsized vehicles with downsized engines that >are much less powerful than today's vehicles. > >c) drive vehicles without many hundreds of pounds worth of >gasoline wasting add on safety, comfort and convenience >related eqipment (airbags, structural reinforcements,anti-lock >brakes, electronic vehicle stability controls, automatic >transmissions, all wheel drive, road hugging wide wheel & tires >and so forth.) > >d) sacrifice the present day 65-75 MPH speed limits and >return to the 55 MPH national speed limit of the late 70's >and 80's. > >Paul Cherubini >El Dorado, Calif.
