If the average drive to the poll for the US 2008 election was 2 miles
round trip, the it put about 1/4 billion tons of CO2 into the
atmosphere. (The rest of the factors in this calculation are pretty
easy to estimate, but I am not sure about the average miles driven to
vote.)
There are all these books and web sites about things to do to save the
Earth, but not a single one of them mentions voting by mail.
Advocating voting by mail as an efficiency that should be practiced by
an environmentalist should have the effect of increasing voter turnout
among environmentalist. Environmentalist can get very deducated and
habitual about these minor efficiencies. These have a feel good
effect. They seem addictive. They seem to be a kind of ethical
ritual practice.
Perhaps this could increase voter turnout among young
environmentalist. Voter turnout among the young is relatively low.
Hanson and others argue that these minor personal efficiencies are not
effective and certainly not a substitute for political action. But
voting by mail increases efficiency and the level of polical action.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
