Chevy Volt

close
more_vert

handofdave, it's not an exaggeration to say that I think pretty much every single thing you've just said about the private car is wrong. On top of that, I suspect that you will feel exactly the same about any detailed reponse I provide. The more I think and write about sustainability, the further I find myself from the mainstream opinion. And when I say "mainstream", I'm talking about the liberal, concerned, environmental mainstream... as it were; the mainstream as defined by the U-Know! folks. As far as the other mainstream goes; the free-market, capitalist, pro-economic growth mainstream... I'm not sure I'm even on the same planet as those people any more. And it's something that concerns me more than a little.

We don't know each other personally, and the anonymity of the internet being what it is, for all I know you could be George W. Bush himself posting under an alias. For all you know, I could be. Well, OK, that's a bit far fetched. Both of us appear to have a half-decent command of the English language, so we're unlikely to be Dubya Bush. But you get the general point.

Nonetheless, if I assume that your messages here are a fair reflection of you as a person, then I'd say you were one of the good guys. If we ever take to the barricades, I suspect we'd be on the same side of them. I feel certain that we share a basic belief in social justice and in protecting the planet from the excesses of human greed. So it saddens me that on so many issues our positions are so far apart that any search for a middle-ground would find us both uncomfortably far from home.

It's like when you say:

handofdave wrote:
I think most everyone can agree that an electric vehicle is better than a fuel-burning vehicle, and an electric vehicle with a 40 mile range is better than one with a 25 mile rage- it is progress.
Yes, almost everyone can agree on that. But I'm not one of them. I honestly feel that the whole idea of the electric car is as far from "progress" (or at least 'positive progress') as you can get. I believe it's a dangerous misguided attempt to convince western consumers that their lifestyle is in some way sustainable.

You claim that because US society is highly dependent upon the private car, that the private car must somehow be retained. I find that view extremely difficult to process. I believe modern western civilisation to be literally psychotic and needs to be radically restructured if it is to survive (being the good Batesonian that I am, I define unsustainability as a group psychosis).

And I don't think this can be done in "slow, practical steps". The required changes need to be dramatic, need to be immediate, and need to be enforced.

I don't for a moment think this is going to happen. I think we are sleepwalking into complete collapse and phrases like "hydrogen economy" and "electric car" are lilting lullabys preventing us waking up.

I tend to comment quite often not from a perspective of what I want to happen, but from one where I see the greatest likelihood of actual results. I've lived thru a disappointing adult life in terms of where my country's gone, and therefore try to keep in mind that we have what we have to work with here in terms of public attitudes. It's a huge country. It's great to rally to the cause of the few, but the will of the many is not easily bent to those causes. A different psychology is needed to get the attention of the greater population than a radical assault sometimes. In the case of a cleaner, more sustainable environment, there has been progress in shifting public awareness away from the Reagan mentality and towards the Gore mentality.
But if the public is pushed too fast and perceives that the government is going to radically restructure their lives, they will bite back via the democratic tools at their disposal.

grufty jim wrote:
The required changes need to be dramatic, need to be immediate, and need to be enforced.

I don't for a moment think this is going to happen.

No, of course it won't. Because it's one thing to make hypotheticals about drastically restructuring an entire society from a top-down position of authority, even if the intent is benign, and another to commit to such a thing. These sort of austerity plans can get ugly, as China knows.

I'm very certain that the neo-totalitarianism that would be required to take away people's lifestyles so dramatically would not even serve to see your ideals thru, anyway- regimes that use a heavy hand are unlikely to be environmentally conscious, as witnessed by anyone from the old Eastern Block, or anyone living in an authoritarian society today.

We all know what happens when the world undergoes disruptions- it's very painful. Sitting on the sidelines and arguing best-case scenarios is useful, I don't deny that. But many positions in a democracy have to be hashed out. Yeah, it's very messy, inefficient, and often even backwards form of government, but it does represent the will of all the people, which is ideologically allied with the principles of human rights.