What solutions are /you/ looking for?

[c9]

"In my travels, I have noticed a disturbing theme among the educated minority of eco-advocates: they are every bit as dedicated to the status quo (in their own way) as the NASCAR morons and shopping mall developers. The eco-advocates want cars, too, and all the prerogatives (like free parking and country living) that go with them, just like the WalMart shoppers. If this were not so, then why do the eco-advocates cream in their jeans whenever somebody presents a snazzy new vehicle that runs on a fuel other than gasoline? Indeed, why are some of the eco-friendly pouring all their efforts into the invention of such things instead of into walkable communities and the reform of our stupid land-use laws?

I encountered this ethos most strikingly a few years back at Middlebury College in Vermont, where angry biodiesel advocates assailed my lack of enthusiasm for their particular "solution" -- which seemed geared mainly to allow them to continue to drive their dad's old cast-off SUVs to the snowboarding venues of that progressive little state. But the wish to keep running all our cars permeates what little public discussion there is of the global warming / energy crisis issues at all levels. Even the elder statesmen of the eco-movement talk it up incessantly. The first great victory will come when they shut up about it and put their minds to other tasks."

James Howard Kunstler
(also available on jhkunstler)

Comments

[skeezix1000.livejournal.com]

That may be the case, but it isn't due to a lack of imagination or a dedication to the status quo by the so-called "eco-advocates". Most environmentalists live in this society too, and are well aware of the challenges society faces in trying to clean up its act. The typical environmentalist appreciates that prohibiting private ownership of vehicles or severely limiting their use is highly unlikely to occur. What's the alternative? Bulldoze suburbia and move people en masse into more pedestrian and transit friendly housing? Yah, right. Better to figure out a way to reduce (and even someday eliminate) the environmental damage caused by cars. It's a far more realistic goal, and one that has a chance of success, in combination with other efforts (better land use planning, HOW lanes, increased investment in new public transit, etc.)

Kunster's little diatribe is classic ivory tower nonsense.

[c9.livejournal.com]

Kunstler's is an extreme view to be sure. We have no magic wand just like he complains, but the flip-side is the same: we have no magic wand to fix suburbia either.

I keep thinking about the fishery. Fish for fish A; destroy fish A population; switch to fish B. Is limiting environmental impact of cars just essentially switching to fish B? For example: completely electric cars would increase Ontario's electricity demands hugely, and cause more coal emissions. It's quite the cycle.

I have no answers, unfortunately.

[canuckotter.livejournal.com]

You've pretty much summed up my view of electric cars... and, for that matter, hybrids. It's just moving the problem, it's not solving it in any way.

[zedinbed.livejournal.com]

Not necessarily. If we couple electric cars with more nuclear or wind plants, you can have more electricity produced without resorting to making coal plants. I think the whole coal plants in Ontario thing is more of a dangerous legacy rather than a threat of the future.

[thespos]

As with any shift in paradigm, gradual works better than drastic.

I don't disagree with Kunstler in principle, but there is the matter of being realistic.

I loved living in Europe because of the extensive mass transit. I could walk a half block to my tram stop, and through a combination of trams, metros or trains (not to mention planes, because I could get to an airport), I could nearly literally go anywhere I wanted in Europe, from Edinburgh to Athens.

In the United States, in particular, this ability does not exist, especially if you do not live in or near a major urban centre. We have been made to rely upon our cars, particularly in central and western parts of this country. Therefore, alternate forms of fuel that are more eco-friendly are a logical first step, because people don't have to give up as much to keep what they have. Asking a population to suddenly immobilize itself just isn't possible, and that's what people in parts of the world would have to do. It's not just about land use, it's about disparity in population dispersal.

And there are walkable communities sprouting up, too, but they are beyond the price ranges of the average person. My business partner lives in such a complex in Rockville, Maryland, and everything is within a few blocks - but he still needs his car to get to other things - there is no mass transit touching his community. He may happen to work from home, but that is not true of his neighbors, who must still commute to jobs around Maryland, DC, and northern Virginia.

[c9.livejournal.com]

Agreed -- it's scary how car dependent we've made ourselves. It really does occupy the beginning, middle and end of every single conversation!

[canuckotter.livejournal.com]

I find I agree with environmentalists as long as I don't actually listen to them. :-)

People like the dude you quoted annoy me because he's so fixated on his one little thing that he seems to be ignoring the real world. On the other hand, he's right, simply switching to biofuels doesn't really solve the problem... We've created a lot of our own problems through idiotic land-use laws and failure to plan for any sort of mass transit. I'd always thought it was really obvious that any long-term solution would have to be many-faceted and encompass a broad variety of partial solutions to achieve the overall goal, but so many environmentalists get fixated on a single facet that they ignore or even deride other views. Since I always look for multiple viewpoints, people like that frustrate the hell out of me. And, of course, the more passionate someone is the more likely they are to fixate on a single facet, and most environmentalists are very passionate about environmentalism... which means that most serious environmentalists tend to annoy the hell out of me, even when I mostly agree with them.