 |
Big ideas for low-carbon livingAll the carbon that’s fit to print, in this year’s NYT green issue.
Yesterday the New York Times offered up a green issue of its Sunday Magazine focused exclusively on carbon. Some of the stuff you’ve seen before (particularly if you read this blog) and some of the stuff is a bit slight (hasn’t Blackle been debunked about 100 times over by now?), but there are, of course, plenty of interesting nuggets. Here are a few from the transportation section:
And there is one article I have to single out for criticism: what on earth compelled the addition of a short blurb on “ghost bikes,” roadside tributes to cyclists killed in traffic accidents? Environmentalists would have you believe that bicycles are a good thing. “The hundreds of ghost bikes throughout the world, however, silently testify to a darker truth.” Really? I’m willing to bet that hundreds of people around the world have also been killed by splinters and bunny rabbits. I’m also 100% positive that millions of people have been killed by car accidents and coronary heart disease. Bikes: good and good for you. Image by Zero Pollution Motors. Comments
The comments section is now closed. |
|
© 2004-2010, TerraPass Inc. All rights reserved. TerraPass is a trademark of TerraPass Inc.
|
|
|
Adam,
TerraPass is a wonderfull place to keep up on things environmental, things green. And I agree, folks should consider riding a bike. However, as an ex-Category 3 cyclist I can tell you the general attitude towards cyclists is contrary to what reads as, "just get on the bike and ride." It's not that simple. I spent an average of 12,000 miles a year for a number of years training on our public roads and folks do not like to share the road. I consider myself a seasoned cyclist, but still, there were times when I was petrified.
Attitudes must change, then cycling will take on mass appeal.
Reply
I would today happily pay a premium for vehicle fuel in proportion to the fuel's reduced fossil carbon content, up to $5 per gallon for artificial fossil-free gasoline.
There already exist utility pricing arrangements for 100% wind power which do not require that every delivered electron actually comes from a wind turbine, only that the amount of wind power paid for actually is produced and delivered somewhere. A significant number of consumers today willingly pay a big premium for fossil-free electricity; surely something similar is possible for retail reduced-fossil gasoline and Diesel fuel. Along with the actual production this would require point-of-purchase pricing options and data collection. The purchaser's car would burn some number of fossil carbon atoms, but all the fossil-carbon-free fuel paid for actually would be manufactured and used somewhere to the world�s benefit. Market study, anyone?
Reply
Though environmentalists have been saying for decades that we should carpool, drive less, take public transport... it's taken this recent runup in gas prices to get the masses in car-dependent cities to actually drive less, carpool, and take public transport. It appears that Green for Green's sake has limited appeal. It comes down to the pocketbook.
Entrepreneurs are jumping on the Green bandwagon, but it seems that if someone can (for example) build a comfortable, reasonably priced personal vehicle that gets you from here to there cheaply he or she will make a ton of money.
I've been hoping the government would subsidize the search for alternatives, but it looks like all they have to do is stop subsidizing oil companies.
Karl Marx (we're motivated by economics: 1848) and Adam Smith (the Invisible Hand of supply and demand is what guides the marketplace: 1776) were pretty sharp.
Reply
Today's NYT (May 2) has a front page article about how Americans are "flocking" to small cars. Three of the most popular of these "gas-sipping" vechiles are the Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, and Ford Focus. Can anyone explain to me why these cars get such abysmally low mileage? The Honda Fit, for example, is rated at 27 mpg city and 34 hwy. I owned a 1992 Honda Civic VX for 10 years(purchased new in Pennsylvania). This was great little car that got 50 mpg hwy(that's right - fifty! - even as high as 54 all hwy unloaded) - and that was 15 years ago! 35 mpg on the hwy is not much to brag about for a 2008 vehicle IMHO. Is the Honda Fit a substantially heavier and safer car than my 92 civic was? It doesn't look it, and even if it were, could this account for such a huge difference? Even the SmartCar does not appear to do much better than my old Civic. What's the deal?
Reply