[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

Re: E-M:/ Re: posts that say nothing, posts that report nothing

Enviro-Mich message from danb@ic.net

JerrodM@aol.com wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Enviro-Mich message from JerrodM@aol.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A recent post proclaims:
> I am amazed that people still believe this sort of drivel. If people really
> wanted 45 mpg cars, they would buy them! They are available, you know. Why
> don't people buy them? Because people value other things besides mpg, and
> dollars saved at the pump don't come close to matching the value of features
> thereby lost.
> These pseudo-studies aren't worth the paper they're printed on, but the
> doomsday establishment keeps churning them out. Oh well, it saves me from
> having to subscribe to jokeoftheday.com.

The post you referred to said people 'could' save money on gas it never
said they are or want to.    You  never refuted the claim about mileage
(in fact, you agreed with it and said people don't care about it).  You
are silent about the affect of fuel efficient cars on global warming. I
guess what you really think is drivel is the argument that being
concerned about this issue is sensible.

You explained why you think consumers don't care about saving at the
pump; what about the other part of the headline, about the reduction in
green house gases?  What about the features thereby lost as global
warming  occurs? Of course, after reading your private reply to my post
of David Jaye's questionaire responses on environmental issues,
indicating your complete agreement with him, I think I can guess your
answer to that question.

You refer to 'psuedo studies'.  Please share with us a list of these
studies and your evidence to show they are not valid. The last thing
those concerned with the environment need are bad scientific studies.
Please educate us. 

As to the things people value other than mpg and a safe environment-
this is the problem in a nutshell.
To argue that an attempt to change people's values cannot or should not
be part of solutions to environmental problems is absurd.  The easiest
route though is to point out the contradictions in those values, rather
than to try to change them without reference to the trade-offs. 
Example- the family value of wanting your grandchildren to live in a
safe and beautiful world vs. the value of having fun driving a big

ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at

Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info enviro-mich"