?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Reading CARtoons

« previous entry | next entry »
May. 6th, 2003 | 12:24 pm

So I was reading through some of the materials I got in my car busters packet. a couple of quote stuck out

"It takes two lanes of a given size to move 40,000 people across a bridge in one hour by using modern trains, four to move them by buses, twelve to move them in their cars and only one lane for them to pedal across on bicycles" - Ivan Illich, "Energy and Equity" 1973

"In the US motorists kill and maim nearly 400 million animals per year--more than hunters and experimenters combined! Only meat eaters take a larger toll. Worse of all the killers, cars are the most indiscriminate. Along with deer and countless other common animals movotr vehicles also kill many endangered species. Florida's panthers, and northern Idaho and souther British Colombia's endangered caribou have all been devastated by cars" CARtoons, pg 34, (quoting Matthew Braustein, 'Driving Animals to Their graves." Auto-Free times. Spring 1996 pp 12-13, based on Huane Society studies in the 1950s and 1970s showing that over a million animals die each day on US roads, inc. mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians)

"A 1995 British study found that children are as dependent on cars as their parents, with 90% of girls and 75% of boys saying they would find it difficult to adjust their lifestyles without a car...By the time children reach age 13 it is too late, the children having been already absorbed into the car culture" Sina Arnold and Domenica Settle, "Hooked on Cars: Driving as Addiction in Car Busters magazine no 7, winter 1999-2000

No wonder it's so hard to get people to admit the downsides to cars, they're unable to imagine how they could live without one.

Link | Leave a comment | Share

Comments {5}

(no subject)

from: anonymous
date: May. 6th, 2003 06:19 pm (UTC)
Link

Now if only people would learn how to live without computers, considering all the pollution that goes into the environment due to the manufacturing, processing, distribution, delivering, and creating of each and every computer component---including, but not limited to, any routers, modems, or any computer you connect to (or through) on the Internet. Every hop on a traceroute represents a piece of technology created by the destruction of Mother Earth.

Just so ya keep it in perspective. :)

Reply | Thread

Diane Trout

(no subject)

from: alienghic
date: May. 6th, 2003 07:54 pm (UTC)
Link

Drat, I don't know where my copy of the consumers guide to effective ended up. But accoding to their analysis the top worst things the average US consumer did was to drive a car and eat meat. (followed by eating vegetables (though that might be lessened by implementing a less toxic more efficient agriculture)).

So I'm largely confining myself to flaming the biggest invdividual polluter. (I'll only occasionally mention that people probably shouldn't eat meat all that frequently). Also not only is there the toxic waste streams from auto manufacture, there's also all of the global warming and habitat alteration that comes from urban sprawl (which is the only way you can have enough space for a autobased transportation system).

Also it tends to be easier to install filters and scrubbers on large point sources like power plants and factories than a vast fleet of independently owned and operated vehicles.

But you do have a point just because I like computers far more than cars, that doesn't mean I shouldn't be agitating for legislation requiring companies to take back and properly recycle their equipment like these people are doing. Also the proposed emissions trading systems could perhaps be applied to manufacturing waste as well, with some economic cost attached to pollution that would encourage the companies to come up with new technologies to clean up after themselves.

Reply | Parent | Thread

(no subject)

from: anonymous
date: May. 7th, 2003 09:18 am (UTC)
Link

Yeah, recycling old computer equipment is good, though I've ended up building computers from old parts and donating them to people who don't have computers. (Amazing that a 640x480 VGA monitor can still be used and hey they can always get another one when they become proficient enough to notice the difference.)

But yeah, manufacturing waste and even delivery of computers (whether it be to Fry's or via Dell) pollutes the air, though in the latter case it does come back to delivery by truck, or the automobile pollution.

Now if everyone rode motorcycles, owned laptops (smaller to transport), killed their own meat, then perhaps.. Of course we can't forget that Tofu has production costs as well, unless it's soy that's grown and processed by hand.

The problem is, of course, everything has a price. Everything. Even things that are considered "green" have a price, even if it seems apparent that the cost is "less" on the environment. Even electric vehicles have to be produced in a factory, painted with toxic paints, batteries installed with toxic chemicals, the electric cars delivered, and even somewhere down the line coal, oil, or nuclear burned to make electricity (although in California we do have wind and solar power available). Sure the pollution cost is shifted from directly polluting the air as the car drives to the production of electricity elsewhere---but there is still a toll.

Even the production of bicycles exact a toll on the environment. The metal comes from somewhere, is processed (maybe someone should start making bicycles out of aluminium cans---then they'd really be green!), the paint used, the rubber for the tires. Okay, no pollution and less fat riders might make a difference in the long run... ;)

No flaming or anything---but unless we knew for certain that a product had no impact on the environment in its creation or delivery we're still being consumers. The only way to fully escape that is to sell all we own and move to a third world country like Mexico or Ireland and live directly off the land we till. ;)

P

Reply | Parent | Thread

(no subject)

from: anonymous
date: May. 7th, 2003 09:24 am (UTC)
Link

Oh yeah, you mentioned eating veggies as #3 there.. It's true, in a way. Modern farming techniques enable farmers to grow tons more vegetables on less land than 100 years before or 500 years before. But part of that process involves tractors to till the soil, tractors to plant the seeds, and tractors to harvest the product (well depends on the plant, of course).

Many years ago when the concept of, oh what's it called, the fuel made out of corn? Ethanol? Well it sounded like a great idea, you could just grow what could then be a substitute for gasoline! Only problem is, and I'm not sure exactly how it measures up, but the environmental cost to grow corn, cut it, process it, deliver it, etc. almost balances out the good aspect of it. I wish I knew where that article was myself, but that's how it goes on the internet---ya lose something and it's gone forever!

P

Reply | Parent | Thread

Josh

(no subject)

from: irilyth
date: May. 8th, 2003 09:17 am (UTC)
Link

I think of an auto-based transportation system as enabling urban sprawl, not causing it per se. It's not like everyone has cars, and needs to sprawl in order to find a place to park them... It's that people want to sprawl -- that people like living in wide-open, green, suburban neighborhoods, rather than densely packed high-rise city centers -- and cars let them do it. The problem is the desire to sprawl, not the cars themselves, right?

(I have friends who prefer to live in densely packed high-rise city centers, and they tend not to have (or need) cars -- but that choice is informed by where they want to live. I know people who sold their cars when they moved to the city, and bought them again when they moved back to the suburbs.)

Reply | Parent | Thread