OK, I'm going to split some hairs. Vehicle choice has a huge influence on a nation's energy needs.
Take all those motorists, confiscate their cars, give each and every one of them a pair of sneakers and a bicycle. Voila, American energy needs immediately drops by 30%.
Now go into each and every home and turn off the furnace and air conditioner. Voila, American energy needs drops a further 30%.
Now go into each and every American mind and impress apon them a Buddhist, nonmaterialistic philosophy. Voila, American consumer need and the remainder of American energy needs disappear altogether.
Can we force each and every American to go the full distance? No, of course not. It's a spectrum. On one end are the millionaires with their personal custom-made 737s on the other end are aesthetic monks. Reduce the number of people and/or influence people more toward "aesthetic monk" and the nation's material and energy needs (and "wants") are reduced.
From: tomfrostjr [mailto:tomfrostjr@...
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: [CF] It's the _individual_driver_behavior_, stupid!
> but we can agree on one thing -- yes, it *is* the individual driver
> behaviour that matters. every individual driver shares the
> for all this damage and death, to a greater extent when they choose
> maximal hyperconsumption, to a lesser extent when they try to
> least damaging, most efficient motorised vehicle.
TF: Wait a minute - it has relatively little to do with the vehicle
The aspect of "individual driver behavior" that you're talking about
is different from the one I am. A legally-driven Hummer (not that I'd
ever want to own such an overpriced-for-its-payload-capacity piece of
crap) is responsible for fewer of George Bush's bullets in Iraqi
children than an illegally-driven Corolla. That's because a legally-
driven vehicle of any type impedes traffic down to "only" 100% of the
speed limit thereby reducing a road's capacity and discouraging
motoring, while an illegally-driven vehicle - even if we only count
tailgating and nothing else - increases a road's capacity by at least
400% and thereby encourages motoring.
The enemy is not the size of the vehicles. The enemy is the Right of
Speed paradigm, or "Nyspspeak", as discussed and opposed at
> but you gotta start somewhere.
A strategy that starts with the principles set forth in the
Bicyclists' Rights Triad http://www.newmilfordbike.com/Triad.htm
granddaddy of which is the principle set forth at
RealLibertarianParty, about the rights of _all_ slower road users),
is the only strategy with any chance of success (with the possible
exception of if Bob Matter gets his hands on nuclear weapons).
- Tom Frost Jr., who considers the discussions on
groups.yahoo.com/group/Transport-Policy to be much more intelligent
than the ones going on here.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> click here
To change your settings (such as receiving CarFree in digest form or read the archive: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CarFree
To Unsubscribe by email; CarFreefirstname.lastname@example.org
For problems email; CarFreeemail@example.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> Terms of Service.
This message is confidential and is intended only for the individual named. It may contain privileged information. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Any unauthorized disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail from your system.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]