less fuel, better life
- Regarding Joel's point 3, may I add that reducing greenhouse gas emissions, rather than being economically disastrous (as Michael Lewis claims) could be enormously beneficial. Investing less in road and car infrastructure would free up vast resources for better public transit, as well as conditions for walking and cycling. Many of the necessary changes would be worth making even without climate change, as they would help reduce the international epidemic of obesity and non-communicable disease, reduce the million deaths each year from road crashes, and so on. Much of the world already does not have seemingly limitless access to fossil fuel and thus has to conserve, like it or not. Americans, consuming vastly more than their share of the world's resources, are living in a bubble which someday will have to burst. Better to start reducing energy use now and thus decrease the likelihood of future disaster. (As if to illustrate my point, as I'm typing this,
the electricity just went out. Get used to it, guys!)
From: J.H. Crawford <mailbox@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:42 PM
Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] Arctic ice disaster looms
I let Michael A. Lewis's post through because it has a viewpoint that I think we're going to hear a lot of in the future.
The biggest problem is that it sets up a false dichotomy:
1) do nothing and let nature take its course
2) resort to geo-engineering with all sorts of as-yet "unknown unknowns."
There is, of course:
3) Set about making massive cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. This is easy, economical, sustainable, and probably effective. No wonder this option is off the table.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]