EagleTribune.com : Blogs : The Soapbox

Taylor,

As I mentioned in an earlier reply to one of Ken Johnson's posts, at least you don't argue the well established science behind Climate Change theory, you just don't seem willing to do anything about it.

Is John Edwards a hypocrite? For driving a Ford Escape Hybrid? No. For owning a small fleet of cars? To some extent, sure. Does that mean he's wrong for wanting better fuel efficiency standards for ALL motor vehicles sold in the US? Of course not.

My understanding of what Mr. Edwards said, based on news reports, is that Americans need to drive more fuel efficient cars. Well, they do and they can without giving up their SUVs and with currently available technology. What's required is a federal mandate to do so because American auto makers don't do ANYTHING without being required to.

Now when Mr. Edwards was asked if he would be willing to tell American people that would have to give up their SUVs, he said "Yes". Well...that was stupid but it’s not the same as saying that if John Edwards is elected he will take away everyone’s SUV. A review of John Edwards’s energy and environmental stance (from his website) make his position pretty clear. He's guilty of poorly answering a stupid question, nothing more.

Part of the problem here is that when anyone says we need to drive fuel efficient vehicles, or need to raise efficiency standards to 40-50 MPG; people wrongly assume it means nobody will be allowed to drive SUVs. That's simply not so and for anyone to imply otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Are there greens who despise SUVs? Yes and for many reasons, some legitimate, some less so. That doesn't mean that you can't be an environmentalist if you drive an SUV (or don’t have solar panels, or use air conditioning or eat meat). The only thing worse than self-righteous enviros and their "thou are not as green as thee” attitude, are right-wingers who use the perception of hypocrisy to launch personal attacks against people instead of making a meaningful policy argument. It’s a lot easier to falsely call All Gore a hypocrite for his (grossly mischaracterized) energy usage than to debate the science or policy recommendations in An Inconvenient Truth. In the same way its easier to attack John Edwards for driving a very fuel efficient small SUV or to mischaracterize his position than to admit that corporate greed is preventing us from driving more fuel efficient cars, not economics or technology.

It's a shame you fall into line with other conservative commentators on these issues. Dealing effectively with climate change and other environmental problems require carefully thought out solutions. You could greatly add to the discussion but apparently choose not to.

At least you’re consistent.

Tennis Lilly

Tennis -
Thanks for your comments.
Since you are one who liberally lambastes lesser mortals for allegedly not doing their homework, I have a little homework assignment for you - read a couple of my columns.
You said I don't want to do anything about global warming. This, just a couple of days after I had a column published calling for us all to make the "personal sacrifice" of being willing to look at more wind turbines, so as to make it easier to increase the use of alternative energy.
Regarding Edwards, I did not say, nor do I think, that he would "take away" SUVs from anybody. I said he called for people to give them up.
And in cases like that, I think hypocrisy matters. It matters very much. Anybody who calls for others to sacrifice to save the planet should be willing to set an example of sacrifice. These people are arguing that the survival of the human race is at stake. It would seem, then, that they would agree this should require sacrifice from everybody, not just the little people. That's part of good leadership. And, the SUVs I saw him getting out of were not small. They were huge.
I would like to know, specifically, how Al Gore's domestic energy use has been grossly mischaracterized. Why would he be purchasing carbon offsets if he thought it was defensible?
Finally, you should think about whether passing a law mandating that cars get better mileage will have no unintended consequences. As I wrote in another recent column, I found out one thing it means. It means that every time I have a brake job on my car, I have to replace not just pads, but rotors as well. That's because the rotors are now too thin to machine even once. They've been made lighter so as to cut the weight of cars to - you guessed it - improve gas mileage. They used to be heavy enough so they could be machined at least three times, so they didn't have to be replaced until the fourth brake job. So, a brake job now costs four times what it used to, four times as many brake rotors have to be manufactured, and four times as many of them are headed for scrap or recycling. I suspect that leads to vastly more energy use and pollution than we save by getting a few hundred feet more per gallon of gas. I don't call that good environmental policy.

Taylor,

Let me start by suggesting that you do more research on the well known and long lasting problem with VW brakes. This is a problem unique to German manufactured cars and has little to do with trying to improve MPG and more to do with the German fetish for top down quality control. You can still get your rotors turned on most cars especially ones manufactured in the US. Speaking from personal experience, Subaru makes a fine car (in the greenest auto plant in the world, located in the US) with above average gas mileage and nice thick brake rotors (and I can go anywhere most SUVs can).

As for Al Gore and his energy usage; I suspect that if you were a former Senator and V.P., had a full-time live in security detail, a live in housekeeping staff and ran several businesses out of a mansion that’s been in your family for generations you would have to do more than swap out light bulbs to reduce your energy consumption. Comparing that type of building to any "average" home is absurd. The national "average" includes apartments and mobile homes, hardly a useful measure in this case. In Mr. Gore's area of Tennessee the average energy consumption is much higher than the national average and Mr. Gore's home consumes 3 times that average (not 20) and per square foot is slightly below average for his geographic area. It is worth noting that Al Gore buys the maximum amount of "Green" energy from his utility provider and since most of the electricity in Tennessee is from Nuclear and Hydro there's very little carbon output from "conventional" electricity to begin with.

As for Jon Edwards, unless I’m misreading all of the press accounts, he did NOT call for Americans to give up their SUVs, he called on them to drive more efficient vehicles and that's not the same thing (as I already explained). More importantly, he's calling for higher CAFE standards and THAT is why he's being attacked. According to his staff, Mr. Edwards does most of his driving in a Ford Escape Hybird. Does occasionally riding in an SUV make him unqualified to be president?

And what's with this "sacrifice" stuff? Making small changes in the way we do things, in the products we use, thinking for just a moment about the impact of our choices or consumption is not, in any way, a sacrifice. I'm glad you drive an efficient car and may actually replace your light bulbs with compact fluorescents (when they burn out of course), I did all those things to and buy "green" electricity and all the other stuff. That's great and it does help but it's really not a sacrifice and Al Gore, John Edwards and everyone else who is trying to show leadership on these issues aren’t the ones calling for "sacrifice". It's people on the right, people who doubt climate change or who think the economic impact is too great or just don’t believe in "big" government who are pushing this concept for the sole purpose of dissuading people from taking action.

By making personal attacks on Al Gore and Jon Edwards you distract your readers from the real issues. Even if Edwards, Gore, George Clooney, Leonardo Decaprio and every other well known, so-called leader in the environmental "movement" was guilty of the grossest hypocrisy (they aren't), would that make then wrong? Would it change the science? Would it invalidate all of the well thought out solutions? Would it be a legitimate reason to NOT act? The simple answer is "no".

Al Gore didn’t discover global warming or start the efforts to combat it, but he has done more than almost any other person today to raise public awareness and show genuine leadership on this issue. We are all guilty of some hypocrisy in our lives and Al Gore's contribution and leadership on environmental issues more than makes up for his.

Tennis:
No, this is not a "problem" unique to Volkswagen, or German engineering. It is an intentional design change. The first time I encountered it was actually with a Volvo. The first brake job on that car, instead of being $250, was about $1,000. When the same thing occurred with my VW, I asked several mechanics about it, and was told that "all" the car makers were making the rotors thinner to cut weight from the cars.
If Subaru is resisting this trend, very good for them.
Your defense of Al Gore is absurd. You contend that because he has a huge house that has been in his family, and a housekeeping staff (I'm happy to give him a pass on the security detail), it's unfair to compare his energy use with those who live more modestly. That's like saying it is unfair to compare somebody who drives a Hummer because it's in his family (shades of John Kerry) with others who drive small, fuel-efficient cars. That you can only compare his Hummer with other Hummers.
I wonder if you use the same logic when it comes to what you consider right-wing hypocrisy. And I don't understand your stance that personal hypocrisy is OK as long as you show "leadership" by voting the right way on policy. Among the core traits of good leadership are setting a good example and an absence of hypocrisy.
I do not consider looking at wind turbines to be a "personal sacrifice." That is why I put it in quotes.
Finally, criticizing somebody for failure to match his rhetoric with action is not a personal attack. In this case, it is focused on the issue of conserving energy and protecting the environment.

Taylor

I think you need to do a little more digging as my research on the brake rotor issue leads in a different direction. Trust me. You can still get your rotors turned. I suspect that the decline in rotor thickness is part of a larger trend toward cheaper, less durable parts we see in autos as a result of the outsourcing of parts to the third world manufacturing centers like Mexico and China. Thinner break rotors are also more profitable my friend.

It’s worth noting that I support Cape Wind, as does the majority of the environmental community including major membership organizations like the Sierra Club and Mass Audubon. Is Ted Kennedy wrong, of course he is? SO is Robert Kennedy, one of the most important voices in the environmental movement today. Does that mean those voices should be ignored on environmental issues? Of course not.

As for Al Gore…my defense of him is spot on. You won’t even admit that your attacks were an inaccurate mischaracterization of his energy usage. It’s not that you attacked Gore; it’s that you weren’t even original about it. You just parroted the same attack that’s been out for months, generated by an ideological think tank, promoted by the right wing. The only result of those attacks is to make it LESS likely that people will take Al Gore seriously. Maybe that’s what you want. If so at least admit it.

As I’ve said, we’re all hypocrites in some way. It’s one thing to call someone out on their inconsistencies and challenge them to do better, its another to join in a smear campaign to marginalize their voice. Does it matter that Al Gore falls short in his personal life? Somewhat. But what really matters is that he’s right, on global warming and on what needs to be done about it.

Tennis:

I had prepared a long dissertation of your oleaginous circumlocutions with Taylor, but have decided to employ the advice of Shakespeare: "Brevity is the soul of wit."

"THE TROUBLE WITH OUR LIBERAL FRIENDS IS NOT THAT THEY'RE IGNORANT: IT'S JUST THAT THEY KNOW SO MUCH THAT ISN'T SO."

Pithy enough?

Tom

Quite pithy...and wrong. I disagree with your characterization of my exchanges with Mr. Armerding. Nonetheless...If you have a dissertation..."bring it".