SPS doubts

Hi Thor... Just a brief reply to your post:

>Hi Valens,
>
>My pardon for not detailing my argument better.
>
>Actually I intended to make a different point than
>proposing to dump SUV's because they are incorrect for
>one reason or another. Out of repect for SUV owners
>it would be impolite to wish them anything other than
>prosperity.

I should think that you are wasting your breath here, Thor... If they can
afford the higher cost, more gas, and higher insurance, than they probably
don't need wishes for further prosperity :-)

>
>Some half of all of the US oil imports go to make
>gasoline which is readily consumed by people driving
>SUV's and a myriad of other vehicles. To some degree
>these are discretionary choices and if people are
>feeling pinched financially due to increasingly scarce
>oil, I would expect them to seek to lower their costs.
> Since the fuel for a large vehicle costs more than
>the vehicle is worth over a lifetime of driving, it
>follows that it would be a sensible choice to change
>ones vehicle.

In principle, I agree. As I stated in a much earlier post to Paul and
Tangoman, I myself have switched to a fuel efficient (moderately) sedan
instead of an SUV, despite a history of enjoyment with 4WD vehicles. It just
didn't make any sense to me from a financial perspective. Part of getting
older and wiser, I guess (I hope!). However, it is plainly evident that most
Americans do not follow my or yours line of reasoning. A pity, I think, but
a waste of time and energy pursuing it further to be sure. To suggest a
better approach, one might become involved with or support the adoption of
more fuel efficient aircraft - a huge savings on fuel.

>
>This intersects the SPS debate at a number of points.
>Most significantly the US is prosperous and secure
>enough that getting support here for SPS is proving
>difficult. There are vast numbers of people who do
>not think there is any problem with either the climate
>nor a reliance on fossil fuels. Until the wolf is
>seemingly at the door, I'm not sure this will change
>much so I think of meeker ways to make SPS a reality.

Again, I agree. However, perhaps pushing and getting implemented some
strategies that will allow easier adaption to that wolf's presence when he
shows up would be prudent. Since it seems that you and I agree that there is
a strong likelihood of wolves before reason, it would seem logical to accept
that and take steps to be sure he doesn't eat us before we can react.

>
>The second is that there is a great deal of
>doublethink out there as mentioned in the discussion
>of Environmentalist watermellons. If you cry wolf
>enough and for long enough someone will make a catchy
>song out of it and totally reverse the meaning of the
>intended warning. Joining SPS with any movement that
>seeks to distort reality is ultimately going to cause
>more problems than benefit. We would be well advised
>to avoid sensationalism.

Not sure on this - people only seem to respond with energy to
sensationalism. And SPS will require a very energetic response. Perhaps
better with some sensationalism now, however contrived, than very real and
truly dangerous sensationalism when the wolf arrives.

>
>My third and last point is that if it is true that the
>US society is largely indifferent and distracted by
>the shrillness of the watermellons then a crisis of
>some magnitude is inevitable. If SPS is shaped as a
>solution for such a crisis then I would expect a
>higher chance of success.

Agreed!

Val