Thanks, yes I was indeed anticipating what impression others can get when I call something “(not) eco friendly”.
It’s a bit of a pet peeve of mine when complex subjects are reduced to “eco friendly”, “healthy”, “all natural” etc.etc.etc. all those facile buzzwords.
Needless to say I agree with what everyone’s saying here, except the OP.
I agree with this. And I’ve got no problem with this reply, as long as it’s understood that some people need to live outside cities for their own mental health, that some people need to live outside cities for their necessary work, and that separating humans from natural systems carries its own ecological risks:
What I was objecting to was this:
It’s not all “wasted on pleasures of a single individual”, which is a phrasing that would apply to driving for the fun of it, or to driving in an individual car when public transportation is available, safe, and not massively more time-consuming, and permits transport of whatever items the individual genuinely needs to move.
In a broader picture, I don’t know if it makes a meaningful difference if I alone work to reduce my footprint and increase beneficials, such as more plants in my yard. What I do know is that when I walk to work, I don’t use gas or put more particulates and heat into the atmosphere. I also know that the sides of US highways used to be strewn with litter, and that this decreased radically after Lady Bird Johnson campaigned against it. I know that, generally speaking, we no longer use leaded gas or leave the engine idling while we run into the 7-11. I know that growing my own vegetables means I’m not ingesting or spreading whatever we learn next is just as dangerous to the body as DDT. I know that by planting native flowers in my yard, I foster bees and hummingbirds, among other species. That in bagging my groceries in a reusable sack, I’m cutting down on plastics in the waste stream. Etc. I also know that more people being conscientious is additive and creates a culture where, for example, manufacturers think more about how they’re packaging. This is good, since industry and agriculture are big contributors to eco-unfriendly practices, and usually don’t change their practices without economic and cultural pressure. If I don’t do what I think is right, I’m allowing others to determine the course of the world.
You’re right, I chose those words poorly, in particular the words “wasted” and “pleasure” in this context. I should have spent more time considering better words and phrasing. Sorry about that.
A friend of mine purchased a Model 3. They start at $35,000 which puts it out of the range of most Americans. But then I discovered it’s gas mileage equivalent is 124 per gallon so I did some bar napkin math on to see what I would have saved on my 2007 Mariner had it been electric.
$10,000 so far. That doesn’t include the cheaper maintenance or anything else. Just gas.
Many people will switch to a different technology when it just makes financial sense. The selfish decision will soon be to own an electric car, it won’t have much to do with saving the earth.
When I added “geo” (ground source heat pump HVAC) to my previous house, I was irritated at all of the green-scaping that geo companies were trying to promote. I thought it would be much more effective to argue the cost benefits. My current house’s HVAC went belly up last year, but my yard is tiny and vertical doesn’t break even as fast as a horizontal field.
When I had my Fusion energi, I chose it because it was cool and cheap, not because of any “green” efforts. When I can finally order my Mustang inspired BEV crossover vehicle, that’s going to be because it’s fun, not because of any effect on the Earth.
(FWIW, I don’t hate the Earth, but statistically, there’s nothing that I can do to affect it for good or bad. I prefer to make meaningful differences, such as helping to clean up rivers.)
If you do something that lowers your standard of living in the name of being “eco-friendly”, then you probably are wasting your time. If you don’t use your AC in the summer, and just sweat through it, then the slight effect that you have on the cost of energy only means that others can use more. If you ride a bike instead of drive, then the savings on gas are being passed on to people who drive more. Basically, “Oh, you don’t want that, more for me.”
Any idea that starts with the notion that people will voluntarily reduce their standard of living has failed as soon as it is uttered.
Doing eco-friendly alternatives, OTOH, is a different matter. Tesla’s are cool cars, and there is still a bit of early adopter costs to them, but once they and other EVs are a regular feature on the dealer showroom (okay Tesla’s aren’t sold by dealers, but anyway…), they will probably end up costing less to own and operate, and sound like their more fun to drive as well.
“Savings” isn’t the right metric for “eco-friendly.” Yes, the market matters, but I find this formulation puzzlingly reductive.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean. I didn’t talk about savings at all. I was just replying to the OP that there are things that you could do that are futile in the name of being “eco-friendly”, but that buying EV cars would not be one of those.
It has to be taken in context. Teslas are more eco friendly than other similar sized ICE vehicles. Teslas are not more eco friendly that world wide mass suicide.
Sure, as long as we are not unfairly favoring rural dwellers by letting car drivers emit CO2 for free, subsidizing oil producers, using disproportionate amount of tax funds for rural road construction & maintenance, using disproportionate amount of diplomatic power & military funding for securing our supply of oil (would we have spent $2 trillion on the Iraq war if Iraq wasn’t in the middle of an oil-producing region?), etc.
Thanks!
Those rural roads get your food to you. Just saying.
But I’ll accept all that (I’m in agreement on most of it already) if you guys will start taking care of your own trash. If it all had to stay in the same area where people create it, I think we’d see a whole lot less of it in a really short time.