|Originally posted by laseranimal:
So I needed something to read while I sat around waiting between classes today and I picked up the latest issue of Ski magazine. Whatever your opinions of this particular magazine, on page 26 there is an article about the ski industry finally taking some action towards Global Warming, yet on the back cover of the magazine there is an ad for the all new H2 by Hummer. Now, let me say that I drive a Ford Explorer so I'm as guilty as the next guy but why would a magazine that promotes skiing which as they point out in the snippit is ENTIRELY dependent on climate put an advertisement for one of the LEAST fuel efficient SUV's on the road today? Has the almighty dollar made us stoop that low?
Well, I don't think that banning SUV's solves the energy problem. Cars will still be stopped bumper to bumper getting into the cities; the ten percent that is saved on energy by banning SUV's will be eaten up by economic growth (if we ever see that again). Of course you can
feel guilty. I guess if one can't solve the real problem, they can adopt a symbol and spend time and money on it. Are they telling me that in this vast infrastructure of complex energy consumption it is worth feeling guilty about owning an SUV? The idea that if those who drive SUV's would drive something more efficient is any solution to our energy problem is misleading, as was adding MTBE to gasoline. The cars people drive will still use gasoline and emit CO2 into the atmosphere. They will still sit idling on the highways on their way to work. They will increase in number.
Having high speed rail to the ski areas (once there was
rail) is much more efficient. You can take Amtrak to Winter Park and Mt. Bachelor. Having high speed rail to work is much more efficient. The people in Colorado turned down building a train to the ski areas up I-80. This is a much bigger
and more important problem than worrying about SUV's.