PDA

View Full Version : The War Against the Car




JohnM
12-01-2005, 02:46 AM
(sigh.....)

The War Against the Car

November 11, 2005 ; Page A10
Commentary - Wall Street Journal
quote:A few years ago, I made a presentation to my second-grader's social studies class, asking the kids what was the worst invention in history. I was shocked when a number of them answered "the car." When I asked why, they replied that cars destroy the environment. Distressed by the Green indoctrination already visited upon seven-year-olds, I was at least reassured in knowing that once these youngsters got their drivers' licenses, their attitudes would change.

It's one thing for second-graders to hold such childish notions, but quite another for presumably educated adults to argue that automobiles are economically and environmentally unsustainable "axles of evil." But with higher gas prices, as well as Malthusian-sounding warnings about catastrophic global warming and the planet running out of oil, the tirade has taken on a new plausibility. Maybe Al Gore had it right all along when he warned that the car and the combustible engine are "a mortal threat . . . more deadly than any military enemy."
* * *

Welcome to the modern-day Luddite movement, which once raged against the machine, but now targets the automobile. Just last month, environmentalists organized a "world car-free day," celebrated in more than 40 cities in the U.S. and Europe. In the left's vision of utopia, cars have been banished -- replaced by bicycles and mass transit systems. There is no smog or road congestion. And America has been liberated from those sociopathic, gas-guzzling, greenhouse-gas-emitting SUVs and Hummers that Jesus would never drive.

It all sounds idyllic, but in real life this fairy tale has a tragic ending. As Fred Smith, president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, reminds us, if the "no car garage" had been a reality in New Orleans in August, we wouldn't have suffered 1,000 Katrina fatalities, but 10,000 or more. The automobile, especially those dreaded all-terrain four-wheel drive SUVs (ideal for driving through floodwaters) saved more lives during the Katrina disaster than all the combined relief efforts of FEMA, local police and fire squads, churches, the Salvation Army and the Red Cross. If every poor family had had a car and not a transit token, few would have had to be warehoused in the hellhole of the Superdome.

This month we paid honor to the heroism of Rosa Parks for fighting racism through the bus boycott in Montgomery. What helped sustain that historic freedom cause was that hundreds of blacks owned cars and trucks that they used to carpool others around the city.

A strong argument could be made that the automobile is one of the two most liberating inventions of the past century, ranking only behind the microchip. The car allowed even the common working man total freedom of mobility -- the means to go anywhere, anytime, for any reason. In many ways, the automobile is the most egalitarian invention in history, dramatically bridging the quality-of-life gap between rich and poor. The car stands for individualism; mass transit for collectivism. Philosopher Waldemar Hanasz, who grew up in communist Poland, noted in his 1999 essay "Engines of Liberty" that Soviet leaders in the 1940s showed the movie "The Grapes of Wrath" all over the country as propaganda against the evils of U.S. capitalism and the oppression of farmers. The scheme backfired because "far from being appalled, the Soviet viewers were envious; in America, it seemed, even the poorest had cars and trucks."

It's not hard to imagine life in America without cars. If you travel to any Third World Country today, cars are scarce and the city streets are crammed with hundreds of thousands of bicycles, buses and scooters -- and peasant workers all sharing the aspiration of someday owning a car. But in America and other developed nations, the environmental elitists are intent on flipping economic development on its head: Progress is being measured by how many cars can be traded in for mass transit systems and bikes, not vice versa. The recently passed highway bill establishes a first-ever office of bicycle advocacy inside the Transportation Department. The bicycle enthusiasts seem to believe that no one ever has far to go, that it never rains, that families don't have three or more kids to transport, and that mom never needs to bring home three bags of groceries.

Similarly, there is now a nearly maniacal obsession among policy makers and the Greens to conserve energy rather than to produce it. Even many of the oil companies are running ad campaigns on the virtues of using less energy (do the shareholders know about this?) -- which would be like McDonald's advising Americans to eat fewer hamburgers because a cow is a terrible thing to lose. A perverse logic has taken hold among the intelligentsia that progress can be measured by how much of the earth's fuels we save, when in fact the history of human economic advancement, dating back to the invention of the wheel, has been defined by our ability to substitute technology and energy use for the planet's one truly finite resource: human energy.

It is because we have continually found inventive ways to harness the planet's energy sources at ever-declining costs -- through such sinister inventions as the car -- that the average American today produces what 200 men could before the industrial revolution began. Studies confirm that the more, not less, energy a nation uses and the more, not fewer, cars that it has, the more productive the workers, the richer the society, and the healthier the citizens as measured by life expectancy. When Albania abolished cars, it quickly became one of the very poorest nations in Europe.

The simplistic notion taught to our second-graders, that the car is an environmental doomsday machine, reveals an ignorance of history. When Henry Ford first started rolling his Black Model Ts off the assembly line at the start of the 20th century, the auto was hailed as one of the greatest environmental inventions of all time. That's because the horse, which it replaced, was a prodigious polluter, dropping 40 pounds of waste a day. Imagine what a city like St. Louis smelled like on a steamy summer afternoon when the streets were congested with horses and piled with manure.

The good news is that environmental groups and politicians aren't likely to break Americans from their love affair with cars -- big, convenient, safe cars -- no matter how guilty they try to make us feel for driving them. Instead they are using more subtle forms of coercion. The left is now pining for a $1-a-gallon gas tax to make driving unaffordable. Washington has also wasted over $60 billion of federal gas tax money on mass transit systems, yet fewer Americans ride them now than before the deluge of subsidies began. When the voters in car-crazed Los Angeles opted to fund an ill-fated subway system, most drivers who voted "yes" said they did so because they hoped it would compel other people off the crowded highways.

To be sure, if the entire membership of the Sierra Club and Greenpeace surrendered their cars, the world and the highways might very well be a better place. But for the rest of us the car is indispensable -- it is our exoskeleton. There's a perfectly good reason that the roads are crammed with tens of millions of cars and that Americans drive eight billion miles a year while spurning buses, trains, bicycles and subways. Americans are rugged individualists who don't want to cram aboard buses and subways. We want more open roads and highways, and we want energy policies that will make gas cheaper, not more expensive. We want to travel down the road from serfdom and the car is what will take us there.




pam
12-01-2005, 06:03 PM
Yes, I agree, sigh. I don't know of anyone who wants to "do away with cars," although I do know of people, myself included, who would like to see alternatives available, whether electric or hydrogen fueled, or whatever, as well as more efficient, use of existing fossil fuels that, if not now, will at some point be in short supply - or machines that don't pollute quite so much.

This particular writer sounds to me like someone who is trying to stir up trouble against those darn environmentalists, those awful liberals, who are trying (as he subtly suggests) to take away our cars. Somehow I don't think that's an accurate view of the siutation at all. But it's great fun to play "ain't it awful." Sells newspapers to get people riled up.

Pam

byrd
12-01-2005, 09:41 PM
What will make this a possibility is a complete redesign of the cities and suburbs.

For example, the school I attend (university) is 50 miles away from my home. If I moved to that town, my husband and I would have to maintain separate residences because he lives here, six miles from his work.

This is one of the things I run into in demonstrating the Segway at The Science Place: People just LOVE it but here in Dallas there really isn't a good place for it. The suburbs sprawl for miles and miles and the downtown is far away from them. It makes design and implementation of ANY mass transit very difficult.

Europe has a different situation. Most of those towns grew up around old medieval towns, which were compact and designed for foot traffic. Everything was in a reasonable walking distance. It's actually easier to get non-car transport systems started in places like that.

...alas.

pam
12-02-2005, 09:53 AM
Dallas has always been an issue in this regards. I lived there from 63-82, on and off, and the sprawl really does not make it Segway efficient for getting all your needs met, unless you're willing to really limit your options.I don't know if the downtown area is becoming rehabbed. That would be nice. I went to my niece's for Thanksgiving - she lives over by DFW airport, and was amazed at how much it has grown - There were two major malls within a mile of her home, but unless she wants just what those malls provide, she's going to have to drive.
Pam

citivolus
12-02-2005, 10:55 PM
This is so typical of todays widespread jaundiced journalism. The young monkey wanted to speak his or her gut without bothering to fact check. The mantra may be cars but forgets that their beloved gasoline engine was made as something to utilize the waste, yes waste, of petroleum production, because it burned too fast for the lighting of the day (kerosene), and was dumped. It wasn't until the 1890's that the gasoline engine became popular. But wouldn't that be about when cars were invented?... No, silly child, the Studebaker company was making cars, mostly electric, since the 1850's but found that because they were throwing the gasoline away and engines could run on it, it was cheaper in the long run (for the consumer) than using a diesel engine, which burned peanut oil at the time, or an electric motor and batteries. We also won't mention that the Stanley Steamer was a car long before it was a carpet cleaning device and that in 1906 it was faster and more powerful than a gasoline engine if somewhat more pricey (hence it's downfall). No let's get out the myoculars and focus on the simple things that are in our driveway and repeat the mantra, "this is the pinnacle of automotive evolution".

Pin-headed myopic little children write stories and dopes buy into the bull.

--
swiftly flying

JohnM
12-03-2005, 11:48 AM
Regarding the 'young monkey' and 'pin-headed myopic little children': This article was written by Stephen Moore, senior economics writer for The Wall Street Journal and a member of its editorial board. And president of the Club for Growth PAC.




JohnM
Anything worth doing for 2 hours is 10 times more worthwhile if done for 20 hours.
RUSA #235

citivolus
12-03-2005, 05:28 PM
I guess I stand corrected. I should have said "senile monkey" and "pin-headed, myopic, large gasbag" but to be fair, I did just notice that it was an editorial commentary rather than pretending to actually be journalism. With that said, I don't mind at all because that's what happens when you have an agenda to push.

--
swiftly flying