Usually I don't answer comments that people write here mainly because I'd rather just write my own stories. If people feel very strongly about something, they can start their own page of stories.
That said, the other day someone named Frenchie (who I believe is my brother because a traceroute of the IP address takes me to Nevada) posted a curious comment about my electric/gas hybrid car. The comment is spurious and full of logical inconsistencies and assumptions, and since, as rational people, we should look at the facts before concluding anything. So let me start by deconstructing Frenchie's argument:
Hybrid cars don’t count!
The new wave of environmental frenzy has arrived: The electric hybrid vehicle. I hear many co-workers and pseudo environmentalists praising it as a responsible fossil fuel alternative. How can this be? Has the smog become so thick?
If my hybrid car, which is more fuel efficient than most other cars (I'm getting about 45 miles a gallon) and is a super ultra-low emission vehicle (this means that, compared to the Tier 1 federal emissions standard, my car reduces emissions of hydrocarbons by 97%, carbon monoxide by 76%, nitrous oxides by 97%, and particulate matter by 90%) doesn't count, then Frenchie must believe any reduction of pollution doesn't count. It follows from that, then, that I were Amish and drove a wagon pulled by horse, that wouldn't count either, since the horse has cut emissions significantly but not completely. If you've been around horses, you know what I mean.
Now I don't know what kind of co-workers Frenchie deals with, but anyone who tells you a hybrid car is a fossil fuel alternative is off their nut. Hybrid cars use gas. They use is more efficiently. Unlike magical fuel cells, they are not a fossil fuel alternative. They are an alternative to gag-inducing Hummers.
The words alternative and responsible are not negligible when alluding to the environment and cars. It is not alternative: Hybrids do use fossil fuels, just less of it. It is not responsible, especially in terms of pollution, space for storage and use, congestion, the environmental cost of drilling and refining oil, and the environmental costs of producing electricity.
Boy, I almost stopped here. Bad writing does that to me. "The words alternative and responsible are not negligible when alluding to the environment and cars." Or, without the confusing double-negative: "The words alternative and responsible are significant when alluding [Alluding! We're not alluding to anything. We're specifically talking about it!] to the environment and cars." So, either Frenchie doesn't know how to write a sentence or is trying to confuse the issue by confounding the reader with nasty grammatical construction. Either way, I begin to seriously doubt why I'm wasting time with this.
Hybrid vehicles still emit fossil fuel burning pollution (the number one contributor to global warming and acid rain)
Debatable. I wish Frenchie would support the claim that hybrid vehicles and fuel burning are the primary contributors to global warming and acid rain. I do believe, based on the levels of permafrost melt in Greenland and Siberia and the shrinking glacial mounds in the Arctic, that the Earth is going through a cycle of climate change, more than likely caused or helped along by human activity. The Kyoto treaty was a good start, but we bailed on it because of the short-term economic pain it would inflict on our economy. Short-term thinking always hurts us.
For a minute, let's ignore coal-burning power plants (plants by the way that provide most of our electricity in the U.S.) and focus solely on the emissions by cars. What about cars with catalytic converters? Do these count? These converters scrub the exhaust from cars, reducing the pollution from emissions. I assume that Frenchie would say cars with catalytic converters don't count (just as hybrids don't count) even though they dramatically reduce pollution.
So what, in Frenchie's mind, does count? Obviously laws requiring clean air don't count because if they did the effects of them, particularly catalytic converters, lower speed limits, and scrubbing devices in coal plants would count, which I think none of which satisfy Frenchie. That means that the normal human act of trying to come up with solutions and trying to compromise don't count either. Hybrids are the beginning of technological solutions to real-world problems. They are evidence that we're trying to think our way to a solution.
Frenchie, though, makes it clear what does work:
But in reality the pollution it takes to create a bicycle (that can last for 50 years) is insignificant as compared to a vehicle. The repair and upkeep costs of a bicycle along with one-time-manufacturing environmental costs makes it an economically efficient and environmentally friendly choice when compared to any vehicle. Bicycles do not need gasoline as hybrids do: that eliminates the environmental and financial costs of drilling, refining and transporting oil.
Let's talk about bikes for a second. I have three of them, and I ride where the wind blows me. But how do you fit a family of five on a bicycle, particularly when one is too small to pedal anything more than a Big Wheel (made of plastic, derived from oil)? How do you ship fresh fruit across the country on a 10-speed? How do you make it to work or school in 10 inches of snow? Pedal faster? Even in Holland, where most everyone bikes, people drive when they need to.
Another issue involving cars and hybrid vehicles is storage and space. Parking lots are huge and they are everywhere. They contribute to urban sprawl. If everyone rode a bicycle the need for parking space would be cut dramatically. On average 5 bicycles can fit into one parking space. Then think of a vertical bicycle-parking situation as compared to flat open fields paved over for car storage. Building up instead of out may become a primary necessity in the near future as human populations grow.
I would argue that parking lots are not 'everywhere' because if they were you wouldn't have room for homes, horses that pull the Amish, or bicycle paths. I assume that by 'everywhere' Frenchie means the majority of the U.S. surface area, but as I flew back from Michigan this weekend, I did not see the majority of the ground covered with parking lots. I wish Frenchie would define terms before making this (and other) claims. Because, really, people who argue we should ride bikes everywhere all the time are pill-popping meth-heads. Everyone knows this. People everywhere agree.
Really, then, let me consolidate Frenchie's argument into this:
"Don't drive a car. Ride a bike."
It's a nice proposition but completely naive. And no where does Frenchie mention the more promising and realistic solutions of public transportation (think bullet trains and not graffiti-laden subways). But I suppose this is a public policy issue, and is, apparently out of Frenchie's depth.