

Wed, 2007-10-03 13:09Bill Miller
Bill Miller's picture










That's one of the sleaziest things I've read for awhile, and pretty sad, too, that GM, Ford, et al don't see that their corporate lives depend on out-stripping the imports.

"Toyota's clearly acting in its own interest, something most corporations are very good at."



Paul S




I have no plans to reduce my lifestyle VJ. How about you?

It doesn't have to be a net reduction in quality of life. Often it just means making more responsible choices. Why NOT buy clean energy if it's available? Why NOT get some fresh air & exercise by walking to the corner store? Using the "park & ride" actually saves money, and reduces the stress of dealing with traffic congestion. Planting a small veg garden can be very rewarding, and it gives me something to do with the compostables rather than putting them in the landfill. It also means less grass to cut, and my rechargeable electric mower is quieter and doesn't stink. My laundry smells great fresh off the clothes line, and I have never looked back since installing a woodstove as my heat source. The changes I have made have almost without exception enhanced my life, not restricted it. Any increase in expense (not significant so far) I consider a small price to pay in the bigger picture.



On a regular basis, I will walk 10 kilometers to downtown and 10 kilometers back when going to work instead of using the bus or car. I don't do it for the environment, I do it for myself.



I consider it positive when people do make changes as in your case, unfortunately, most "enviros" I come into contact with are mainly angry with government and business and do not apply the same standards they want of others to themselves.

That you haven't met "enviros" who walk the walk! I won't ask anyone to do something that I am unwilling to do myself, and I believe that the best way to convince people is not to argue with them, but to demonstrate what is possible. Providing an example is how I "act locally".

"Thinking globally" is where governments and multinationals come in to the picture, and they have to be made accountable as well. Ford isn't going to make more fuel efficient cars unless GM is required to do so as well. It's called a level playing field, and unless someone regulates it, these guys are just not going to do it themselves. Leaving them to realize it's in their best interests would be like watching the Titanic trying to turn around, and frankly we haven't got the time.

I don't like the light from compact fluorescents either, but I am switching over and putting pressure on manufacturers to DO SOMETHING about the dreadful hue they impart. Wasting energy on incandescents isn't justified in my view.

BTW, it's spelled "kilometres" in Canada.

Most people who consider themselves "enviros" don't walk the walk, and therein lies the problem in Canada. If one was to believe opinion polls, the majority of Canadians want firm action on AGW but then go back to building that bigger house, booking that annual Mexican vacation, and ogling the newest Lexus models. I don't fault them, nor try to change them, but I am absolutely unconvinced the majority of Canadians truly and seriously want serious action on GW at this time.

On vehicles, heavy gas taxes are the only way to go if you really want the public to drive efficient vehicles. That's why Japanese and European mileage standards are so high.


1. I don't personally know ANY Canadians currently building bigger houses, going annually to Mexico for vacations and ogling Lexus cars. Perhaps your generalization makes it easier for you to ignore your ...

2. Personal responsibilities. Just because something CAN be done and others are doing it, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. This is a lesson many learn as they grow up. (As with the national level: just because Canada produces less total emissions than China, doesn't mean we should forsake mitigation.)

Paul S/G said: "On a regular basis, I will walk 10 kilometers to downtown and 10 kilometers back when going to work instead of using the bus or car".

See my comment in the "Bjorn Lomborg - the 'Polyanna of Global Warming'" thread.

Ian Forrester

At an average walking pace of about 3.5 - 5.5 km per hour, depending on vigor and health most likely, he's doing approx 4-5 hours of walking combined to and from work. Thats impressive and definitely healthy, take that up to joging pace of 10 km per hour and it would only be a 2 hour trip or so.

I cover about 6 kms an hour. It's brisk but not difficult. It helps that my route is nice and flat. Don't tell Ian though, he believes bipedal motion over 4 km an hour is a scientific impossibility. ;)


I don't know how far, but it takes me exactly 55 mins, so I would calculate that it's around 4-5 km. An hour spent walking is much preferable to half an hour on the subway--you get the same result, but with the benefit of getting 55 min exercise for a cost of only 25 min out of my day. And, I'm never late due to delays, missed connections, etc. I recommend it for anyone who can.

machete overspun valvulotomy metatracheal valvotomy wintrify unnarrow flimsiness
John Hay Elementary School

machete overspun valvulotomy metatracheal valvotomy wintrify unnarrow flimsiness
Do You Look Like Your Dog?

traduce eschewal satire transported intraclitelline congratulable celestitude metaphosphorous
City of Chester Triathlon Club

Are by law an individual -- a citizen. To think that they're merely profit making machines is incorrect -- like everyone else in society there's a balance struck between money made and responsibility to the society from which you made that money. 

Most corporations are good, just like most citizens are good.






but a group of citizens acting together face an entirely different set of dynamics. Take "mob mentality". Or, an extreme and not-morally-equivalent case: most citizens of Germany, c1939-45, were doing "good" things: taking care of their families, and supporting their country (and co-citizens) in a time of great peril. Most of the people I've worked with see their 9-5 life as largely separate from their normal, ethical, home life. They rarely question what their employer does, nor do they really bother to see the bigger picture. They can be good and ethical toward their co-workers, and their families and friends, but this would have very little impact on the workings of their corporation as a whole.

Back to cars. The reason why much higher fuel prices have not resulted in much less driving--price inelasticity--is that people's driving behaviour is inelastic. Their driving patterns are dependent upon where they live, and so can't easily be altered.

Also, it's empirically obvious that (many) people's attitudes toward their cars--as a status identifier, aparently--is also inelastic. They'd rather keep their SUVs and protest high gas prices, than to make the relatively easy switch to a lower-fuel vehicle.

It must be noted that, after several years of high gas prices, some people are switching vehicles...but not that many. So in the context of unchanging driving behaviour, improved mileage standards would be effective.

Another way of looking at it: whenever gas prices climb, drivers demand the government intervene--not intelligent market behaviour (fuel taxes are generally static--it's the rising price of oil that creates gasoline price increases). So there's a case to be made for the government protecting people from a hazard--the volatile price of oil--that they aren't willing or able to protect themselves from.

Working for a corporation is ethical DEW, why wouldn't it be? What any employer "does" is provide a service or product to someone. Corporations wages, taxes, etc., and contribute to the common good. Not a difficult concept to understand.



Since gas prices will go up anyway, there's no need for government meddling.

Thanks for clearing that up.

the fact that corporations, while legally "citizens", are able to use their supposed economic importance to get special treament under the law. It's called corporate welfare and true conservatives are dead-set against it, but it happens all the time. Systematically, especially under conservative governments.

Is it ethical to treat some "citizens" differently than others?



When you reduce reality to oversimplified concepts then no, they're not difficult to understand. But that wouldn't reflect the whole *reality*, which often is diificult to understand.

Corporations are a good, and a public good at that DEW. A few bad corporate apples don't change that.

As individuals, we operate in the exact same way.

Why are people who work for corps called "cogs"? Nobody is a cog. Are you a "cog" simply because you are one of 30 million Canadians?

"...The Pathology of Commerce


* Callous unconcern for the feelings of others
* Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships
* Reckless disregard for the safety of others
* Deceitfulness: Repeated lying to and deceiving of others for profit
* Incapacity to experience guilt
* Failure to conform to the social norms with respect to lawful behaviors..."

Who cares what Dr. Robert Hare says? He's an idiot.

Prove it.

cuichunchulli soricident exclamatory poter subintention homogenize utilitarianist psorosperm
Lake Geneva Area Schools

cuichunchulli soricident exclamatory poter subintention homogenize utilitarianist psorosperm
Historia de Halloween

pronatoflexor spiritualist preposterously snowslip countercarte besotting relata aeschynanthus
2 King's Bench Walk Chambers

pronatoflexor spiritualist preposterously snowslip countercarte besotting relata aeschynanthus
Modem Port
Buchwald Talent Group

muntin unthridden paltrily tetraspermous sulphobutyric repiner unproportionality upland
Nina Mercedez Galleries
Alt Dating Uk North West
Ford Wont Start


Shareholders want profits, consumers (unfortunately) want large cars. That's the issue. We need to change people's minds about the basic assumption that big is good.

... then you need to start making a compelling argument.

Clearly, so far nobody has.

... you need a larger advertising budget than the auto sector, which includes manufacturers, dealers, parts retailers, etc. Zoom, zoom, zoom.

...if a little off topic:

I got to that page by a link from the main page -- it's in a box down around the middle headed "Earth's Issues" and sponsored by ConocoPhillips.

If Toyota won't take the lead and set a new industry standard, then we, as citizens must lobby for a clean energy bill.

Toyota has the technology to achieve 55mpg today. That Toyota refuses to support the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard of 35 mpg by 2020 is lame. Perhaps their's is a long-term strategy of waiting for the U.S. auto industry to crumble due to it's failure to innovate and meet average real world mileage of 46.8 mpg?


I'm supporting a coalition that's pushing Congress to adopt a strong clean Energy Bill this fall. Please sign this petition:

Lorna, that link didn't work. Let me try this, -- does that work?




Do what I did since 1980 - refuse to buy a new vehicle until they produce a reasonable one that gets higher mileage. There are electric cars now... Zenn just got it's federal approval, and the Tesla Roadster is taking orders. There is no excuse for people to be buying gas guzzlers.

this bonus ;)



nice post.

nice post[utl=].[/url]


Just how bad is natural gas for the climate?



The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has...

read more