mook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> The hypocritical part comes from them enjoying the
> fruits of fossil fuel use (how many have 4WDs to
> get to the trailhead?) while, in effect, demanding
> that the Rest Of Us regress to the stone age while
> we still have alternatives. A stone-age (or even
> sustainable medieval with some "appropriate"
> technology like railroads - had to sneak that in)
> human culture would have a global population of
> around a billion at most, probably closer to a few
> hundred million. Dear SC members: are you
> volunteering to be among the 6+ billion who have
> to go, or are you (as I suspect) planning to be
> the rulers of the remaining peasants?

Mook:

You are one of the level-headed commentators on AP, but this is the type of comment which degrades discourse on the Internet.

There is a medium between going back to the stone age and mindless overconsumption of resources. Conservation and more intelligent use of resources will get us there.

Yes, I my actions use energy derived from fossil fuels, but I try to use less of it where I can. I drive a reasonably fuel-efficient Honda Civic. Otherwise, I commute to and from work on the bus daily, although sometimes I walk home on a trail and city sidewalks. I live in a neighborhood in which I can access several stores by walking. I try to ride Amtrak when I can, but its difficult living in a city served by only two Amtrak trains, one of which only passes through in the eastbound direction at inconvenient hours. <--railroad content

More than most people in my demographic, I have used intercity buses, the most fuel-efficient form of intercity passenger transportation.

I live in an apartment whose heating and lighting requirements are modest. Although it has two air conditioners, I opt instead to use ceiling fans instead nearly all of the time, even when the temperature exceeds 80 degrees (I live in a humid climate). I often set the washing machine to "cold" and recycle where I can.

Granted, there's more I can do, but your incendiary concluding sentence (and similar commentary by others) does nothing to support a less energy-intensive/lower environmental footprint culture.

Contrary to Dick Cheney's claim that conservation is a personal virtue, but it cannot be a basis for energy policy, there is a great deal more that individuals, businesses, institutions and governments can do to reduce energy consumption. In my office, many of my coworkers leave their lights on in their cubicles after they are gone for the day. I am also constantly turning off lights in unused conference rooms. This evening, I was walking through the commercial street near my home and saw several businesses which had their air conditioners running full blast, but the front doors were open.

Lastly, although I'm not much of a bicyclist, the commentary on Altamont Press is poisoned with anti-bicycling invective. I read that bicyclists are "elitists," "self-entitled," and "self-righteous." Other commentary is hostile towards any public funds spent on bicycle facilities. So it seems that some folks are in a no-win situation. If they do not bicycle, they are hypocrite and if they do bicycle (as well as advocate for more pro-bike local, state and federal policies) they are called all kinds of stupid names. [Note, none of the preceding is intended to support a certain someone in Santa Cruz who opposes train operations in an existing Santa Cruz rail corridor.]