[MNBoxster]

@ Berj,

I think it's you who misunderstand. My reading skills are quite good actually, and the message you convey is one of showing environmental concern for the fact that your consumption is somehow measured. I merely pointed out the fallacy of that type of thinking. I have no quarrel with you, personally or otherwise, I merely think you are unrealistic and uninformed.

I agree that Gluttony for Gluttony's sake is a bad thing, but no one spoke of this at all, this is a new twist you threw into the mix. Realize, Good Intentions do not equate to effectiveness. One may have all the good intentions in the World, but if they are not effective, no real purpose is achieved, only an imaginary one.

I have no guilt about my consumption whatever. I consume and the result is Fun, Jobs, Tax Revenue and of course Pollution. To me, the 1st three outweigh the latter. If that makes me a bad person, well, I am a member of a pretty big club then, and so are you despite whatever you choose to believe. I do not intentionally try to waste fuel, but I do not intentionally try to save it either, at least not for some percieved environmental concern.

You pose the proposition that saving 20% of anything is a good thing, there is nothing but the most abstract logic to this statement. I suspect you'll now try to use the academic arguement that if everybody reduced 20% that real change would take place. There are several problems with this argument.

First, everybody will not do it, meaning that it won't happen and the effort ineffective. You can say it all starts with one, but it has to end up with many more to be effective. And 30+ years of espousing environmental concerns have only seen consumption increase worldwide, so my expectations are not high.

And, you've made no account of the negative effects of such a 20% reduction. Think of all the people who are dependent upon the Oil Industry through the Discovery process, to Recovery, Sales, Distribution and even those people employed in the Environmental Industry who's sustenance comes from Oil. If you reduce consumption, you'll reduce the need for many of these people's jobs. In the short term, this can be more devastating than the gains achieved. Of course, if you are not affected by these, they have no meaning to you, except to say that sooner or later, you or your industry will feel the effects.

Your analogy about the Old Lady's purse is not at all germane to the issue, except again, only in the most abstract of reason.

So far as your item #4, I made no such statements, therse are assumptions on your part and therefore I have no need to address them (perhaps a little reading primer for you is in order?).

Your last argument about future generations does have some validity, but only to a point. Again, effectiveness of a solution has to be factored in. All the legislation and subsequent technical innovation of the '70's to reduce pollution has been more than offset by the increase in numbers of both people and cars.

It may seem fatalistic, but 6 Billion people and counting on this Rock means there are probably no real short-term solutions and no guarantee that any long-term ones will be forthcoming. Everything one does has environmental impact, there's no getting around that, Motorsport is merely my chosen activity.
'Fiddle while Rome Burns' you say, well Nero was powerless to stop the fires, but, at least he enjoyed the music! PEACE!

Happy Motoring!...Jim'99