It's a Bad Time to Drive a Prius

I've had my Prius for two years. I bought it because VW quit making a reliable car (I had two VWs die on me within about three months of each other) and because, as a bumper sticker says, "I'd rather buy green Japanese Technology than Dirty Arab Oil."

I'm voting with my dollars against funding terrorism. As much as is possible.

And I'm very happy with my Prius. It's not as zippy or as much fun as a Jetta, but it has a better work ethic. You turn it on, it goes. You don't have to call your husband or a tow truck (unlike my recent VWs). I place a high value on a car that runs. Even better if it runs quietly and on fumes -- I drive a lot.

I remember Jimmy Carter's oil shortages. When we don't control a commodity we rely on, it can get scary. So part of my reason for getting a Prius was strategic. I want to be able to go places and not need a lot of gas to do it.

But now, thanks to Obama and his addiction to automotive meddling, my car has become the symbol of everything I'm not. While I recycle and try to limit how much I impact the environment, I'm not an environmentalist. I believe in good stewardship of the earth, which could include drilling for oil in ANWR.  And I believe Al Gore is the cause of global warming, which they have yet to convince me exists.

I hope someone is coming up with something other than oil to power our vehicles so long as it isn't made out of crops grown for food.

I'm not a Democrat or a socialist. I voted for Bush twice and think he's a decent, good man who kept us safe. I would go hunting with Cheney.

I think you have the right to drive a Hummer if you want. I won't even say ugly things about whatever you might be compensating for, because honestly, all I know about you is that you drive a Hummer. That's your business. I'll cling to my guns and religion and you go right ahead and cling to your Hummer. This is a free country still -- right?

But now, my car makes a statement I'm not making. I'm not smug or liberal. So I've just ordered two bumper stickers. This took a lot of thought on my part because I don't like bumper stickers, and the ones I really want to use will get my car keyed.

So here's what I chose: The Gadsden Flag and one about the link between oil and terrorism.

Read up on this flag. Very interesting. And it has a S.C. connection.

Comments

[lori]

You have said it all, and very cogently. Brava!
and the Gadsden flag has USMC hisory, too!

[White Horse Pilgrim]

I've just been to a very interesting lecture - the CEO of Shell addressing a gathering of professional geographers. In this kind of forum, he was able to speak in a frank way - unlike the situation in, say, a room full of environmentalists.

The upshot is that, so the CEO said, even if there is a high degree of collaboration between the world's governments, the amount of oil and coal consumed will rise sharply (coal especially) and that the global temperature will rise around 3C. This is not good news, especially if one lives in low lying land (think New Orleans, Holland, Bangladesh, etc).

This is especially interesting since here is an oil company saying what its own scientists think, and not scaremongering by people who might have an ideological issue with economic growth, capitalism, etc.

So, it would seem, at least one major oil company agrees with Al Gore.

We cannot reduce the debate down to simple ideological issues about freedom and choice. Sometimes one particular route does have negative effects. This might mean that gas-guzzling cars are detrimental to America's long term interests (and indeed everyone else's). It might mean looking at new technologies to power vehicles. It might mean revisiting urban land use and transportation. It will mean that common sense and facts are needed rather than the honeyed words of lobbyists or the rantings of single issue campaigners. And it will require change to be embraced, not least because the countries that survive and prosper will be those that are flexible and innovative.

Nor can we deny that climate change exists simply because we don't like the idea that we may have to make changes. (Which may not mean that we give up travel - think instead, for example, of nuclear power rather than burning coal.)

Actually a debate is needed that is both well informed by science and not skewed by political dogma and the short term economic interests of motor manufacturers and the like. That would be a debate about what is possible for the people within the constraints of what is realistic and sensible on this earth. That is where "good stewardship" really will come into play.