Home > Fuel Efficiency, General > Perspective

Perspective

September 2nd, 2009

I’m a car guy, and an environmentalist.  I made that clear in my inaugural post.  I’m proof that these two perspectives aren’t mutually exclusive.

In The Road Ahead column in the October issue of Road & Track, editor-in-chief Matt DeLorenzo likens the freedom and spirit of the American cowboy to the mobility now afforded us by modern cars.  (It’s a reasonable analogy, given that the feature article is about the Ford Mustang, Chevrolet Camaro, and Dodge Challenger – 3 American “pony” cars that have recently been resurrected.)  He also makes the very correct point that “the automobile has a social cost – clean air, use of resources, accidents … [that] must be weighed against the benefits – mobility, freedom and independence.”  (OK, “freedom and independence” may be a bit of a stretch, but you get the point…)

Unfortunately, DeLorenzo goes further, and says “there are those who can’t abide these freedoms … [and] would rather see the American cowboy unhorsed.”  He suspects that the push for cleaning up the environment and improving fuel economy is “cover for a larger agenda” to force people to stop using automobiles.  He views this point of view as largely coming from “sophisticates (usually from big cities or across the ocean)” who view our constitutional rights as “merely incidental.”  He effectively equates reducing the environmental impact of our transportation to the demise of one of the great patriotic symbols of America.  (We won’t get into what the great American cowboy did to the Native Americans here…)

…Really?  Does DeLorenzo really belive that there are folks that want to prevent other folks from driving simply because of a desire to suppress others’ rights?  (OK, I’m sure there are one or two such people out there, but they probably also believe that the Apollo moon landings were faked.)  While the “sophisticates” who live in large metropolitan areas might be more likely to place high importance upon improving fuel economy and finding other modes of transport, it’s because the social cost (as DeLorenzo correctly described it) of millions of inefficient automobiles is much higher for them than it is for Johnny Tumbleweed piloting his Mustang across Wyoming – at least insofar as the noise, congestion, and pollution that result.  (Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, will affect Mr. Tumbleweed just as much as they will Winston Urbandweller.)

It’s valid to argue what the real social cost of our automobile use is.  But to suggest that it’s all a ploy to get people to stop driving, while hinting that the effort destroys a piece of American heritage, is ridiculous.  I’m offended – as a car-guy, and as an environmentalist.

cowboy

Comments are closed.