Environmentalists: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

Townhall added a new member group today. It is that rarest of species, the good environmentalist. aBetterEarth has joined the fight agaisnt fundamentalist leftism. They stand with groups like Rocky Mountain Institute which, though I don't always agree with everything they say, are reasonable and practical.

The Bad environmentalists are, of course, everywhere. They behave exactly like religious fundamentalists. They operate on the received truths and conveniently overlook it when the truths are changed. They refuse to debate these truths and ridicule dissenters. They are not, however, The Ugly. The Bad are trying to do the right thing. They have good intentions. They are just blind to reason. In fact, the Ugly often associate themselves with The Bad specifically to gain credibility.

The Ugly are the worst though. I'm sure, if you have dared to use your right of free speech to proffer an opposing view, you have received one of their holy scowls. I believe that the Ugly have only their own interests at heart. It makes them feel good about themselves. Think Streisand. Despite their wow factor, the celebrities are often the Ugly.

Anyway, afterwards has a brief piece describing the hypocrisy and irrationality of the Ugly environmentalists:

"[I]f we’re supposed to hate SUV owners for their vehicular fuel guzzling, shouldn’t we also hate the drivers of the cars that glitzy celebrities like to see and be seen in? The little Ferrari Spider, for example, gets only 11 mpg in the city, and 16 on the highway. The Lamborghini Murcielago, another sexy runabout gets only 9 mpg in the city, and 13 on the highway. And then there’s the Cadillac limo that stars like to tour around in (14/22), and what about the Bentleys (10/14)?

By the Numbers

Now, here’s a bit of math that even Barbra Streisand might follow.

Scenario one: SUV villain John Q. Moviegoer wants to take his wife, his 2 kids, and their 2 friends to see Barbra’s latest movie. They pile in their Ford Expedition (15/19) and drive 2.5 miles to the theatre, and 2.5 miles home. How much fuel do they use? Let’s assume it’s all city driving, so the 5 mile round trip consumes one-third of a gallon of gasoline. Now, there are 6 people in the SUV, and they travel 5 miles, so that’s 30 person-miles of travel on a third of a gallon of gas. If they routinely drove the car with 6 people in it, that would make an average of 90 person-miles per gallon of gas.

Scenario two: “Good, Honda Civic (29/38) owning citizen John Q. Moviegoer wants to take his wife, his 2 kids, and their 2 friends to see Barbra’s latest movie. Since they have too many people, they have to take two cars. Let’s assume they’re both Civics. They drive 5 miles each, which is about 1/6 of a gallon of gas, but of course, there are two cars, so that’s…lookie there! One-third of a gallon of gas, same as the Expedition! Of course, with two cars instead of one, they increase traffic congestion; require two parking spots instead of one (increasing the need for larger parking lots and contributing to ‘sprawl’); are twice as likely to be involved in an accident (that risk is dependent on the number of vehicles and miles driven); pay more insurance; and are more likely to be hurt in a serious accident. Roughly the same amount of greenhouse gases are emitted in the two scenarios since that’s a function of the amount of fuel used, but the traditional pollutant emissions are probably higher in the second scenario: those pollutants are mostly generated during the cold start and hot soak of an engine, and the Civic drivers are starting up and shutting down two engines rather than one.

Then there’s scenario three, which we’ll leave as an exercise for the student: Barbra’s friend Arianna wants to drive from her 9,000 square foot home in Brentwood with her newest beau and four children to watch Barbra’s movie in a private theatre at Babs’ old four-house, 32-acre “compound” in Malibu, so if they drive 15 miles each way, with one adult and two kids per Ferrari…

Home is Where You...

Speaking of 9,000 square-foot homes…greenhouse gas emissions are, first and foremost about energy use. Surely, thoughtful environmental advocates who urge us to think about life-cycle analysis and holistic frameworks when it comes to buying refrigerators aren’t unaware that their housing choices result in more energy use?

Let’s say that John Q. Moviegoer owns a 2,000 square foot house in the suburbs (the average for an American house, according to the National Association of Home Builders). According to the Rocky Mountain Institute, carbon dioxide emissions from his average US home, with 2.5 residents is about 11.6 tons per year. Arianna Huffington owns a 9,000 square foot home in Brentwood, which puts out at least 4.5 times the greenhouse gases of John Moviegoer’s house on an annual basis, but probably far more when you include the swimming pools, spas, and so forth."

Ok, so they may not be quite right about how much the Civic pollutes and the Bad often argue that we should all drive hybrid types which would pollute even less, still, the hypocrisy is astounding.

It is this kind of irrationality that discredits environmentalism. When applied to policy this religious environmentalism leads to stupid and unfair deals like the Kyoto protocol. If aBetterEarth and RMI wrote the protocols then they may have been supported by the US and we might have actually made worldwide progress.