Living Car Free - Living with Ed

After a perfect day -- cycled to several stores, hung the laundry out on my clothesline, little siesta -- I woke up and watched a little TV on the Planet Green channel. Got to see the reality show with Ed Begley, Living with Ed. In this episode:

-- Ed harangues his wife about wanting to drive the car to her Pilates class when "there's a perfectly good bike in the garage."
-- Wife harangues Ed about installing a rain barrel to irrigate the garden ("What garden? Have you looked in our back yard?")
-- A blond, buxom Norwegian lady wins a lunch and bike ride with Ed at a "Save the Orangutan" auction. Ed gets to show off riding the bike rather dangerously on one pedal.

Sounds somewhat like my house, except for the Norwegian lady. [OP pauses a moment... fantasizing..]

Have you seen Planet Green channel? Bill Nye also has an excellent program called Stuff Happens.

it is one of our favorite channels to watch ... and love to see what Ed tries next, not that his ideas are bad but even I agree red rain barrels are a bit over board with a whiteish house.

I love LIVING WITH ED! Bill Nye lives down the street and they have a "friendly" rival going on. Both guys are crazy to watch.

He was good on St Elsewhere also.

Jerry

You guys must be fans of the treehugger.com website too.

Nope, just like Ed and Bill and the fact they live what they preach.

The only tree I hugged was a big popular and that was to get a shot at a squirrel.

Jerry

Wow. I thought this post was going to be about your erectile dysfunction caused by too much cycling... My bad...

I've seen several of these Living with Ed shows this week. And I've noticed several annoying things:

-- Ed has two cars in the garage, one a hybrid and one an electric. My thought is that he would do a whole bunch more for the environment if he ditched one or two of these.

-- Planet Green is sponsored heavily by GM, who features a lovely ad about kids being told that an SUV boat (which features a hybrid engine... and probably get 20 miles to the gallon) somehow has something to do with an environmental (ie, green) lifestyle.

Somehow, there is something way off here.

I've seen several of these Living with Ed shows this week. And I've noticed several annoying things:

-- Ed has two cars in the garage, one a hybrid and one an electric. My thought is that he would do a whole bunch more for the environment if he ditched one or two of these.

-- Planet Green is sponsored heavily by GM, who features a lovely ad about kids being told that an SUV boat (which features a hybrid engine... and probably get 20 miles to the gallon) somehow has something to do with an environmental (ie, green) lifestyle.

Somehow, there is something way off here.

In your opinion.

In your opinion.
Yes, as always, IMHO.

There was a point to my post.

It is likely that you are a minority in the viewing audience of this program. The fact there are two of the types of vehicles in the garage you highlight would be regarded as oddball by the vast majority of Americans.

Equally, is it better for GM to promote a 20mpg vehicle that has a hybrid engine than not bother at all in (a) developing and producing hybrids in increasing volume (and thereby reducing the unit cost of those engines overall) and (b) promoting the concept when the good ol' V8 internal combustion engine is still a mainstay of production?

In these particular instances, the opportunity has arisen to create incemental change -- over a very long period -- by carrying these messages which might change the community to behave the way you seem to want it to.

As has been discussed in other threads, the sudden change in behaviour that non-car-owners on here promote is unlikely to occur unless there are significant outside influences (such as unrealistic and dramatically high increases in fuel costs, or in the case of the West Coast of the USA, an earthquake knocks out vast tracts of transport infrastructure). Otherwise, the change can only be incremental.

However, I also am not immune to the concept that to a cynic, the so-identified change in culture for some, in this case caused by higher fuel costs, just means another opportunity to make money for none other than the television series producers and broadcasters.

There was a point to my post.

It is likely that you are a minority in the viewing audience of this program. The fact there are two of the types of vehicles in the garage you highlight would be regarded as oddball by the vast majority of Americans.

Equally, is it better for GM to promote a 20mpg vehicle that has a hybrid engine than not bother at all in (a) developing and producing hybrids in increasing volume (and thereby reducing the unit cost of those engines overall) and (b) promoting the concept when the good ol' V8 internal combustion engine is still a mainstay of production?

In these particular instances, the opportunity has arisen to create incemental change -- over a very long period -- by carrying these messages which might change the community to behave the way you seem to want it to.

As has been discussed in other threads, the sudden change in behaviour that non-car-owners on here promote is unlikely to occur unless there are significant outside influences (such as unrealistic and dramatically high increases in fuel costs, or in the case of the West Coast of the USA, an earthquake knocks out vast tracts of transport infrastructure). Otherwise, the change can only be incremental.

However, I also am not immune to the concept that to a cynic, the so-identified change in culture for some, in this case caused by higher fuel costs, just means another opportunity to make money for none other than the television series producers and broadcasters.

Your basic premise about incremental change has some (not much) merit, but 20 mpg is not change at all. The fleet average was greater than 20 mpg in the early 1980s. Any changes since then have been in the wrong direction. Claiming that 20 mpg is even acceptable--let alone laudable--is ludicrous.

The only vehicle that GM has any right to brag about is the Volt--
if (big "if") they can ever make that happen.

Try telling the redneck in his new pick-up that he shouldn't be driving with a huge V8 diesel engine. Try telling the multimillionaire that he shouldn't be driving the latest go-fast, 300km/h sports car. The TV ads are rife with promoting those types of vehicles and people will continue to buy them in the short to medium term "because I can".

You in fact have demonstrated my own point in trying to dismiss it. The incremental change since the 1980s has been negative in your view, but nevertheless, the the incremental nature of it cannot be denied. To reverse it will take as much time to be effective.

You again have taken the reactionist view. As much as you and others here want instant change, it ain't goin' to happen.

GM and Ford and Chrysler aren't likely to do anything substantial about complete moves away from gasoline engines until the market demands it. Right now, the market couldn't give a stuff.

Only governments trying to appease the "green" lobby are taking a lead... haven't you noticed the huge subsidies being offered to the big car companies to go "green"? Even here in Australia, the government has fawned all over Toyota in giving it subsidies (and likely all sorts of tax breaks) to develop its hybrid; Honda must be spitting chips over the deal.

But you know why these changes must be incremental... it's because the car manufacturing industries involve so many jobs and so much intensive capital for research and development, that to dismantle it and rebuild it under the guise of the death of oil would drive most economies to the wall, including the one in the US.

Try telling the redneck in his new pick-up that he shouldn't be driving with a huge V8 diesel engine. Try telling the multimillionaire that he shouldn't be driving the latest go-fast, 300km/h sports car. The TV ads are rife with promoting those types of vehicles and people will continue to buy them in the short to medium term "because I can".

You in fact have demonstrated my own point in trying to dismiss it. The incremental change since the 1980s has been negative in your view, but nevertheless, the the incremental nature of it cannot be denied. To reverse it will take as much time to be effective.

You again have taken the reactionist view. As much as you and others here want instant change, it ain't goin' to happen.

GM and Ford and Chrysler aren't likely to do anything substantial about complete moves away from gasoline engines until the market demands it. Right now, the market couldn't give a stuff.

Only governments trying to appease the "green" lobby are taking a lead... haven't you noticed the huge subsidies being offered to the big car companies to go "green"? Even here in Australia, the government has fawned all over Toyota in giving it subsidies (and likely all sorts of tax breaks) to develop its hybrid; Honda must be spitting chips over the deal.

But you know why these changes must be incremental... it's because the car manufacturing industries involve so many jobs and so much intensive capital for research and development, that to dismantle it and rebuild it under the guise of the death of oil would drive most economies to the wall, including the one in the US.

Living in Michigan, I guess I get a different perspective than most people do. And what I see is that the big change has already happened, and there was nothing incremental about it. The car companies--even Toyota--clearly know that they're dead unless they make a radically new product very soon. They know that hybrids might be around for a few years, but that's about it. There will be small green cars, or there will be nothing. The conservatives are screaming about energy independence, the liberals are screaming about global warming, and even greed-blinded oil billionaires like Boone Pickens (or whatever his name is) can see that that the ICE is not dying, but dead.

On a more philosophical level, I can see that incremental change is a very rare thing, whether in nature or in human society. Yes, change will fester or incubate for a long time, almost hidden from view. But at a certain time, in the "fullness of time", change will suddenly erupt--usually at a speed that our eyes cannot even see.

And from my perspective, here in oil-country Alberta, even when gas hit the equivalent of about $5.50/gallon, most people here chose to continue to buy and drive their huge pickup trucks and SUVs. Gas prices made no difference at all to their behaviour. I drive a station wagon and I am dwarfed on the road by the size of the vehicles people drive around here.

Based on conversations and observations of the people here ... if they were given the following two options:

1. Trade their huge pickup truck or SUV in for a slightly smaller, slightly more economical pickup truck or SUV.

or

2. Trade their huge pickup truck or SUV in for a hybrid or smart car or something "green".

They might be inclined to pick the first one. But it would take a lot more than a rise in gas prices to shake them up enough to choose the second option.

The same goes for infrastructure. Alberta is built for cars ... or actually huge trucks and SUVs. Alberta could very easily build track for trains between its two main cities, and more track in its two main cities, to make travel more "green", and the plans for all of this have been on the table for years ... but they keep shelving the plans because the Powers That Be don't see the need to develop the infrastructure for a "car-lite" future for Albertan citizens. The little bit that is being developed is being developed very, very, very slowly in tiny bits and pieces. I just don't see the Alberta government suddenly saying, "OK, let's go green!".

And from my perspective, here in oil-country Alberta, even when gas hit the equivalent of about $5.50/gallon, most people here chose to continue to buy and drive their huge pickup trucks and SUVs.
Clearly, Alberta will be one of the last places to abandon the internal combustion engine. Not only is it a mostly rural province, it has those big Western distances to cover, a highly individualistic culture, and is a wanna-be big time oil producer. In fact, Alberta is probably one of those rare areas where cars and trucks actually make good economic sense and will remain the preferred mode of travel.

Here in Michigan, it's a foregone conclusion that the auto industry is on its last legs--barring a radically different product like plug-in hybrids and/or hydrogen fuel cells. I think that long-range planners in both the auto industry and big oil are very aware of the economic and environmental necessities. And, believe it or not, many of these greedy executives would actually like their kids to have a world worth living in.

BTW, by "rapid change" in the auto/energy complex, I'm thinking about 10 to 20 years--which historically was enough time to implement previous massive infrastructure improvements, such as railroads, interstate highways, electircity, TV, and the internet. (Automobiles themselves went from novelty item to almost universal use between 1910 and 1930.)

If you want a good analysis of this issue, written from a conservative perspective, I highly reccommend a recent book called ZOOM: The Global Race to Fuel the Car of the Future (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/10/the_th_interview_vijay_1.php).

BTW, I'm getting a kick out of being double-teamed by the newlyweds, who are thousands of miles away from each other (:() and from me.

Talk about rapid technological changes! Even 15 years ago this conversation would have been impossible, now it's already commonplace. In fact I think the two of you owe your marriage to rapidly changing technology. Besides computers and the internet, jet travel and even the telephone were both developed very rapidly.