In their piece--which sometimes drips with sarcasm, ("Eco-conscious families are turning up with two, three, many Priuses, so every member of the family can help save the planet.") Mander and Cavanagh launch into an attack on why buying new Prius' are ecologically terrible for the planet.
In a devestating critique of the Mander/Cavanagh piece, the Sierra Club destroys many of their arguments.
And what according to Mander and Cavanagh should people do for "greener" transportation needs? I quote: "In environmental terms, the best choice is not the new hybrid or any new car, but a good used car. Or no car at all." Say again? We should encourage people to drive gas-guzzling, air-polluting and global-warming-increasing used cars rather than other forms of transport, such as electric mass transit or bikes or even walkable cities? What kind of snake oil is this that these two are peddling?
Note also that the Mander/Cavanagh article claims to be concerned with economic inequality and want socially equitable programs in tandem with what they call "powering down" for sustainability. Yet how the debt reduction Mander and Cavanagh call for as a primary anti-poverty program will solve internal maldistribution of wealth and the poverty of nations is not known. Instead, this approach of downsizing the economy will very likely fall most heavily and severely on the working poor, the poor and, in this country, people of color and women.
Dec 15 2007 - 12:41pm