Originally Posted By: BarkerMan
The real problem is the distance between powerful environmental interests and the business of making a vehicle that consumers will buy. So far things are still moving along but because the business of transportation is an important part of the economy we will have to hit a crisis before a solution will appear that both parties can work with. Because the environmentalists know how we should behave and only include others in their midst that agree with their position the chance that a workable solution will appear without a crisis in non-existent. The economic reality of design and manufacturing has never been one of their considerations. Because the environmentalists only include those that already agree with them, their position just keeps getting stronger. They are in effect playing with other people’s money. The only way a solution will surface out of this is a major crisis. We had a preview in the 70’s when oil shot up to $17 a barrel. The only way we can solve this problem is with higher gas prices. That will bring a third important party to the table, the consumer. With the consumer on board the problem will be solved. The environmentalists can then pick a new target. There must be lots of other situations where people are not behaving as they should.
Barkerman I generally agree with your assessment, but I have a slightly more optimistic view of how things could work out. I do think environmental groups can be very extreme in their outlooks, and I also think the same can be true for opposing interests. That doesn't necessarily make the groups more powerful, though. It can marginalize them to a large degree - just look at the public perception of a group like PETA, which could be a very reasonable and useful group but which has been marginalized by its extreme attitudes and tactics. I mean, I can buy the idea of treating animals humanely, but I'm turned off by the idea that it is wrong to eat meat or to wear a leather belt. So in their case their tactics have probably made them much less powerful than they could have been.
I think that usually any political entity probably has some views that are valid and some that are either outright incorrect or at least that are not balanced. However, I think that it is possible that the political process can take valid and logical aspects of opposing groups and create useful improvements in policy. For example, despite being pulled all different ways by all different groups over the decades and throughout multiple administrations, the EPA, flawed though it may be, has managed to enormously improve and sometimes even completely solve critical environmental problems.
In my opinion it is the black-and-white view of any issue, rather than the ability to see it with some useful resolution and perspective, that is most harmful.
