November 26, 2002
From the desk of Jane Galt:WWJD Redux
I've been somewhat bemused by the vehement reaction to the What Would Jesus Drive campaign by some on the right. Now, I'm not an evangelical Christian, but it seems pretty fair to say that Jesus, if he were here, would probably oppose contributing to global warming in order to gain a trivial benefit for yourself -- because, say, you feel more manly driving a Ford Expedition than a Toyota Corolla. The authors of the campaign that I saw didn't say you couldn't drive an SUV and be a good Christian -- they just said that as Christians, you should think about how much car you really need, and not drive one bigger than you have to have. That seems pretty reasonable to me.
On the other hand, in this excellent post Sasha Volokh points out that while in general it's a good idea to refrain from criticizing private activist movements as harshly as we criticize those who are agitating for government intervention, there are times when such campaigns are counterproductive -- that is, they work to the detriment of what we assume to be their founders' goals. He also points out, however, that you'd better be damned sure what those goals are before launching an attack on such grounds.
On a side note, if the Volokh Conspiracy doesn't stop making the rest of us look bad, I think a secondary boycott may be called for.
Posted by Jane Galt at November 26, 2002 4:37 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksI would suspect that Jesus would have driven a vehicle commensurate with his trade of carpenter and big enough to carry a few of his apostles.
I am also confident that Jesus would not insult the choices of others nor presume to know what their special transportation needs were. In fact, Jesus might use his whip on those who presume to condemn others without knowing those other's circumstances.
Would Jesus flip off an SUV driver?
But the campaign didn't do that -- at least not the one I saw. It just asked Christians to think about what they needed, and whether an SUV was necessary, or a status item they could do without.
Um.. the car you drive doesn't matter. Honestly. The grand totality of SUV's and trucks pollution and whatnot will have so neglible an impact as to be meaningless. It really doesn't matter.
I don't know, it sounds as though if Jesus were to come down from heaven today and instruct us how to live, we'd be under Communist rule. But, perhaps without the, you know, mass murder.
So just the opression of free speech and the forcible theft of one's possessions?
Gee, I don't remember any of the commandmants going "THough shall re-distribute thy wealth"
You're not getting the bigger picture here; there won't be a need to suppress free speech or take away property. Anything you say is monitored by god anyway, so if you start with blasphemy, Jesus'll haul your ass to a confession booth. You'll be forgiven and stop with the silly talk. Soviets and Maoists did get a bit anal about culture as well, but that element can be left out; I doubt Heaven cares any which way what kind of music you like. As long as it's not blasphemous. God would exactly know what is and what is not blasphemous though. Something like to the precise thousandth of a degree.
Since proper behavior will be as sure as Newtonian physics, you'll have to incentive to act in any way other than saintly. Unless you have a mental disability, but that'd be rare and I'm sure Jesus could figure something out. We don't have people second guessing the consequences of being hit by trains, do we?
Redistributing wealth is just sharing with your brothers. But I feel this element would be severely diminished should Jesus return to earth. I mean, today a lot of poverty occurs because of mismanaged resources (labor, capital and essentially land). Say somewhere in some Sub-Saharan country there's a drought, a miracle could cure that. Again, with the incentive to be saintly you can count on all the people providing their best effort.
Dear Jane,
I know you claim to have studied fresh water economics (I didn't think your tax proposals were particularly well thought out). Now you drop a gratuitous remark, "he ... would probably oppose contributing to global warming in order to gain a trivial benefit for yourself" -- which I read to put you in the camp that thinks man-made CO2 emissions are the root cause of the putative global warming scare occuping the singularly empty minds of many underemployed "activists".
Do you really want to go there? How much real science training have you had? I've had a great deal, and I'm more than skeptical.
My reading, and my discussions with physicists and other scientists whom I know to be truthful and open-minded, have convinced me that there is an effect. How much of one is an open question, and it certainly doesn't put me in the camp of the "let's shred our economy now and think about the consequences later" folks. Nor of those who think SUV's are immoral -- my mother drives one, and I think she's pretty moral. She also drives long distances with a lot of stuff. My father's car is a minivan for the same reason. I drive a Ford Taurus, and you'll never see me in a smaller car because at 6'2 and all leg, I literally can't fit behind the wheel.
That doesn't mean I think it's inappropriate to ask yourself how much car you really need, and drive that, rather than how much car shows off to your friends. I am indeed freshwater trained, to the extent that I got my MBA at Chicago, but that doesn't mean that I think everything ratified by economics should also be ratified by our social system. I don't like buying things just to show other people you can afford to buy them, or driving a gas guzzling car just because you think it looks cooler than a Hyundai. That doesn't mean there aren't good reasons to drive such cars, and I don't presume to pass judgement on anyone's need or lack thereof. But I certainly think that we're qualified to pass judgement on ourselves, and I don't think it's unreasonable for people to ask us to do so.
...there is an effect.
I could convince you equally well that when I go running in the morning, I alter the way the Earth rotates. The question of whether this is a significant effect, though, is rarely mentioned.
Coincidently the lastest "Scientific American" has a link
AN ANALYSIS OF TRAFFIC DEATHS BY VEHICLE TYPE AND MODEL
to a paper showing that the average SUV, compact, and subcompact cars kill about as many people per car per year -- about 30% more than the average minivan, midsize, and large cars. Pickups and sports cars are much more dangerous. But except for minivans, specific models in each category are spread over considerable ranges. The subcompacts in particular; the VW Jetta and Honda Civic are safer than any SUV, while the Dodge/Plymouth Neon is more than twice as dangerous.
Picking up on David Perron's point, would the switch to more fuel efficient vehicles "significantly" affect the climate? If you could by decree, triple the fuel efficiency of all of the vehicles on the road, would it impact global temperatures (and for Ms. Galt's question, would God care)?
I suggest the following URL, http://www.sciencenews.org/20021109/fob1.asp
It seems that wildfires in Indonesia in 1997-1998 (shades of Krakatoa!) have released as many as 2.57 billion tons of CO2 into the air -- equivalent to 40% of the estimated annual relase of CO2 by the burning of ALL fossil fuels, everywhere in the world (not just in your mommy's Jeep). Did anyone notice?
So, Ms. Galt, ask your friends to plug that into their models. And ask them why there was not an observable effect on our global climate? Even better, Ms. Galt, you can answer that yourself. I suggest the following URL's:
http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1999/08/26/text/p16s2.html
http://marshall.pjdoland.com/article.php/14.html
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/solar/solar.htm
http://www.co2science.org/journal/2002/v5n19c2.htm
I really don't think that most SUV drivers bought their vehicles to "show up" others. I think most of them just wanted something large they could stuff a lot of people and groceries in. They are also under the mistaken impression that since these vehicles are larger, they are therefore safer than a subcompact. They continue to believe that in the face of all sorts of studies (such as the one linked above) disproving this myth.
That being said, I have met a few people who bought the largest SUVs on the market just because they wanted to drive something huge around. But it's their money to spend on extra gas. I don't think that these vehicles pollute any worse than my Echo does; all new vehicles must meet certain EPA standards. The real polluters in the personal auto area are those antique vans and old VW bugs with all the Grateful Dead and "The Earth is Our Mother" bumper stickers plastered all over them.
Comments are Closed.