TTAC's dedicated a fair amount of bandwidth to the UK's anti-car jihad. Our coverage has included London's Congestion Charge, speed cameras, CO2-related taxes and more. And now, finally, we offer a link to a proper polemic that encapsulates the logic and emotion of the British chattering class' anti-car arguments. Novelist and Independent columnist Joan Smith — "known for her human rights activism and writing on subjects such as atheism and feminism"– claims petrol-profligate pistonheads are forcing Chancellor Gordon Brown to reconsider yet another increase in the UK's fuel duty. And she's not a happy camper. "Welcome to 21st-century realpolitik, where the fact that overconsumption of oil is destroying the planet matters less than a noisy group of wannabe Jeremy Clarksons… I'm not saying that people shouldn't own cars, especially in rural areas where public transport is inadequate. I am suggesting that our present level of car use is a luxury we can no longer afford, which is why I always give a quiet cheer when the cost of petrol and diesel rises. In residential areas two- and three-car families have become the norm, and I'm not talking about little runabouts like my Ford Ka; the same people who whinge about the price of petrol have often spent £40,000 or £50,000 on top-of-the range saloons and SUVs without stopping to think of the cost in road accidents and premature deaths from respiratory disease."
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
“Premature deaths from respiratory disease”, she’s joking right? It just shows you the lengths socialist elitists will go to in order to raise taxes and strip people of their individual economic freedoms. Stop pretending to care about the environment commies, we know what your real agenda is, government controlled distribution of resources.
She’s just bitter. People are buying nice cars and living comfortable lifestyles paid for by their own hard-earned money. So what? Why should people feel guilty for enjoying the fruits of their labor? If Miz Commie is intent on saving lives from premature deaths from respiratory disease (hahaha) she’d be better off killing methane-farting cows.
“known for her human rights activism and writing on subjects such as atheism and feminism”
Translation-she’s never done a thing of use to anyone in her life. Talk about “a luxury we can no longer afford”
It’s the Sputterfly Principle — the exhaust that sputters from your car here, will start a tropical storm in Latin America.
I read that article, and did react at the “premature deaths from respiratory disease” line. Yes, the EU is being lobbied hard by the astma sufferers’ organizations, astmatics are having a hard time with the particles from diesel engines — but sometimes polemic is not your best friend, and she does come off as a tad rabid.
That same paper has another article worth perusing, though:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/oil-a-global-crisis-834023.html
(How often does one get a chance to use the word perusing?)
I take it that Ms. Jones lives 10 blocks from her office, as I do. So, she has the fortunate luxury of cheering on $10 a gallon petrol for everyone.
“American petrol is scandalously cheap.”
Take my word for it, $5 or higher gasoline/petrol prices in the US is not going to pretty. It will gut the spending power of world’s poorest inhabitants as food, raw materials and electric power costs rise commensurately.
For example, fertilizer is a petroleum/natural gas by product.
Remembering the 1970’s, I must say that the “uber-greens” need to be careful for what they wish for.
It seems to me that both socialist and religious evangelists always seem to have a strong opinion about how their neighbors should live their lives.
How about taxing petrol differently depending on where it’s bought – higher in and around large towns and cities where there are public transport infrastructures and less out in the sticks where there might be a bus once a week.
The current high tax on petrol and diesel punishes the people who live far away from the centres of pollution.
I would’t call her article jihadistic. She is not a car nut and she is not obliged to be one.
Here’s jihad:
Porsche 911 Turbo on the Autobahn.
(Question of the Day: In Which Car Would You Like to Die? Comment #9)
driving_course: How about taxing petrol differently depending on where it’s bought
Google up “arbitrage”. In this case, people would drive a tanker out to where the gas is cheaper, buy it, and take it into the city and re-sell it.
joe_thousandaire: …we know what your real agenda is, government controlled distribution of resources
You know, it IS possible to be a bit of an environmental nutjob without wanting to bring down democracy.
@mdf: Indeed, price discrimination is ineffective without adequate barriers between markets (I knew studying economics would come in handy one day…). You could give everyone living in ‘rural’ areas discounts for fuel, however, the definition of ‘rural’ would obviously cause huge uproar.
A few years ago, on a book tour of US cities
“Book tour”, if ever two words conjure up an image of an utter waste of natural resources, those two do.
In residential areas two- and three-car families have become the norm
The whole dynamics of UK transportation needs have changed in recent years; the growth of out-of-town shopping malls, the decline of local stores and the crumbling public transport system leave little option other than personal transportation (which is the cause and which is the effect in this situation is another debate though).
The problem with the planet is there are just too damn many humans, so I see premature deaths from respiratory disease, traffic accidents, SUV rollovers, and the like as GOOD THING.
–chuck
http://chuck.goolsbee.org
“…where the fact that overconsumption of oil is destroying the planet..”
1) Where is this “fact”?
2) Who determines that there is “overconsumption”?
3) How exactly is the planet being destroyed?
Answer….
We “enlightened” ones are smarter than you, therefore, what we believe is the way the world should live is to be forced upon the rest of the world.
Sounds like…
“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK”
carguy: “It seems to me that both socialist and religious evangelists always seem to have a strong opinion about how their neighbors should live their lives.”
Amen, comrade! Er, I mean, you got it right!
This woman’s article makes me want to go outside and break things. And that upsets me, because I was having a halfway decent Memorial Day weekend until reading this Marxist’s assault on the rights for which my countrymen fought in a war against her sorry-a$$ nation a few centuries ago.
Oh, and I figured I’d also just chime in here to note that Joan Smith is not only much more sanctimonious than the average sanctimonious bear, but also uglier than a first-gen Subaru Tribeca’s snout. (Yeah, I think she has a snout.)
I’m surprised nobody’s yet drawn these painfully obvious corollaries, which are always just a quick observation away, in one form or another, from any glimpse of a raving mad, left-wing commie feminazi pinko’s photo.
That one realy hit a nerve huh?
Unfortunately the entire issue suffers from the “there’s your version, there’s my version, and then there’s the truth” syndrome.
Some points:
Oil is in infinite supply right? There’s absolutely no end to it? Well?
There is no global warming right?
Depends on which study you choose to produce.
The folks in the USA who are losing their homes right now are in good financial shape to pay current fuel prices right? The residual value on the battle cruisers they own has dropped like a stone, so trading down is an option?
I’m against any government restrictions on this, but what a lot of people are missing is who profits. So…start digging. This very place talked earlier about the “marketing” of green. The bottom line is that a supposedly advanced race of people worldwide better start looking at things intelligently sans the profit motivation.
For those who choose to ignore it, hey, knock yourselves out.
raast,
I believe that there is almost complete agreement on the oil supply being virtually finite. No one thinks the earth produces it nearly as fast as we use it.
Global Warming is quite debatable unless you believe in it. I am convinced that most of the doubters have been convinced by the zealousness and rudeness of the believers that it is junk. Tragically, we will not know for sure until it gets pretty bad because the academic community blew the PR battle big time.
None of this leads to where you then go with your post. Sorry. It appears to be a complete non-sequiter. I think I know the mistake you are making, but I can’t be sure.
Landcrusher:
It was more complete exasperation with the whole situation cause like it or not, at the level in the food chain that I’m at, I’m not getting the whole truth and I’m not being helped or enlightened by governments, corporations, media, or people who don’t want to look beyond the length of their noses. Fortunately, like them or not, there are some media folks like Chomsky/Margolis/McQuaig who do dig a lot deeper, but they aren’t exactly mainstream 6 o’clock news. Right now in the USA people’s quality of life is being drastically affected by financial issues related in part to petroleum and the state of the auto industry. Everything has to be shipped, shipping uses fuel, fuel goes up in price, the supply chain doesn’t absorb it, they pass it on. Now think ahead a spell – how many offspring of those people who are losing their homes have just had their future affected – wouldn’t you think that a long term plan for a nation would be an educated population – or will the people staffing those high end jobs be immigrants? This is a very big picture, one that encompasses way more than whether I can drive (& fill) my Tahoe. But it is related. (I always wanted one but couldn’t justify btw). All’s I’m saying is that I know a lot of folks locally who don’t sweat the details. Don’t believe everything that’s fed to you – very sophisticated “marketing” is in the equation.
I am officially declaring this quote the TTAC quote of the week.
“It seems to me that both socialist and religious evangelists always seem to have a strong opinion about how their neighbors should live their lives.”
chuckgoolsbee:
The problem with the planet is there are just too damn many humans, so I see premature deaths from respiratory disease, traffic accidents, SUV rollovers, and the like as GOOD THING.
The (very small) social darwinist part of my mind holds some sympathy with that view – especially given the horrific driving behavior that’s become socially acceptable.
More dominant in my mind, however, is the catholic view that more people mean more growth and prosperity.
Malthusian bureaucrats’ crabbed little ledgers mostly consider additional people an additional cost – not a benefit. That is sad.
chuckgoolsbee :
May 25th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
The problem with the planet is there are just too damn many humans, so I see premature deaths from respiratory disease, traffic accidents, SUV rollovers, and the like as GOOD THING.
–chuck
Strange how people that make this comment are never willing to start with themselves? Set an example for us would you! ;)
brent: “this Marxist’s assault on the rights for which my countrymen fought in a war against her sorry-a$$ nation a few centuries ago“
Yes, you beat us in a war once, woop dee freaking doo, why do so many Americans feel obliged to bring this up whenever they take issue with someone British?
She’s self-righteous, that’s for sure. But some of what she says is worth considering.
I’m a little disappointed that posters here are so adamant in denying that exhaust fumes are bad for people’s health. I wonder how long they’d be willing to suck on a car’s tailpipe? Even they know that’s deadly! Certainly we’ve come a long way from the 50’s, but LA on a bad day is still LA on a bad day – not the best air to breath in any case. Diesel is even worse. Environmentalists are partly to blame over in Europe with their focus on CO2 over more poisonous things like particulates. Thankfully, in the US we have stricter laws. These have done us a great deal of good. Look up pictures of smog in LA in the 50s. You might be okay with that, but I sure as hell am not.
On the issue of the cost of cars and whatnot – she’s being self-righteous and rather dumb. I don’t think the UK government needs more taxes to get people to cut back on driving – if it’s at all like the US, gas prices are rising due to market factors. These market factors will cause people to trim luxuries like gas-guzzling SUVs. The problem is that gas prices hit the poor too. I don’t have much sympathy for people with SUVs complaining about gas prices, but I do worry about those with less money. She’s obviously not considering the cost of this on the poor. Driving is only a luxury to a certain extent – many of us have to drive to work. Getting around by car is often the only practical option.
Personally, I think both sides act rather dumb at times. One side is “anti-car” (though of course, most of them have cars themselves), and the other is “pro-car” (to the extent of denying that car exhaust is unhealthy). I just want a fun car, preferrably an efficient fun car, but if I could walk to work I’d like that too. Public transport is all well and good, but it better be GOOD if you want me to use it. I used it in Boston, where it’s easy to use and practical, but in Florida it’s a joke.
The world probably would be better if we could all walk to work in ten minutes and only needed a car for fun. However, that’s not the way it is.
I guess this explains the Gatso plague, congestion pricing, and all the other crap that the Brits keep trying to import here. Sad that the Aussies seem to be the test market.
news flash…..1776 and 1812
I, for one, would rather copy Germany, if I had to copy anyone at all.
So if someone offers suggestions about how to have cleaner air they are a “raving mad, left wing commie feminazi pinko”.
Brent, have you considered joining Osama? He is very right wing and is also afraid of women.
Calling someone a communist is out of date. Several countries have attempted to create communists type governments and have failed miserably because communisn doesn’t work. The countries attempting to be communists just became cruel and corrupt with extremely large bureaucracies that didn’t function very well.
The earth’s biggest danger now is right wing extremists who are convinced they know what is correct for us and are unable to take suggestions.
As for your fear of women I don’t know what to suggest – maybe just staying inside your local gay bar where you won’t have to deal with them will help you or perhaps joining a religion that treats women like dog crap would relax you.
folk,
Calling “communist” may be out of date, but it still applies. The only difference is that the people who want to bring us to communism aren’t willing to admit that is what they preach.
You might want to define right wing extremists just a little more narrowly. I am not sure who it is you are against(other than Brent, anyway). You can call anything the a huge threat if you aren’t too specific about what you mean, but that only helps to obfuscate the truth.
I don’t think there really is a single issue that defines the so called right wing extremist in the US. Most of their views are widely held if you really look at them. Hardly extreme. I could be wrong, but you will need to remind of one of them.
It used to be guns, but now it’s clear that the saying should be amended to: “You can have the keys to my SUV when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers.”
I read Joan Smith before TTAC posted it. Now I’ve gone back to read it again, and I’m having the hardest time trying to find what she’s saying that’s directly wrong. She’s shrill, in that manner that makes one wish she never ends up next to you at dinner, but otherwise?
OK, she cheers whenever the price of oil goes up – but as long as policians won’t realistically price the stuff the market will have to do the correction. Adjusted, the price of gasoline in the US is the same as it was in 1922 — and you have to go to third world countries with subsidies to find it any cheaper. No wonder the US “native” car industry is suffering, being that cushioned from reality.
Other carmakers that had to contend with regulations in markets where the car lobbies didn’t call all the shots ended up making the cars that people want today.
I also reacted to her line about “premature deaths from respiratory disease.” But it’s actually true – particulates in the air, especially in hot weather, triggers respiratory problems. During the heat wave in France a few years ago, which killed thousands of the elderly (!) particulates from diesel, very popular cars in France, was cited as a contributing factor. And organizations for asthmatics are very concerned about the rise in particulates due to the popularity of oil burners …
A polemical statement such as “the fact that overconsumption of oil is destroying the planet” also has truth to it, if you buy into the conclusion that CO2 is a problem. Quite a few don’t, and many of those have connections to the car lobbyists — while others have trouble accepting that a few hundred parts per million of a gas that we actually breathe could cause a problem of that magnitude. One thing is certain, we’ll find out – and we can do what the Dutch did, build dikes, or we can trust there won’t be a flood.
To give you my perspective, for what it’s worth, Joan Smith represents the shrill fringe. “Once I had regained my power of speech” at the fact that her publisher sent her a stretch limo, must mean she’s never spoken to anyone who’s done a book publishing tour of the US — but seriously, stretch limos that get seven miles to the gallon, do we need them?
Landcrusher: Calling “communist” may be out of date, but it still applies. The only difference is that the people who want to bring us to communism aren’t willing to admit that is what they preach.
How sad that you still think there are communists in the world. I recently visited Viet Nam and China and they are more rough and tumble capitalists than we have been in a 100 years. They are just dictatorships with a high degree of corruption.
Before you lable someone a communist because they want government intervention in some area think about the extreme capitalism and corruption in China. Because of a lack of government controls and inspections many school buildings were poorly built and collapsed in the recent earth quake.
You might want to define right wing extremists just a little more narrowly. I am not sure who it is you are against(other than Brent, anyway). You can call anything the a huge threat if you aren’t too specific about what you mean, but that only helps to obfuscate the truth. I don’t think there really is a single issue that defines the so called right wing extremist in the US. Most of their views are widely held if you really look at them.
Why should I be required to define right wing extremism more narrowly when 1950’s era people like you toss the word communism around as a lable for anyone you disagree with? And I don’t think cruel conservative right wing exteme view points are widely held.
It would be nice to have clean air and I am willing to listen to anyone with suggestions on how to obtain clean air. If you think we can obtain clean air by each of us acting individually than suggest how, but I think we will need some government and international intervention.
Folk,
First, where you are correct. I don’t go around calling people commie. It’s bad form, and gets you no where. However, the people of the 50’s had a much better reason to make the mistake than we do today. Communist is indeed a word that lacks specificity. In the 50’s the masses may have not understood what a communist really was, but they did understand that there were people who were conspiring to take power and defeat their way of life.
My usual lexicon is to point out when a position is socialist or fascist rather than to label the person. Communist is indeed a word that lacks specificity.
That being said, there ARE still communists in the world. To me, the heads of China and Russia are all still communists, because modern communism is less about Marx and Lenin, and more about Stalin. Bowing to capitalism is merely a method to retain power. No matter how much those countries allow the people to make money, they reserve the right to take it for the state at any time. There is no actual right to private property, and can be none.
I think you are mixing process and results on the buildings in China. Those schools were built EXACTLY like the government allowed them to be built. The fact that they were likely made with substandard materials (so the saved materials could be used for private purposes,sold on the black market, or so that the budget would look good for some manager) has been a part of communism since WWII, if not before. The idea that a school was built by a private contractor with no oversight in China is preposterous on its face.
There is no shortage of government in China.
Lastly, you should only define your terms more narrowly if you hope to sway someone over to your ideas through reason. If you just want to preach to the choir, then use whatever substandard approach you wish. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
And, a straw man about not being able to get clean air without government won’t help either. No one is arguing that anarchy will lead to clean air. I would argue that a proper amount of government will do better than too much or too corrupt government, and I think the facts would bear that out.
Eugh, someone give that lady a damn toothbrush.
folkdancer:
Umm…where in my post does it somehow reveal that I’m afraid of women? (In other words, don’t try to change the subject.)
But at least we agree on something…those huge centralized bureaucracies’ existence is the very reason communism is untenable.
BTW…I think the humor of my post was lost on some people here. On the other hand, I’m willing to bet Joan Smith is, if not a full-fledged communist, at least a communist sympathizer.
As much as I hate paying a higher price for anything, I have little sympathy for folks that whine about gas but use a Suburban as a commuter car. Its your own damn fault for choosing to live beyond your means. Folks who can afford to buy vehicles that aren’t good on fuel likely won’t complain and really don’t care. ‘
SUVs got cheap and plentiful, and folks who normally wouldn’t be able to afford to run an SUV convinced themselves they needed it, and now they can’t afford to run them. Sort of like the folks that bought homes beyond thier means and are getting forclosed upon. The American dream is pretty fleeting if it was all bought OAC.
Just because you CAN do it doesn’t mean that you SHOULD.
Just because someone labels themselves as a communist, Christian, Moslem, or space alien doesn’t mean they are one of those things. Many leaders have labeled themselves and their regimes as communist but they never came remotely close to being communists. The large, brutal, cruel, and corrupt governments of Russia, China, North Korea, and several other countries have (and sometimes still) called themselves communist but they are an insult to the teachings of Karl Marx the same as Osama is an insult to the teachings of Muhammad or the Christian inquisitors were an insult to the teachings of Jesus.
Communism does not work with humans and probably doesn’t work with any kind of animal society and it is doubtful that we have ever had a real communist on Earth so labeling someone a communist just because you don’t like their ideas doesn’t make much sense. Perhaps you might use the word socialist for someone you disagree with about government controls but even that is rather a cheap shot unless you have suggestions on how to obtain the objective with no or less government controls – in this case cleaner air.
Calling columnist Joan Smith ugly, a commie, and a femminnazi as a few on this site have done is just plain disgusting and reflects on those few as afraid of or fearful of women.
She has suggestions to obtain cleaner air – debate her ideas.
“we can no longer afford”
Lady, I’ll decide what I can afford.
I’m willing to bet Joan Smith is, if not a full-fledged communist, at least a communist sympathizer.
I had thought that Joe McCarthy was dead. Guess I misread the obituary.
This is the kind of government you get when you don’t have a written Constitution and follow it.
Of course, that only means that in America, we’ll get this kind of government a little later, because – while we have a written Constitutuion, it’s pretty much ignored from sea to shining sea.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1022174/Bin-police-force-residents-hand-personal-medical-details.html
Isn’t it awful that a socialist might have some views on how society as a whole should work, and what might just be a better way to organize things. But which is worse? That nasty socialist or the capitalist who simply says I can afford it so go get stuffed. What a puerile bunch that posts arguements like that. Better you stick to your wrench and don’t vote.
A couple of points stick out:
First, as I have said before, a lot of real automotive good has come from the efforts of environmentalist. In 1974, the sky was falling. Cars sucked. Yet, somehow, the industry figured out that squeezing out the unburned hydrocarbons meant more power and efficiency. Like it or not, we need to improve the efficiency of cars if for no other reason than to make then less expensive to operate. Better efficiency means better, more responsive cars.
Second, what the hell does anyone’s looks have any place in what should be a reasoned debate?
jl1280,
Yes it is awful when socialists have ideas. The reason is that they intend to enforce their ideas without regard to liberty, private property, or public opinion. To the socialist, the market is fixed by the rich, and the poor are ignorant saps who must be governed by their betters.
The capitalist putz in your example is relatively harmless compared to your average socialist. Capitalists tend not to have the same long term effects that the socialists have.
The great thing about capitalist democracy is that so far, the idiots you complain about have not managed to muck it up. If you let the socialists keep tampering with the checks and balances in the name of “fairness” that will eventually end. In fact, socialism is only successful in that it bleeds a capitalist system while becoming the preferred prescription for all the ills that it creates itself.
“There is too much poverty.”
“Tax the rich!”
“There is too much poverty.”
“Tax the rich!”
“Why is there still poverty?”
“We aren’t taxing the rich enough!”
“Why are we all so poor?”
“You aren’t all poor, you are all equal. Poverty has been eliminated. Be happy, have some cheese.”
@Pch101
“I had thought that Joe McCarthy was dead”
Ah, ‘Tailgunner Joe’. A chronic alcoholic with a gambling problem who forged letters of commendation about his military service, gained a Senate position with the backing of a Communist Party affiliated union, and then set about a campaign of thinly-veiled anti-semitic witch-hunts disguised as anti-communism.
Almost makes me proud to be a fellow Irishman.
@bunkie
“what the hell does anyone’s looks have any place in what should be a reasoned debate?”
Very true. I don’t doubt that I’d rate higher than Stephen Hawking on hotornot.com, but I wouldn’t want to debatee him on astrophysics!