Dark Green or Bright Green?

Here's a distinction I'd made, but not with such clear labels:

"How shall we save the world? ... We must renounce all the dirty
pleasures of modern life. .... Alex Steffen and the other contributors
to worldchanging.com - and this big book which the website has spawned
- describe that puritanical branch of ecological thought as "dark
green" and, in opposition, describe themselves as "bright green". Dark
greens demand that you dismantle your car and get a bike instead;
bright greens recommend you upgrade to a Toyota Prius. Dark greens say
the world is already overpopulated; bright greens suggest that with
more efficient farming, we could feed another few billion."

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/s...035002,00.html

The distinction is a little loaded: "dark" sounds a bit gloomy, and
"bright" could be intended to imply intelligence. And, like most
such distinctions, most of us are somewhere in the middle. [I'm mostly
biking, walking, and taking public transport, but we own a Prius so
the rest of the family isn't forcibly made car-free].

But it's a good distinction in tht it reflects whether one is
fundamentally optimistic or pessimistic about the application of
technology versus the application of simplicity.

"Bob Dole" wrote in message
ps.com...
Here's a distinction I'd made, but not with such clear labels:

"How shall we save the world? ... We must renounce all the dirty
pleasures of modern life. .... Alex Steffen and the other contributors
to worldchanging.com - and this big book which the website has spawned
- describe that puritanical branch of ecological thought as "dark
green" and, in opposition, describe themselves as "bright green". Dark
greens demand that you dismantle your car and get a bike instead;
bright greens recommend you upgrade to a Toyota Prius. Dark greens say
the world is already overpopulated; bright greens suggest that with
more efficient farming, we could feed another few billion."

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/s...035002,00.html

The distinction is a little loaded: "dark" sounds a bit gloomy, and
"bright" could be intended to imply intelligence. And, like most
such distinctions, most of us are somewhere in the middle. [I'm mostly
biking, walking, and taking public transport, but we own a Prius so
the rest of the family isn't forcibly made car-free].

But it's a good distinction in tht it reflects whether one is
fundamentally optimistic or pessimistic about the application of
technology versus the application of simplicity.


So if you are contributing the most to the environment you are stupid and
they are bright.
Otherwise it would be light or lime green not bright. Talk about
oversimplifying. Bright green meaning smarter is the opposite then, too
simple and too stupid. I would just say lazy or not. Selfish and not.
compassionate and not. environmentalist and not.

On Mar 22, 12:40 pm, "Bob Dole" wrote:
Here's a distinction I'd made, but not with such clear labels:

"How shall we save the world? ... We must renounce all the dirty
pleasures of modern life. .... Alex Steffen and the other contributors
to worldchanging.com - and this big book which the website has spawned
- describe that puritanical branch of ecological thought as "dark
green" and, in opposition, describe themselves as "bright green". Dark
greens demand that you dismantle your car and get a bike instead;
bright greens recommend you upgrade to a Toyota Prius.

Getting a Toyota Prius is not an upgrade. It takes energy and carbon
emissions to manufacture. Might as well get a '92 Corolla, make sure
it's tuned up with firm tires, and drive as little as possible. The
Prius is usually unnecessary tokenism. It's a nice enough car if you
drive a lot in the city and have the cash in hand. It's pointless if
you do a lot of interstate miles.

There's a lot of stuff you can do to reduce your carbon footprint. Buy
green power, eat vegetarian (not that I chose to), buy local food,
etc. I do agree that the people that think they're saving the planet
by selling the car, wearing hemp armbands, and having whitey dreads to
go with their attitudes and odor are highly annoying. I'd slap them
with a mackerel, but I never seem to have one handy.

On Mar 22, 4:03 pm, Curtis L. Russell wrote:
On 22 Mar 2007 12:25:02 -0700, "landotter"
wrote:

It's pointless if
you do a lot of interstate miles.

What bull. So I get 40 mpg on the Interstate in a car with the usable
interior space of my previous Saab 9-5, instead of the 45 mpg I get in
mixed use. The Saab was considered to be pretty good on the Interstate
when it got 28-30 mpg. The lowest I have ever gotten with the Prius
was 38 mpg - on the Interstate with a severe wind.

So, when you add in the extra energy in manufacture and battery
disposal, it's not stellar at all. A Jetta diesel can get such
mileage, hell even my old Japanese hatch got 45mpg. Most medium sized
passenger diesels, which are surprisingly clean out the tail pipe, in
Europe get in the 50s. The Prius's supposed "economy" is pretty funny
when you show it to people overseas.

On 22 Mar 2007 12:25:02 -0700, "landotter"
wrote:

It's pointless if
you do a lot of interstate miles.

What bull. So I get 40 mpg on the Interstate in a car with the usable
interior space of my previous Saab 9-5, instead of the 45 mpg I get in
mixed use. The Saab was considered to be pretty good on the Interstate
when it got 28-30 mpg. The lowest I have ever gotten with the Prius
was 38 mpg - on the Interstate with a severe wind.

The Prius isn't just the hybrid, it is also a very efficient shape for
its size - to the point that Toyota is really hesitant to sell add-ons
that get into the wind stream. Check out a Toyota dealer and a Prius
owner could feel a bit left out in the accessory department.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

landotter wrote:
On Mar 22, 4:03 pm, Curtis L. Russell wrote:
On 22 Mar 2007 12:25:02 -0700, "landotter"
wrote:

It's pointless if
you do a lot of interstate miles.
What bull. So I get 40 mpg on the Interstate in a car with the usable
interior space of my previous Saab 9-5, instead of the 45 mpg I get in
mixed use. The Saab was considered to be pretty good on the Interstate
when it got 28-30 mpg. The lowest I have ever gotten with the Prius
was 38 mpg - on the Interstate with a severe wind.

So, when you add in the extra energy in manufacture and battery
disposal, it's not stellar at all. A Jetta diesel can get such
mileage, hell even my old Japanese hatch got 45mpg. Most medium sized
passenger diesels, which are surprisingly clean out the tail pipe, in
Europe get in the 50s. The Prius's supposed "economy" is pretty funny
when you show it to people overseas.



I have to wonder here why a Prius is so bragged about if it only gets 40
MPG on the interstate. That should be more like 50 MPG. I have owned 5
Renaults (r-8, r-10) of 1960's vintage that got a minimum of 40-45 MPG
highway and about 35-40 MPG around town. Nice basic point 'A' to 'B'
vehicles, weighed about 1,500 pounds and were actually a bit of fun to
drive. My absolute peak came on day when I decided to draft box semis on
the highway and that trip I managed to pull 54 MPG out of the car.
My 1961 Rambler with a high tech flathead 6 got 38 MPG at 65 MPH.
I don't get why manufacturers can't get a minimum of about 35 MPG for
most cars and maybe 27-28 or so for SUV's. Maybe all the smog stuff is
messing up the mileage, as I know it did in the early 70's. No power and
no mileage. Bad decade for cars, and oil prices.
Bill Baka

at bull. SOn Mar 22, 4:03 pm, Curtis L. Russell cur...@md-
bicycling.org wrote:

The lowest I have ever gotten with the Prius
was 38 mpg - on the Interstate with a severe wind.

My Passat diesel and my Golf diesel do better with roof racks to boot
g...

On 22 Mar 2007 13:29:55 -0700, "landotter"
wrote:

The Prius's supposed "economy" is pretty funny
when you show it to people overseas.

There is nothing wrong with the economy at all. It has plenty of room
and can carry 4 people at 45 mpg with decent trunk space. If you want
to buy the Insight, go for it. No one said the Prius was the leader in
gas economy.

OTOH, no one is laughing at it either. What it has over the diesels
is a much cleaner total package. Toyota is commited to taking care of
the batteries and they have a better record than many other
manufacturers in that area. We'll see in the next few years when the
first Priuses start exchanging batteries.

BTW, are you under the impression that the Prius is a U.S. car? What's
this 'people overseas' crap - you mean the Japanese showing it to
Europeans? That would be were it was named the most 'Eco-Friendly
Vehicle in Europe' and has generally met all sales targets. Who are
these people that are doing all the laughing - Toyota dealers on the
way to the bank?

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

"Bob Dole" wrote in message
ps.com...
Here's a distinction I'd made, but not with such clear labels:

"How shall we save the world? ... We must renounce all the dirty
pleasures of modern life. .... Alex Steffen and the other contributors
to worldchanging.com - and this big book which the website has spawned
- describe that puritanical branch of ecological thought as "dark
green" and, in opposition, describe themselves as "bright green". Dark
greens demand that you dismantle your car and get a bike instead;
bright greens recommend you upgrade to a Toyota Prius. Dark greens say
the world is already overpopulated; bright greens suggest that with
more efficient farming, we could feed another few billion."

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/s...035002,00.html

The distinction is a little loaded: "dark" sounds a bit gloomy, and
"bright" could be intended to imply intelligence. And, like most
such distinctions, most of us are somewhere in the middle. [I'm mostly
biking, walking, and taking public transport, but we own a Prius so
the rest of the family isn't forcibly made car-free].

But it's a good distinction in tht it reflects whether one is
fundamentally optimistic or pessimistic about the application of
technology versus the application of simplicity.

I'll just stay with my Ford Truck, four cylinder, standard shift, gets
25-28mpg, can haul 4-5 bikes & 2 people.
It fits my needs perfectly, especially until Al Gore and Robert Kennedy jr,
stop flying around in private jets preaching "Green" They don't make me
feel any guilt at all.

landotter wrote:
people that think they're saving the planet
are highly annoying. I'd slap them
with a mackerel, but I never seem to have one handy.

That's because of over-fishing.