AndyH said:Assaf, Could you amplify this view of the 'environmental movement' a bit please? I'd like to understand your view on this. Thanks!Assaf said:More generally, if the environmental movement cannot learn to walk and chew gum at the same time, then we are all doomed anyway. It is possible to work on transit, cycling and walkability infrastructure, and simultaneously work on moving motorized transport from Oil to electric - without one arm trying to slash the other off.
Andy, sorry I thought it was fairly straightforward, but perhaps my wording was unclear.
"Walk and chew gum" described the need to move to a less-driving, more transit/cycling/walkability culture ("walk"), and the need to move motor-vehicle technology from oil to electric (or something else non-fossil; electric seems by far the most viable alternative right now). That' the "chew gum" part.
There is an increasingly vocal voice among environmentalists, claiming that the two tasks are contradictory and even mutually exclusive, and therefore promoting an anti-EV stance. I gave Ozzie Zehner as the most high-profile recent example for this. He even went as far as to insinuate that the Union of Concerned Scientists are auto-industry shills, because their reports show EVs as beneficial.
As to "environmental movement", I mean in the broad sense: anyone caring enough to do something about the environment - rather than some closed group with central control, etc.
Hope this clarifies...