Man Bites Blog

There’s an attitude that seeps into writing from environmentalists that they’d be advised to avoid.  And that is seeing less driving as an end in itself.  Here’s and example from Matt Yglesias.

Maybe, on balance, it’s a good thing that some people are forgoing long car trips during this holiday weekend.  But think about what that means — it means grandchildren aren’t seeing their grandparents, friends aren’t getting together, people are stuck in their homes.  I don’t think those are good things.

There seems to be this notion from urban transit users like Yglesias and Megan McArdle that people only drive in order to fill their SUV’s with plastic stuff they don’t need, and so “drive less” does not entail any real sacrifice.  But that’s not true.  For us, “driving less” might mean my kids miss out on a family reunion, or I miss my sister’s high school graduation.  Is that something to celbrate?

I get their point — it’s not that they don’t want me to attend my sister’s graduation; it’s that what I pay to do so does not account for its impact.  I get that.

If “driving less” means using transit instead of my car, that’s a little better, but still not great, since doing so would add an hour to my commute time each day, which is time I would not get to spend with my wife and children.  Again, is that a good thing?

Now, maybe in the long run, if travel is expensive, people will have a higher value of living close to loved ones they want to visit regularly.  But that isn’t going to happen overnight, no matter what happens to gas prices.   And if people are limited in what jobs they can take and where they can go on vacation, that is a real impact on liberty.  It may be necessary,  but it’s not something to celebrate.

NBC turning the lights off in the studio during the halftime and postgame shows during last night’s game is quite possibly the stupidest stunt I have ever seen.

If you didn’t catch it, they went through the ususal halftime in the dark while they all (including lefty Keith Olbermann) chuckled about how silly it was for them to be doing a TV broadcast from a darkened studio, and how this was a one-week only thing. Costas noted some statistic that by doing this, they were saving enough energy to power a typical household for a month. (I don’t remember the exact figure and can’t find it now)

This is like “raising awareness” about obesity by having John Madden fast for a day, complaining about his hunger the entire time.

Let’s consider the lessons being sent here, shall we?

• Conservation requires draconian non-susatainable measures.
• Your impact is negligible

Sorry, knowing that our household’s entire energy consumption for a month doesn’t add up to what it takes to ensure we see every one of Chris Collinsworth’s pores just during one week’s halftiume and postgame shows isn’t going to get me to jump out of the shower quicker to save the planet.

And is NBC considering any other actions to reduce the consumption? I mean, them having to play an extra game every week at night so that NBC has an exclusive time slot must add to consumption, right? Have they considered forgoing halftime and postgame studio shows and letting Michaels & Madden handle it? Do they really need five people in the studio for a ten minute halftime show?

Yes, they can’t possibly cut back there. But I better not linger too long in the shower. Right.

Then they interview Matt Lauer from the North Pole.

Now. The “hypocrisy” angle of environmentalists gets overblown. You have to spend money to make money, and you need to travel and use technology in order to spread the environmental gospel. I get that.

So let’s assume that sending Matt Lauer and a production crew to the North Pole, and Ann Currie and another production crew to Antarctica is a net gain for the environment because they raise our “awareness,” and we all start biking to work.

Even if that’s the case, the involvement of Lauer is a reminder of this:

For what has become one of Today’s trademark series for the past six years, Lauer has broadcast live from remote locations around the world for the “Where in the World is Matt Lauer” annual trip. His trips have taken him to over 25 different locations, logging over 146,000 miles. In the spring of 1998, Lauer reported from the Great Pyramids in Egypt, the Grand Canal in Venice, the Parthenon in Athens, the Taj Mahal in India and the Sydney Opera House in Australia. In 1999, his week-long adventure took him to Mount Everest, aboard the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt stationed in the Adriatic Sea, to the Coliseum in Rome and to the Great Wall of China. In 2000 he covered more than 39,000 miles, stopping at the Kilauea volcano in Hilo, Hawaii, Bilbao, Spain, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, Pisa and Florence in Italy and Iceland. For the 2001 trip, his stops included Machu Pichu, Peru, an oil rig off the coast of Scotland, Paris, Bangkok and Mykonos, Greece. 2002 found Lauer in Rio, Scotland, an escape in the Amazon, Marrakech/Rose City, the temples of Angkor Wat and jet-setting in Monaco. Most recently, in 2004, he reported from a Mombo Camp in Botswana, on the alps of Zermatt, Switzerland, the Red Square in Moscow, Hong Kong and Necker Island: Sir Richard Branson’s private island.

For the last several years, NBC has sent Matt Lauer and a production crew on a trip to five places scattered around the globe pretty muich for the hell (pun intended) of it. You think that might be a bigger deal than my double bagging? Is NBC cancelling this year’s Matt Lauer trip? Not bloody likely.

I know, I know. None of this changes the ecological reality, and if this causes some change in behavior, it’ll all be worth it. But there’s still something wrong with someone sitting at a feast to lecture me that I shouldn’t be eating my cracker.