Quote:
Originally Posted by SentraSE-R
I'm about to close the book on my P&G chapter. I built and managed legal cases for a living. IMO, we have a preponderance of evidence proving EOC P&G pollutes the air we breath. Ergo, I'm not going to do it, just as I don't litter and I don't steal.
|
That's your choice, but there are two easy objections to the logic of this conclusion. For one, it's not as if the testing above--useful as it is--is beyond reasonable objection. Nor is the effor to indify a balanced hypermile/CAT lit technique complete yet. Its by no means clear yet where a balance would be between a lit CAT and fuel economy. Second, the analogies to litter and stealing are not valid. Litter is much more easily demonstrated as a simple analytical fact. You either do it or you don't. You can't balance non-litter with litter as the projected driving technique hypermile/CAT would balance fuel production pollution against fuel burning pollution. A better analogy would be to reducing your plastics usage, where you will have to use plastics and you will have to make judgements about where to participate in the production/pollution stream much like the decision between fuel economy or emissions. The stealing is also not really fair, because it is a normative and moral imperative, not a comparable technological/technique problem. There are competing claims as to whether fuel economy or emissions is the greater imperative. You have an opinion as to which is correct but IMHO it seems a bit strident to imply other opinions would result in actions akin to the mortal sin of stealing.
Anyway, thanks for this great thread. It has been informative and useful.
Regards,
james