The Loma Prietan
February 2002
Letters To The Editor
Praise for Electric Vehicles
Dear Editor:
Electric cars work! My Solectria Force has been working all over the Bay Area for two years and 13,000 miles. Hybrids work, too, and Dale Mead's article (Dec. Loma Prietan) pointed out some of their green benefits for those who need a car with a longer range. However I take exception with Dale's claim, "electric cars simply don't work." Both Sierra Club policy and common sense tell us that the world needs more hybrid cars and more electric cars (EVs). Both have a role in cleaning our air. Even with a limited range (although some EV's go 300+ miles), electric cars fill an important and surprisingly large niche for those who make frequent short trips. For two- or three-car families, an electric car makes an ideal second car.
The Sierra Club's strategy for cleaner transportation calls for immediate small improvements, such as higher fuel standards; medium steps such as the promotion of hybrids through the award the Club gave Honda for its hybrid Insight; and big steps such as the conversion to more electric zero-emission vehicles. Even when including the pollution from electricity generation, electric cars still produce less pollution than hybrids by more than an order of magnitude. For those interested in the details, the Union of Concerned Scientists has some great reports detailing how and why EVs are so much cleaner than even hybrids and other low-emission vehicles.
Here's to more more hybrids and more EV's. See you on the road.
Peter Belden
Palo Alto
Merits for "Meandering"
Dear Editor:
The "Meandering" column in the Loma Prietan pages delights me, issue after issue (in more than one sense of the word).
I appreciate not just the newsworthiness of John Maybury's paragraphs but their words-worthiness, as well. Thanks for brightening and enlightening my reading life!
Trish Kaspar
Against "Human-Free Habitat"
In his letter to the December Loma Prietan, Dr. Michael Vandeman calls for a broad initiative to set aside "…land in every area that is off-limits to humans." I believe that this initiative is ill-advised on philosophical, political and practical grounds, and is incompatible with the Sierra Club charter.
The proposal to preserve wilderness uncontaminated by human presence reflects a dualistic view of man and nature, a view that draws on several religious traditions but is inconsistent with a scientific view of the world. I am an animal. My species has lived on the Earth for the past half million years and on this continent for at least 13,000 years. The same Ice Age glaciers that displaced many species displaced mine as well. I am not an interloper in the wilderness. I belong here.
Eliminating all human presence in the wilderness may assuage some ontological guilt, but it is unlikely to benefit wilderness ecosystems substantially. Even if it were possible to exclude humans from an area without patrolling by human rangers, it would be impossible to exclude human influences, especially the many plant and animal species that have accompanied us in our migrations and that we are now powerless to eradicate from their new habitats. Species will continue to be driven into extinction, even in our absence.
In extraordinary situations, we may choose to close certain areas to human visitation in an attempt to protect endangered species that are particularly sensitive to disturbance. The Sierra Bighorn Sheep project is a reasonable example of such an attempt. Even this project appears to be failing, though, in spite of heroic efforts. And it is not at all clear that humans are to blame.
If wilderness is to be protected by public policy, the public needs to know about it and value it. Commitment and effort from outdoor enthusiasts has been central to the history of the environmental movement and the Sierra Club. According to its charter, the Club's purpose is "to explore, enjoy and protect the wild places of the Earth…" The first two verbs of that statement, endangered as they are, deserve our protection.
Bob Carney
Palo Alto