Abe Murray's Comments

Feld Thoughts : Do Or Do Not. There Is No Try.

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:29:49 +0000

Love the shirt. Love the philosophy. Found some errors in the code (feel free to insert your own favorite success probability): $DO || ! $DO ; try try: command not found if $DO then $FAIL = (RAND() < 0.8)

Feld Thoughts : Unintended Consequences of Hybrid Vehicles

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:11:43 +0000

Thanks for the thoughts Shannon. I recently purchased a car, doing the math (and looking at how much I drive - not much), I didn't feel that a hybrid would pay for itself. Bandaid or not, it's not a solution to my problem. It comes down to where I want to spend my money. I personally get very excited about what's going on in our world to fix the bigger problems. Part of that excitement is over service firms that make a profit off of improving the efficiency of others. So I am not anti-efficiency. I am pro-"I don't know" which seems anathema to many of the hybrid drivers I have bumped into (in my admittedly small sample of the world I have experienced). Therefore I like thoughts such as Brad's above that maybe the world view that is being marketed so heavily about the green cred of hybrids isn't all it might be. Anecdotal or not, it is fun to think different(ly).

Feld Thoughts : Unintended Consequences of Hybrid Vehicles

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:58:25 +0000

I don't think the intent is to promote outright waste. My point was just that efficiency improvements get eaten up in other consumption (but also improve standards of living as a result, so are worth pursuing). I think the bigger point is that if you're trying to save the world, hybrids aren't the way; big solutions to the root causes of the problems are. A hybrid is a bandaid on a symptom. A new energy technology is a solution.

Feld Thoughts : Unintended Consequences of Hybrid Vehicles

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:09:26 +0000

I love common sense (to some, counter-intuitive) thoughts like this. For instance, conservation doesn't solve the larger problems, because when people reduce consumption in one area, they generally shift the savings to another area of, you guessed it, consumption :-).

That's not to say conservation isn't important - if we conserve / become more efficient, we are free to have more, not less, overall. But many promoting a conservation approach are hoping that everybody will somehow use less of everything, and I just don't think that's how humans are designed to work.

What is very cool are plugin hybrids - but that is more an opportunity to arbitrage between cheap electricity from the mains and expensive fuel, and less caring about the mileage of cars. (If I could power my "16mpg SUV" from the mains I would for most local trips, simply because it's cheaper, not because it's saving fuel).

@ Dan, who mentioned that the political opponent and public didn't perceive biking and non-car-owning to be better than hybrid ownership, this is the problem in a nutshell. Humans are humans, they don't care about solving problems, they care about not worrying about problems. For many a hybrid ticks the box (I've dealt with global warming, I bought a hybrid!) and they can get back to life as normal. Biking and walking are harder, so they don't want to hear that as "solutions" they want something they can purchase without inconveniencing the rest of their lives terribly much.