Emma Boudreau
2 min readOct 11, 2022

--

So my argument is

" I don't want my children to be incenerated by the sun or get skin cancer every 5 years" and your counter is you don't want to walk 25 miles away from work? Why do you live 25 miles away from work? Knowing that you would have to expend a natural resource.

This is precisely my point -- you treat petroleum like there is just oil everywhere and there always will be.

It's not too hard to bike 25 miles, anyway.

Part of the point though is just to be MORE mindful, it's not necessarily as draconian as you make it out to be. In my example I even say " instead of driving down the street to the gas station, maybe walk this trip."

For example, Japan has an auto displacement tax where they tax citizens based on the displacement of their vehicle. This provides incentive for smaller motors like we often see coming out of japanese vehicles.

If you're driving 25 miles to and from work everyday, there is a phenominal difference between driving a vehicle that gets 13 mpg and one that gets 35. Driving your daily commute in a truck would consume about 2 gallons both ways.

The problem is it doesn't matter how ridiculous this argument is. This is a matter of ecological crisis. You act like the idea of less people driving is completely absurd but it's only been like this for like 70 years. In those 70 years the global temperatures have skyrocketed and so has the price of gas.

What are you honestly going to do when they are selling the last drop of gas for 1.5 billion dollars and the global market implodes because we are still reliant on it?

--

--

Emma Boudreau
Emma Boudreau

Written by Emma Boudreau

i am a computer nerd. I love art, programming, and hiking. https://github.com/emmaccode

Responses (3)