But honestly, if there's one thing I love more than blogging, it's when people blog about me and don't even tell me! Especially when somebody challenges me to do something! How unfair is that?
Recently, on his blog, a scientist named Bruno
had a bone to pick about the Idle-Free Taipei campaign. While criticizing the relatively small-scale effort to reduce pollution, Bruno succeeds in attacking my own personal character by suggesting that I only started Idle-Free Taipei to make me feel good about myself.
In his post, Bruno responds to my letter to the Taipei Times. Along with 3 others letters, Bruno sets out to roast the authors' opinions and "strike-out" the Taipei Times (There was some confusion on Bruno's part with the baseball reference; He counted each letter as a "strike" against the Taipei Times, then said the Taipei times "struck out four times already!" Needing three strikes to record a strike out (according MLB rules), Bruno would have needed to respond to a total of twelve letters, not four, to achieve the four strike outs that he claims).
Check out this umpire's reaction after reading Bruno's latest blog post (Taipei Times is #19):
Now, I don't claim to be able to predict anything. Bruno, apparently, does. In another letter, Bruno claims that someone's predictions for the year 2100 are "laughable" and called for evidence to support it. To that I ask, which is more laughable? Predicting something 89 years in advance, or saying somebody's 89-year-in-advance-prediction is off-base? I highly doubt that at any point in history anybody was able to predict accurately 89 years into the future, but I'm sure history was full of Brunos that were there to laugh at the attempts.
The reason I mention Bruno's unique view on the future is because he opens his critique of my letter by saying that the efforts by Idle-Free Taipei "will not make any appreciable difference to either local air pollution or global warming."
You really need to have a set of brass balls to say anything "will" or "won't" have an impact on the future. In all four "strikes" on Bruno's blog, he writes with such certainty about the future that I found myself wondering if instead of a brain, there's actually an icosahedron floating around in there with the answers to all of life's questions just one shake away.
By the way, Bruno, your prediction is already wrong! I have been behind a scooter that shut off the engine, and by my definition, that is "appreciable." Bruno was very quick to point out (in a mocking manner) that people applauded Idle-Free Taipei. Again, I don't see how changing the habits of hundreds or thousands of people is not an "appreciable difference."
Furthermore, there is some misunderstanding about Idle-Free Taipei. We don't think that every time we are refreezing icebergs, but I also disagree that what we do is "small and insignificant." We are hoping for two things:
1. The "idle-free" concept spreads like a virus. If people who do this become the majority, Taipei City will be saving thousands and thousands of liters of fuel every day. How is this not an "appreciable difference?" What if other cities, regions, countries all do this? At what point does it show up on Bruno's radar?
2. In conjunction with #1, there is a chance that if people realize how wasteful and disgusting scooters really are, this mindset can then be applied to other areas of their lives where they might then be more conscious of their water and electricity usage.
....actually, forget it. I had this whole response planned out in my head, just for Bruno. It's not worth continuing it though, because the way I see it, when it comes to changing the world, there are three kinds of people:
The first kind are "fuck it" people. I can afford fuel for my SUV. I won't be around in 100 years. The world is already so fucked, what's the point in trying to save it?
The second kind are "not enough" people, which is where I'd put Bruno. These people care about the environment, but on a large scale only. The world obviously has many problems, but any solution that doesn't result in the end of global warming is not worth it (i.e. Idle-Free Taipei). Many "not enough" people end up as "fuck it" people because they don't see the significance in something small.
The third kind are "here and now" people, which is where I'd like to classify myself. I understand the world is fucked. I also understand that Idle-Free isn't patching up the ozone as we speak. However, I do see the power of small things making a big difference. Right here and right now, the changes that the "not enough" people propose are generally idealistic and impractical. Of course we need to get rid of cars, change the traffic system, find other sources of energy, etc. But that didn't happen yesterday, and as of October 17, 2011, 9:53 PM, it didn't happen again today. I'm not saying it won't happen tomorrow, but while we're waiting for these "not enough" miracles to happen, I hope that I can do more "here and now" and inspire more "fuck it" people to become "here and now" people.
I don't disagree with anything that Bruno said about his proposals to change the world (electric cars, the world running entirely on solar, geothermal, and tidal energy, etc). What I disagree with is the manner in which Bruno presents his ideas by trashing mine and Idle-Free Taipei's efforts.
[For more criticism of me and Idle-Free Taipei, this link takes you to the blog of Bruno's
2 comments:
Bruno Walther is entirely focused on the larger context of climate change and the implications he thinks that has for the ecological premises we take for granted. He is not concerned with the mere air quality of Taipei City - much though I agree with you that this is a problem worth tackling (but only by voluntary means).
I understand his point of view, and, apart from his numbers cock-up, I think you are playing him too tight here.
That being said, I am no friend of his. Not because he is a "not enough" person, or a "fuck it" person, but because the political premises and instincts are fascist.
Idle-Free Taipei, as a voluntary attempt to tackle the problem of air quality, is commendable. But it is quite unnecessary to conflate this with CO2 emissions and the broader issue of climate change.
This badly written comment hardly deserves my time, especially since you allow the liar and hatemonger Michael Fagan to post on your blog. That immediately disqualifies you from any serious discussion.
Bruno Walther
Post a Comment