I think it’s missing something.  Where’s Jonah when you need him?

Indeed, given the antics of musical car horns, whistle tips, and large mufflers, the idea of artificial noise being installed in hybrids is not an appealing one.

But there does seem to be a genuine problem here, and Radio Netherlands Worldwide’s rather endearing Earthbeat program brought in Lawrence Rosenblum – a perceptional psychologist from the University of California Riverside to talk about it.

He argued that pedestrians are being hit by hybrid cars in greater numbers than other cars, because they don’t have car noise to warn them of approaching danger.  He argued in very reasonable terms for hybrids to make an artificial sound when they are traveling at less than 20 miles per hour.  This is the speed at which hybrids are almost silent, and also a common speed in pedestrian zones.

Lotus has been looking at installing sound devices in hybrids. Image from Lotus, via Treehugger.

As cars travel faster, sounds associated with wind resistance and tyre movement start to take over.  He noted that the sound would help the blind, but also be a much more subtle cue for people with full sight.

It’s a bit annoying to think that we have to artificially make things more noisy, but not such a big deal in the scheme of things, and surely a debate worth having.

Enter Paul Scott from Plug-In America…

His main objection to the idea was that it would drive him “crazy”, but he then carried on with some real craziness…

He resorted to saying the way to save peoples’ lives is to not burn petrol and diesel.  Not a very productive contribution to a clear question of whether to put a noise into a car to reduce pedestrian deaths and injuries.

When he eventually conceded that such an artificial noise could save lives, he said that it would be the lives of people who step out into traffic without looking, and that in this age of ipods, people should take personal responsibility.

He then started talking about the Darwin awards.

If this sort of cold dismissiveness came from a captain of industry it would be rightly slammed.  Why do people who are generally on the right side of the environmental debate think it’s ok to say things like this?

It’s a view which is self-righteous and unthoughtful and it’s also appalling advocacy.

The environmental movement has far too much of these things already.

At least he was wearing a helmet.

My cab driver had his own stories about cyclists and the strong view that “they’re all jerks, and should be licensed like everyone else”.  He then outlined some of the warcraft he uses to deal with the bicycling plague.

But no sooner had this calmed down, than an even more vigorous diatribe came – and this one was rather more interesting.  The cabbie was outraged at the latest corporate skulduggery from James Hardie and its reluctant administration of victims compensation.

To me this was very encouraging.

Surely if people understand corporate skulduggery, then they can understand the corporate paw prints which are all over climate change.  Surely if people can understand the evil of corporate profits being put before the futures of the familes of asbestos victims, they can understand the evil of corporate profits being put before their own children’s future.

Why then did my cab driver see cyclists and their environmental ideals as almost as much an enemy as the board of James Hardie?

Why, in an age when corporations lose other PR battles so spectacularly, do they perform so well on climate change?  Perhaps if the green lobby spent a little less time on the small things like cyclist/motorist sectarian violence, we’d have a better shot at the real miscreants?

Discuss.

The news that the ETS fable has remarkable parrallels in SuperTed and the Stolen Rocket Ship is somewhat newer.

Watch the episode, and imagine that the rocket ship is climate change policy.  Note the role of Ian MacFarlane.  Do not collect a prize for figuring out who plays Skeleton or Texas Pete’s other fat offsider.  Watch as the rocket ship spirals out of control.  Note how much more comfortable Skeleton becomes when he ends up in a skin-tight space suit.  Enjoy the exchange of;

Get off my legs skeleton, you’re pulling down my pants!

But I’ve got nothing else to hold on to.

Imagine the same exchange taking place in the shadow cabinet room.

If only the name of ‘SuperKev’ was actually deserved when it comes to climate change policy…

The day was the 22nd of June 2005, the place was the top floor of the Shangri-La hotel in Sydney, and the highlight of Minister Nori’s life was the announcement that Emirates Airlines would build an ‘eco-lodge’ in the middle of national parks in the Blue Mountains.

Emirates had summonsed Sydney’s media to hear about plans to, in the words of the company chairman, HH Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed Al-Maktoum,

“take this beautiful, but sadly distressed rural farming site and turn it into a sanctuary to further showcase Australia to the world.”

Since then, the costs have blown out from $50 million to $125 million, there has been a delay of two years, local environment groups have complained, green politicians have made some feeble noises, the state government gave Emirates an award for the project even though the development hadn’t been approved, and the certification process has been shoved along under the rather opaque Part 3A of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

Along the way a chopper pad has been built in the middle of a national park area, so that guests can get straight down to the work of saving the planet, one Sodashi Thermal Infusing Facial at a time.

Would you trust this man with your UNESCO-listed national parks? Emirates' Joost Heymeijer receives a Certificate of Recognition from the Hon Sandra Nori. Nevermind that the resort hadn't yet been approved, let alone bought or built.

But this is not a post about the rather tired facts of poor governmental transparency, fraudulent environmental credentials, or the cruel ironies of an airline building an ‘eco-resort’ for predominantly overseas tourists who will fly here in business class, private jets and helicopters.

The biggest problem is the press hoopla which the resort has attracted and the amount of kudos which is given for the environmental credentials.

Let’s not forget that the resort is in a highly sensitive area of national park – regenerating the area and preventing sewerage flow into local streams should be a basic entry requirement, not a cause for praise.

Let’s also note that prices per night start at $1950, and go up to $5500.  If this is really the best Australia has to offer in ‘eco-tourism’ it leaves little hope for mere mortals – particularly ones who vote Labor.

At the press conference in 2005 I asked Sandra Nori whether this model was really the ‘future of environmental tourism’ if no-one on anything below an executive level salary could stay there?  Surely for the resort to be a real career highlight and environmental boon, it would need to be more affordable and accessible and not require more staff than guests to run it?

The answer began with “I don’t understand your question” and continued with a recap of the environmental PR.

The Emirates resort’s green credentials could be a lot worse.  But the marketing of the resort and the way the press have bought it gives a clear message – that sustainable holidays cost a month’s average wage per night.  In the meantime, it seems news of genuinely interesting and affordable environmentally sound building practices will continue to be presented as little more than an oddity.