[sustran] Advisory Meeting for Shell Sustainable Energy Initiative

[Obwon]

Brian.Williams at unchs.org wrote:
> 
> Dear Friends,
> 

[...]

  I recall at one point,
> one person reminded the audience that if it wasn't for
> Daimler-Benz's financial contribution, we wouldn't be having
> a dialogue on the global problems in transport and somebody
> then responded, "If it wasn't for Daimler-Benz, we wouldn't
> NEED this dialogue on transport!"  Needless to say, they
> weren't amused.  Of course the meeting was not pure vitriol
> and there were some good discussions of a substantive nature,
> particularly on the role of technology (Daimler-Benz's
> obvious agenda) as well as some other issues.
> 

[...]
 
> Regards to all,
> 
> Brian Williams, Human Settlements Officer


  This situation is not unique to transportation problems alone, it is
oft played out time and again, and it's particularly vexing to those who
try (sometimes even against their own misgivings and implied co. policy,
to hear and/or obtain a rational view of the othersides arguments,
concerns and considerations), the net result is to make the sponsor
cringe.  Make them realize the predicament they are in when they get
back to the office with all the 'see I told you so' ammunition placed in
the hand of their own detractors to which they will now have few if any
answers.

  Chilling thought isn't it?  I find it incredibly disingenious that
after so long in waiting for the automakers to come to the table, that
the 'vitriol' can not be placed on a 'back burner' rather than hurled in
the face of a person who so trustingly offered themselves up as a target
because of their quite possibly genuine interest in achieveing some
understanding.

  It shouldn't take much intellectual effort to realize that the person
present from the other side attends at great personal risk!  So why
isn't the vitriol saved for later instead of just inanely hurled at the
first accessible target?  Probably the deepness of the feelings
generated by being part of a struggle, leads one to the emotional
decision to attempt to tarnish whatever opposites get within reach.

  You have to realize that the Automakers make the cars and they sell
them because it's their business to do so.  And that started long before
anyone could ever surmise that the auto was not the god send it was seen
to be.  Auto dependency too, grew large long before we knew what it
really portended.  So they've had a long headstart, in an era of
blissful ignorance, which allowed them to put all their chips into the
pot.

  Those chips, clearly can not be pulled out 'on the dime'.  Nor would
anyone even suggest that that is a rational thing to do, even while we
rail against the consequences of not doing just that!  It the cognitive
dissonance that aids intelligent thinking.  The knowledge that there is
imperfection on both sides, which serves to quell emotional outbursts
and aids in the search for consensus. Even if the Automakers wanted to
shutdown the plants or even slowdown the building of new ones, they have
legal/fiduciary responsiblities to shareholders that would get in the
way to very awful and dramatic effects.

  We must live in the real world where not everything or everyone is
right!  Where simple solutions aren't the practical ones and can often
do more harm rather than the very good they were supposed to provide.
Time and again we experiment with 'absolute value systems' and time and
again they have not only failed but left in their wake much suffering
and travesty.  No smoke, no drink, no dancing, no singing!  All part of
a horrible world in which oppressors are king!  All while the more
moderate - Less smoking, less drinking, less dancing, less singing, are
available to try and see what everyone else thinks.

  Obwon