From I-85 to Victoria Station, it’s a small world

As I was buzzing to work this morning, just past the I-85/I-77 junction, I was listening to Renee Montagne reporting from downtown London for the “Climate Connections” series on Morning Edition by NPR. Renee was interviewing a British auto expert, explaining how his diesel car gets drastically increased mileage. He also checked prices at his local “petrol” station–where gas retails for the equivalent of $10 per gallon.

Back on I-85, I looked out my window and saw cars, trucks, and SUV’s stacked up as far as the eye could see trying to crawl into uptown Charlotte.

If we’re not seeing a small world, with many interrelated problems, when will that view become clear to us?

Here, for your quick reference, is the link to NPR’s major new climate series:

I would like to hear from you–are you doing anything to alter your fuel consumption or lessen your commuting burden? 



Filed under Uncategorized

3 responses to “From I-85 to Victoria Station, it’s a small world

  1. glassmac

    Hi Roger,

    Like you, I was on the interstate (I-77) this morning and noticed the usual backup in traffic, front and back.

    Rant: Since when did it become normal for Clt to not only know when and where “accidents” would happen but to only wonder at what time they would occur?

    The speed on interstates that has become the norm is pushing 90 mph. Where are the enforcers of laws and speed limits?

    Charlotte Glassman

  2. Mike Miranda

    I have lessoned my fuel consumption. I drive a fuel efficient car that is no bigger than I need. My travel is limited to places I really have to go and I haven’t made a long distance vacation trip since the price of gas started going up a couple of years ago.

    If I could take public transportation to work I would but my job location and working hours make that impossible.

  3. Peter Pasterz

    Roger, I’m glad to see that you understand and appreciate the challenge of global warming as it happens right before our eyes in Charlotte. I wish the news and discussion programming of WFAE would reflect that awareness.

    I wrote you last October when you interviewed Dr. Richard Lindzen, the MIT climatologist and noted “global warming critic” paid by industry to conduct a BIG TOBACCO-like campaign to cast doubt on the world’s consensus, who was here in town under similar circumstances…funded by the John Locke Foundation. I was told that he HAD to be interviewed because he was here and had an opinion. I questioned whether ANYONE with ANYTHING to say should qualify them to appear on the show…or whether they had to be from out of town, sponsored by think tank.

    I also expressed my concern that you are falling into the game plan of the PR effort of the anti-environment “industry” by giving disproportionate voice to their agenda. I was told by Tim Ross that you have done many shows about global warming, and it was your responsibility to provide “balance”. “Balance” is not achieved by giving equal voice to “both” sides when one “side” is overwhelmingly supported by the science that it is occurring. This is actually “imbalance” by giving the minority [and paid] voice equal exposure, implying a “50-50” chance, and casting more doubt than is due.

    Your website describes Mr. Schwartz as a “climatologist”. According to his website

    Mr. Schwartz is vastly less qualified to discuss climatology than Dr. Lindzen. He has a M.S. in Planetary Science, and has worked most of his career on very terrestrial air pollution issues for conservative state governments and think tanks…I don’t see any references to research work on climate change.

    So, I wonder why he is a guest. Lindzen is the most-qualified denier of global warming, and was given a one hour, unchallenged forum for his message. What will we listeners learn from someone who is much less academically-qualified to speak on climate? Apparently Mr. Schwartz meets your “anyone with a voice paid by think tanks can appear” criteria. I cannot pay for a membership knowing that your station’s policy is to provide such disproportional access by paid PR flacks which results in such unbalanced coverage.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s