There's more than one side to an argument (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

There's more than one side to an argument

1:27pm Friday 9th January 2009

• Print
• Email
• Comments(0)

What is good news for some people is bad news for others and I bet the likes of Jeremy Clarkson and other petrolheads must have been spitting spark plugs at two items of recent motoring news.

The first is that drivers are to be encouraged to fit their cars with speed limiters while the other is that car sales have fallen dramatically.

The environmentalists among the population will have been cheering the news to the rafters and stories about the two issues have ranged the two camps against each other - keen drivers complained that the former will be a draconian limit to civil liberties while the latter is a disaster for the British economy and motor manufacturers, parts suppliers and retailers need to be bailed out by the Government.

In the green corner, the opportunities given by a new technology to cut carbon emissions and the option presented by the economic downturn to redirect some of our manufacturing sector towards renewables was welcomed.

The national media often portray these kind of issues as a battle between opposing camps with the public led to believe they are black and white issues. Broadcasters and publishers love this adversarial kind of debate because they think their audience will take more interest in them but what is the point of attracting more viewers, listeners and readers if what they see, hear or read is misrepresented?

It only encourages people to take up those positions themselves instead of keeping an open mind and listening to all the facts and arguments before they make their mind up.

Personally I think speed limiters would be a good idea as they would help motorists drive slower and more smoothly and thus save petrol, reduce their environmental impact and probably reduce accidents and save lives. After all, who really needs to speed?

As to the slump in car sales, it is only to the level last seen in 1992. That’s hardly calamitous and, even if it does fall further, it will - alas - pick up again quite quickly when the public have more money to spend. Now is the time to ask whether everyone in the UK really needs their own, individual car and must they be replaced so frequently?

It was good to hear a debate on the radio this week about new more energy-efficient light bulbs and their disadvantages - actual and imagined. Instead of the representatives for the fors and antis become entrenched in their views, they recognised each other’s valid positions and united in calling for more information and better products to solve the problems.

Some compact fluorescent bulbs can cause migraines because of their flicker, take a little while to get to full illumination, need to be disposed of properly and most can’t be used with dimmer switches. As we move to phasing out the old filament bulbs, these issues need to be addressed if people are to embrace the new ways of thinking and do their utmost to help save our present way of life.

This is the kind of debate we will need in this country if we are to make progress on limiting climate change. We’re not going to agree on everything so the sooner proper discussions are held on where, for example, wind turbines can be installed then the sooner antagonistic - and often vitriolic - arguments can be defused.

GREEN OR OBSCENE? The mileage counter

Miles by car: -806

Miles being driven: -34

Miles by train: +374

Miles on foot: +87

Miles by bike: +0

Miles by bus: +5

Miles by ferry: +0

Total: -374 (running total: -1915)