> So, to me this piece amounts to the argument that people got around
> without cars at one time, and there was less air pollution (and NO drunk
> drivers), so we'd be better off bringing back the horse and buggy.
> Amusing, but not very persuasive.

Actually, I interpret it to mean that, since we once used a means of
transportation (horse and buggy) that did not burn fossil fuel, obviously
it is possible to devise a means of transportation that does not require
fossil fuel, no more and no less.


> Tresy Kilbourne
> Seattle WA
>
> "The world makes the assumption that the exposure of an error is
> identical with the discovery of the truth--that the error and truth are
> simply opposite. They are nothing of the sort. What the world turns to
> when it has been cured of one error is usually simply another error, and
> maybe one worse than the first one." -- H.L. Mencken