|
I can't see where any of those ideas would hurt the racing or attendance. In fact, I'm guessing that some sensible "greening" would get positive reactions all around.
First, when the enviro-Leftists decide they can make points among the general public by shining a spotlight on the extravagant use of petroleum at motorsport events, we may be popularly and legislatively forced to adopt far more onerous changes than those you suggest. But if the various sanctioning bodies decide soon to be proactive, to adopt "green" measures of our own choosing, the racing community will be perceived as "getting it," as responsible citizens instead of just hell-raisers and noise-makers who have never grown up (which we are, but let's not confirm it!). In other words, take a little bad medicine now to avoid amputation later. We have lost too many tracks already.
But I've made that point before, so here's the new idea: I think that fans, sponsors, and racers will actually get into the idea of "greening," and even brag about it. Sure, we tend to be somewhat red-necked and scornful of such things as emissions controls on cars, mufflers on dirt-bikes, and similarly obnoxious civilizing mandates handed down by latte-sipping do-gooders who have never had grease under their nails. But even red-necks read the paper. We know we are spending the nation's treasure sending petro-dollars to the Mideast, and going into terrible debt to fight wars in the Mideast, largely about oil. We know our soldiers don't get weekends off to race, and are just hoping to survive another tour intact so that they can eventually come home.
DV, I submit that if your "greening" measures and others were put to the racing community in the above terms, they would be a surprisingly easy sell.
|