You don't speak for me, for example.
This may come as a surprise to you, but not all 320 million people in this country drive or even own cars.
I have a very different view than you do as to what constitutes a "realist." I would say that someone who insists that cars are more essential to life than air and water is, um, somewhat unrealistic, given that the car was invented in the late 19th century and didn't actually become a central aspect of the American lifestyle until after the Second World War.
I spend much of my free time in the primary scientific literature; which is, in fact, how I came across this paper, on the day the issue of Environmental Science and Technology was finalized and placed on line.
I would suspect that most of the readers of this journal, or at least the overwhelming majority of them, don't need lectures on what must be thought of as sustainable, because a particular individual claims to speak for all Americans.
The car CULTure is not sustainable. The argument I am making involves, admittedly, on a belief that we should be elevating the value of future generations to at least be equivalent to our own.
This is, I know, "idealistic" but I'd rather be an idealist than someone sitting on his ass and saying everything must remain exactly as it is. There is a word for people who believe nothing should ever change, ever. They're called "conservatives."
I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a conservative.
Have a nice evening.