The Herald reports:
And as for the criticism that he did not drive, “that is simply a statement of fact.”
Aged 16, Mr Shaw decided he would not learn to drive for environmental reasons. He has maintained that stance while living in Wellington, Brussels, and London.
Let’s think about this. James hasn’t decided not to use cars, just not to drive himself. This is like someone saying they won’t cook a meat meal, but they will eat it.
A stance of refusing to drive, on environmental grounds, only makes sense if you refuse to travel by car at all. Does James ever travel by taxi? Does he ever get in a car with a friend? Does he refuse to travel by plane? (plane travel creates more greenhouse gas emissions than car travel – around 80% more)?
Refusing to ever travel by car or plane would be a principled stance. But refusing to learn to drive yourself but allowing others to drive you is not principled. It’s, well a bit weird to be honest.