Buying SUVs = supporting terrorists!

[Blown_Injected]

It you wish to really go that far - we only NEED food, clothing, and shelter.

I need a 4X4 to get to the good hunting and camping sites.

[jshore]

*Originally posted by Blown & Injected *
Lots of people with tiny cars get frightened by SUV’s. That is just to bad.

Some people NEED a 4X4. I agree that there are lots of people that buy them that would never go off-road, but it is their business and choice on what they wish to drive.

Your first paragraph and second paragraph here contradict. If you impose costs on me by your choice of vehicle, then it is not simply your business. There is a market externality. You are not paying all the costs associated with your vehicle. [Well, technically speaking, “frightened” may not be enough to constitute an externality but “endangered” would be.]

How much difference do you really believe it would make if we took just the SUV’s that are not used for SUV purposes and replaced them with what you would judge as a more appropriate sized vehicle?

A considerably larger difference in amount of oil used than we would obtain by drilling in ANWR.

[Blown_Injected]

*Originally posted by jshore *
**Your first paragraph and second paragraph here contradict. If you impose costs on me by your choice of vehicle, then it is not simply your business. There is a market externality. You are not paying all the costs associated with your vehicle. [Well, technically speaking, “frightened” may not be enough to constitute an externality but “endangered” would be.]

A considerably larger difference in amount of oil used than we would obtain by drilling in ANWR. **

Contradict??? False! And the costs are my burden not yours.

Well it is fine for you to believe it, but just the difference in the consumption of a small percentage of vehicles on the road just seem to be that great.

[jshore]

Well, I can’t find exactly what I want…i.e., what switching from SUVs to cars (or, equivalently, increasing the mileage standards for SUVs to those of cars), but here is the closest I can get at the moment from Union of Concerned Scientists:

If we opened the Arctic Refuge today, oil would not being flowing until 2010. But if we start to increase SUV and light truck fuel economy today, by 2015 we could save as much oil as economically recoverable from ANWR over 50 years. And drivers would save $25 billion a year at the pump. To give automakers the incentive to make these technologies available to consumers, policymakers must close the fuel-economy loophole that allows light trucks to burn 33% more gasoline per mile than passenger cars. Affordable technologies are currently available to boost SUV and light truck fuel economy without sacrificing power.

Here’s another factoid from the Senate Democrats, again speaking to the general point of how much changes in fuel economy make a difference:

The U.S. will consume roughly 1.5 trillion gallons of gasoline over the next ten years. Cutting that by 5 billion gallons [by 2010, which is what the House bill proposed] reduces our consumption by less than half of one percent. In contrast, the Senate energy bill requires automakers to increase the fuel efficiency of their fleets, under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard, by 35 miles per gallon by 2013, which would save 1.6 million barrels of oil per day by 2015 and 2.6 million barrels of oil per day by 2020 - the same amount we imported from the Persian Gulf in 2001. Under the Senate bill, America will save 15 times more oil than would ever be recovered from the Arctic refuge over the same period.

Ah, here’s a petition that says more directly the relation between increases in SUV fuel economy and what we get by drilling in ANWR:

One of the pillars of George W. Bush’s energy plan is to drill for oil in the priceless Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to solve this energy “crisis”. Consider this fact, and ask yourself if destroying this pristine wilderness is really necessary. If we increased SUVs’ average fuel efficiency by 3 mpg, daily U.S. oil consumption would drop 49,000,000 gallons. That’s 49 million gallons per day. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska is expected to generate approximately 42,000,000 gallons per day. That means that over the course of a year, increasing SUV fuel efficiency by a mere 3 miles per gallon (mpg) would generate 2.55 billion gallons MORE fuel than a year of ANWR drilling is expected to yield.

[jshore]

It would help for a sense of scale on the last quote if I noted that difference in CAFE standards for cars vs. “light trucks” (which includes SUVs) is 6.8 mpg [27.5 vs. 20.7].

[superfreakicus]

*Originally posted by Evil Captor *
**Smells just like an argumentum ad hominem to me. You don’t have a leg to stand on in terms of logic or the facts, so you attack the source. **

so, you see nothing wrong w/resource hog, ARIANNA HUFFINGTON, berating your average joe for driving an suv, which doesn’t burn in it’s lifetime what she goes though in a year?

I smell something, too…
ps

“One of the pillars of George W. Bush’s energy plan is to drill for oil in the priceless Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to solve this energy “crisis”. Consider this fact, and ask yourself if destroying this pristine wilderness is really necessary. If we increased SUVs’ average fuel efficiency by 3 mpg, daily U.S. oil consumption would drop 49,000,000 gallons. That’s 49 million gallons per day. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska is expected to generate approximately 42,000,000 gallons per day. That means that over the course of a year, increasing SUV fuel efficiency by a mere 3 miles per gallon (mpg) would generate 2.55 billion gallons MORE fuel than a year of ANWR drilling is expected to yield.”
or, we could all move a little closer to work.

[Blown_Injected]

Yeah, I’ve also heard the Dem’s say we need to ban this or that type of gun to make us all safe…or look what we did for the economy.

With oil wells that were once considered dry filling up again, how is it possible to know how much ANWR could really produce?

AND

The fact that they believe that the drilling will wipe out and pollute ANWR shows the predisposed prejudice toward the idea.

You cite politically charged rhetoric not science. Just doing a 10 second scan of my friends I know that for me and my friends, our SUV’s may sit for days or even a week or more while we drive other cars.

Do they adjust for the gas used when I have to make 2 or 3 trips to Home Depot if I were NOT using my truck?

[Blown_Injected]

BURN IT WHILE WE GOT IT!!!

Anyway

It will be easy for me to switch B&I to alcohol when all the gas is gone.

[jshore]

*Originally posted by Blown & Injected *
And the costs are my burden not yours.

Well, I’m not sure what the evidence is about whether insurance rates seem to be properly balanced so that there isn’t cross-subsidization. But, surely you don’t pay anything lear the total externalized costs from SUV (or car) use. There are various studies on this, one of the most detailed being from the government’s Office of Technological Assessment. Here is a site from the Sierra Club that gives a range of subsidies for cars in terms of dollars per gallon of gas used. Note the references to the original sources at the bottom of the page.

With oil wells that were once considered dry filling up again, how is it possible to know how much ANWR could really produce?

Everyone uses the same numbers which comes from a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report, although different people will emphasize different aspects of the report (e.g., the total amount of oil vs. the amount that is “economically recoverable” at various assumed prices). Sure, we can’t know for sure…But the amount might turn out to be less than we expect too.

You cite politically charged rhetoric not science. Just doing a 10 second scan of my friends I know that for me and my friends, our SUV’s may sit for days or even a week or more while we drive other cars.

Sure, the sources had a point of view although UCS for one also has a strong record of accuracy about the science. Ideally, if I had the time to devote to this thread, we could look up all the numbers from unbiased sources and run them ourselves. It’s not hard to find the USGS survey report. And, finding the numbers for the total daily gasoline usage and fraction of SUVs on the roads should be possible. Alas, I don’t have the time to devote to this at the moment.

As for how you and your friends, use your SUVs…well, I think that is great. But, just looking around the parking lot at work makes it clear that it is by no means a general truth among SUV owners.

Do they adjust for the gas used when I have to make 2 or 3 trips to Home Depot if I were NOT using my truck?

I’m sure this would be a huge correction that would completely alter the statistics. :rolleyes:

[jshore]

*Originally posted by jshore *
As for how you and your friends, use your SUVs…well, I think that is great. But, just looking around the parking lot at work makes it clear that it is by no means a general truth among SUV owners.

To expand on this point more, I think that getting more people to use their SUVs in this way is exactly the sort of thing that I hope the consciousness-raising from this campaign leads to. I mean, for some people I hope it leads them to rethink whether they need to buy an SUV at all. But, others may really still feel they need it but maybe it will help them to consider when they use it so that they use their more fuel-efficient vehicle when the only hauling that they are doing is hauling a latte from Starbucks (to plagiarize from the Sierra Club).

Really, a better solution would probably be to tax gasoline to a point where the costs are internalized sufficiently that people make efficient decisions without having to have conciousness raised, but in the absence of the correct market incentives, other techniques must be employed.

And, like I said, conciousness-raising doesn’t mean you never do anything “bad” but rather that you give more consideration to the consequences of your actions in order to reduce these bad things. I still eat more meat and fish than I know I really ought to for environmental sustainability reasons. And, I still own a car (albeit a quite fuel efficient one) and use it when I could conceivably use other modes of transport although I think I at least make myself justify to a certain degree when I use the car that I have given consideration to these other options (and I still get looks of bemusement for riding my bike so much in this very car-oriented city).