Ok lesse you advocate a mile-high gas tax aimed at fat-cat SUV owners but would also effect low income single soccer Mom(Dad) who needs her $600.oo 1985 4x4 Chevy V-8 to get her (his) low paying job 25mi from home?
county for prez!!!
Damn, I should really pay more attention to current events. I wasn’t aware that we had been but on some type of fuel allotment program. I could have sworn we were still just operating on the pay for what you use configuration.
I think we broke it on County’s thick skull.
Well, it appeared to me that you answered it yourself, donw there where you put “Answer”
And, despite opinions to the contrary I’ll continue to lobby for a higher gasoline tax for SUV’s.
And what are your thoughts on my suggested answer?
Don’t you understand that your “opinions” have some serious flaws?
Can we agree to the fact the here are literally zillions of different ways to squander energy? If we can, it’s a simple point that we can’t judge a person by how much pollution their car creates. It’s simply a minute sliver of their overall energy wasting picture. First off we don’t know why they drive an SUV, they could have many reasons, some legitimate, and some not. Even after those reasons, they could still drive it infrequently, or 24/7. After that, perhaps they turn the lights and the TV off in their house off everytime they leave it, or maybe they let it run all day. Perhaps at work they ordered 50 new Energy Star compliant computers, or maybe they didn’t. Do you understand where I’m coming from? I’m not asking you to agree, just understand. Simply put, every person does things that waste energy, and things that conserve it. Their acts fall into two columns on a list, and the car they drive is one item on a very, very long list.
Jackmannii, World Eater, not that I want to be on county’s side here, but that is just about the stupidest pro-SUV argument I’ve ever heard.
Unless you want to tote out evidence that SUV drivers log fewer miles on average than compact car drivers, the argument is meaningless. SUVs are less efficient (generally) than cars. Replacing a car with an SUV will result in higher fuel consumption, unless there is a corresponding change in usage.
If the person driving the SUV were driving a car instead, they would use less gas to go where they need to go. If the 500 mile driver drove 100 miles instead, he would use less gas, but would not get where he needed to go.
Sure, you can take your Honda Civic and let is sit in the driveway and let it idle all day. And if we catch people doing that, well there should be a penalty.
But, as has already been pointed out, SUV’s are already being taxed above the norm. I am supporting an enhancement of what is already being done. $10 a gallon enhancement.
As far as the long list goes, yes, perhaps we should double the utility bill for anyone with a house that is larger than say, 5000 square feet. If they are heating and cooling more space than that for a single family dwelling, well that would be conspicuous consumption also. Perhaps you also have some items that we should include in my energy platform.
Your arguments seem to be flying in the face of what is already being done. All I am suggesting is expanding the programs for those energy pigs.
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
Jackmannii, World Eater, not that I want to be on county’s side here, but that is just about the stupidest pro-SUV argument I’ve ever heard.
QUOTE]
WTF, you are apologizing for offering an opinion that you believe makes sense. You believe that “who” says something adds or detracts from the validty of the argument…fighting ignorance my ass.
Why aren’t you ranting and raving about sports cars, if your thing is “conspicuous consumption”? Or older cars?
On a separate note, I notice that no one answered me when I asked:
I’ll take that as a “No.”
[sigh] The last 3 posts weren’t there when I started my reply. oh well.
Neither of us were making a claim that SUV drivers “log fewer miles on average than compact car drivers”.
The point I have made (and I think World Eater was aiming at), is that our individual energy consumption/contribution to pollution is based on a series of choices, of which the vehicle we choose to drive is only one.
This includes commuting distance, family size, energy efficiency of our homes and a thousand different lifestyle choices. The person with an SUV and a short commute eats up fewer resources and damages the environment less than the person with a compact car and a long commute.
I respect (and agree with) people who want to mandate higher fuel economy standards for all vehicles. I cannot respect people who mindlessly chant “SUV Bad” one the basis of their illogical fears and predjudices.
And I drive a Mitsubishi Eclipse.
This is exactly what I was aiming at, except far more eloquent.
Probably not but there is evidence they cause more damage.
Jackmannii, World Eater, you’re right, of course, the choice to buy an SUV is just one in a whole set that determines how much resource you use. It is, however, one that many people (such as me) feel is more open change than the others.
Sure, I might commute 50 miles each way, but chances are I didn’t choose that in an effort to impress chicks, or look cool. Nor did I choose the long commute because I can afford it, and you’re not the boss of me!
Other choices seem to be more or less forced on people. Long commute because that’s the only place I could find a job. A minivan because I can’t transport 3 kids and all their stuff without one. SUVs are seen as more of a personal “I want it” choice, and are subject to more scrutiny.
None of which changes the fact that per mile driven, SUV’s use more gas and pollute more than cheaper, more efficient, and just as safe vehicles. While I’m sure the millions of SUV drivers buy Energy Star products, recycle, walk if the distance is less than a mile from their home, live right next to where they work, and dance naked in the fields to celebrate Gaia, that one choice, to buy and drive an SUV, shows that in that aspect, they have made a selfish, wrongful choice. A choice they are completely free to make, but a wrong one, IMHO, nonetheless.
I will not condemn all SUV drivers for their choice. And I equally condemn the drivers of 1979 Cadillacs, Ferrari Testarosa drivers, and people who don’t get their vehicle emissions tested where required. I’m sure the 5% of the SUV owners out there really do need them. None of which changes the fact they have chosen a vehicle that is more harmful to the environment than their other options.
Don’t forget lower emission standards also.
I would have thought there were oodles of ways to transport “three kids and all their stuff” without benefit of a minivan, including numerous mid-size sedans. And if there’s insufficient room for the “stuff”, maybe they need less stuff. But I’m about the last person who would think of lecturing someone on what their kids do or don’t need.
I guess, though, that the reason there are approximately zero rants about minivans, despite their size, “threat” to smaller vehicles, emissions and gas consumption, is that they look like shit. No one would ever think of claiming that a minivan buyer is seeking a penis substitute. I am not sure what is supposed to be cool or babe-magnetesque about the typical SUV, but a sizable number of SUV critics apparently perceive this and feel threatened by it. I’d also bet that 5% or less of pickup truck owners “need” them for hauling refrigerators, loads of manure etc. Probably the SUV critics are afraid that if they tell pickup owners (who have more of a down-home reputation) that they’re seeking to embellish their doubtful manhood, the critics will get the crap beaten out of them.
Go figure.
On the other hand, they make inexpensive condoms in all shapes and sizes these days.
There’s something to be said for being completely single-minded. Not much, but something.
Oh, and thanks, World Eater. I was trying for fewer typos and less redundancy this time. 
Ummmmm. OK…
So if I am understanding county’s argument correctly, jeevmon and I should have kept our 10 year-old Honda Civic, which got 20 miles to the gallon and was too small for two adults, 2 medium-sized dogs, and the child or two we plan to add in the next few years. But selfish us, we went out and bought a new Subaru Forester, which gets more than 20 miles to the gallon, and can actually fit us all. Never mind that this is the ONLY car that we have and that **jeevmon ** and I both use public transportation every day to get to work.
Somehow that makes us conspicuous consumers? Even though we drive maybe 100 miles a month? I would say that we are conservative consumers; we drive much less than most people. We should still pay an extra $10 in gas? If that’s the theory, shouldn’t we go by how many miles people drive per month and not the type of car they drive?
Yes. As well as selfish and wrongful.
As an alternative, you may purchase a new Civic. If everything fails to fit in it, there is a sidecar conversion kit available. The dogs should love it.
Incidentally, it is selfish of you to have multiple dogs. I suggest you ship one animal to a disadvantaged nation, where they will find a proper use for it. :eek:
county , you are an idiot.
Your $10/gallon-for-SUVs proposed tax is discriminating against SUV owners.
I have a better idea. Why not have the 10 dollar gasoline tax for ALL vehicles. This way we get around problems like the SUV that is moved only on Sundays or the compact car that does 1000 miles per day.
Smaller cars polute too, their owners shouldn’t get off the hook.