No SUV for you!

[Chumpsky]

This question basically comes down to the question of what rights future generations should enjoy. That is, do future generations have a right to an environment that can sustain life? Or do we have the right to use up all available resources as quickly as possible, for no other reason than that we like to drive around in huge vehicles?

I would favor a tax on gasoline that takes into account the cost of cleaning up the environmental damage done. I read somewhere that each gallon of gasoline burned will cost around $15 in environmental damage. Sorry, no cite, but you get the point. The damage we are doing to the Earth will cost a lot to fix, if it can even be fixed. What right do we have to do this damage, if we are not willing to pay the costs? What right do we have to push those costs onto future generations?

[smiling_bandit]

Why don’t we just extend the existing laws on milage to light trucks and SUV’s?

[Jackmannii]

The mileage argument gets blurred when you consider the new smaller SUVs that get as good or better mileage than some vans, and certainly better than numerous high-powered luxury cars.

You’ll have to come up with a better justification to ban, say the Subaru Forester.

It appears to be the symbolic value of the SUV that annoys the Jayrots.

By all means work to mandate better mileage and less dependence on our good buddies the Saudis. Spare me the SUV rants.

[erislover]

I can’t choose to damage the environment (society, my family, etc) by doing drugs as a justification that I’ll do what I damn well please so I don’t see how the argument suddenly makes perfect sense for SUVs.

Make an SUV tax to subsidize small-car purchases. [innocent blink]You’re prefectly free to choose whatever vehicle you want. I don’t want to stop you from doing that.

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by erislover *
**
Make an SUV tax to subsidize small-car purchases. [innocent blink]You’re prefectly free to choose whatever vehicle you want. I don’t want to stop you from doing that. **

Why?

I’ll practically guarrantee that my SUV is far less damaging to the environment than whatever jshore drives.

[UrbanChic]

My SUV gets horrible gas mileage. In fact, some article on MSN (or was it AOL) listed best/worst gas mileage per class and my SUV was listed (actually it tied with two others) as worst. Know what, though? My other car, which isn’t an SUV, gets about the same gas mileage.

I pay more at the pump for both vehicles than most people. My insurance is higher, too. There, feel better, now?

By the way, will you extend your ‘no SUV for you’ philosophy to minivans and conversion vans, too?

[Bryan_Ekers]

Whoa, Canyonero!

In addition to restricting the purchase of SUVs, I’d like to suggest restricting the purchase of computers and internet connections. I’ll start with users named “Jayro” and work my way forward alphabetically. Only those people who can meet my list of criteria will be allowed to keep their computers. My prepostion: You must have a legitimate reason to buy a computer (or other ridiculously electronic computing device)

Incidentally, I don’t own an SUV and don’t plan on buying one. I just dislike the idea that I have to justify my disposable income purchases to anyone, especially somone who bases his argument on irrational hatred rather than facts.

[Odesio]

*Originally posted by Chumpsky *
**This question basically comes down to the question of what rights future generations should enjoy.

**

I don’t believe the unborn have any rights.

**
That is, do future generations have a right to an environment that can sustain life?

**

Is there any evidence that we’re in danger of creating an environment that can’t sustain life?

**
Or do we have the right to use up all available resources as quickly as possible, for no other reason than that we like to drive around in huge vehicles?

**

The unborn certainly don’t have any rights but I’d like to see some evidence that we’re going to use up all the resources on Earth.

Marc

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by MGibson *

---

Is there any evidence that we’re in danger of creating an environment that can’t sustain life?

Marc **

Yeah there is. Good evidence.

Stupid people call it global warming, and worry about environments changing, and sea levels moving about, but these things happen all the time and are a normal part of geological history.

We may be effecting them and speeding them up, but that’s not a huge cause for concern.

The problem isn’t SUVs either. It doesn’t make a damn bit of difference what we drive here in the US.

The problem is the buildup of Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere. Western industrialization has raised the levels of these gases appreciably and dramatically as has been verified and reverified many times.

Now, four billion or so people are living in the unindustrialized third world, and their going to want the benefits of modern society and they’re going to industrialize.

They’re not going to want to waste money on things like catalytic convertors and clean energy plants. They’re not concerned about the environment. They’re concerned about economic and physical survival.

They are going to need to burn a lot of fuel to industrialize. That fuel is likely to be coal. There are huge reserves in India and elsewhere. It is cheap, abundant and economical.

Carbon Dioxide rates are rising fast enough and accelerating even now. The industrialization of the third world is gonna make that look like peanuts.

Burning takes the oxygen out of the air and puts in carbon dioxide.

The only way that the carbon dioxide gets taken out, and oxygen put back in is from plants, trees and such.

We’re not exactly doing good things to the forests.

Anyway to make a long story short, once Co2 concentrations reach a certain level nobody breathes anymore.

In the meantime we probably get huge algae blooms that completely choke the ocean of life.
Anyway people worried about SUV emmisions are kind of missing the big picture. It’s like complaining about a small leak in the ceiling of your house right before the tidal wave hits and blasts it to smithereens.

[Kamandi]

*Originally posted by Jayrot *
it seems to me that a basic function of government should be to identify problems and then introduce legislation to correct them.

This line nearly made me choke on my Raisin Bran.

[erislover]

Right on, Scylla, that’s why I litter.

[Jayrot]

Whoa, Canyonero!
In addition to restricting the purchase of SUVs, I’d like to suggest restricting the purchase of computers and internet connections. I’ll start with users named “Jayro” and work my way forward alphabetically. Only those people who can meet my list of criteria will be allowed to keep their computers. My prepostion: You must have a legitimate reason to buy a computer (or other ridiculously electronic computing device)
Incidentally, I don’t own an SUV and don’t plan on buying one. I just dislike the idea that I have to justify my disposable income purchases to anyone, especially somone who bases his argument on irrational hatred rather than facts.

Whoa there toughguy. You are way out of line. Explain to me how banning computers with the name Jayro will change anything? I can’t decide if its a straw man, slippery slope or argumentum ad hominem.

Everyone seems to be getting entirely the wrong spin here. (my own fault–probably the last paragraph of the OP) Lets try again:

Premises:

1. SUVs are harmful to the environment

supporting information:

Driving an SUV has a much greater impact on the environment than driving other passenger cars. In large part, this is due to double standards set by law and government regulations. For example, current federal regulations allow SUVs to have far worse fuel economy than other vehicles. The federal corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards set the fuel economy goals for new passenger cars at 27.5 miles per gallon (mpg). But under the law, SUVs are not considered cars - they are characterized as light trucks. Light trucks only have to achieve 20.7 mpg. It should be noted that this is an average for all light trucks, which is why it is possible to have SUVs on the road that only achieve 12 mpg. In fact, some SUV, like the massive Ford Excursion, are so large that they no longer qualify as “light trucks,” and are not subject to any kind of fuel economy standards.

Today a car that gets approximately 27.5 mpg, like a Volkswagen New Beetle, will emit 54 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the burning of gasoline over its lifetime. An SUV that gets 14 mpg, like a Lincoln Navigator, will emit over 100 tons of CO2 over its lifetime. (8)A Harper’s Magazine writer took the massive Ford Excursion, the biggest of all SUVs for a test drive. During a drive around a city, the mighty Excursion was only getting 3.7 miles per gallon. It is estimated the Excursion will produce 134 tons of carbon dioxide during its lifetime. (9)The National Academy of Sciences estimates that if fuel economy had not been improved in the late 1970s, U.S. fuel consumption would be about 2.8 million barrels of oil per day higher than it is.

Federal law gives heavy sport utility vehicles permission to emit higher levels of toxic and noxious pollution - carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides. Sport utility vehicles can spew 30 percent more carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons and 75 percent more nitrogen oxides than passenger cars. (13)These combustion pollutants contribute to eye and throat irritation, coughing, nausea, dizziness, fatigue, confusion and headaches. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides are precursors to ground level ozone, which causes asthma and lung damage. (14)

2. With no change, people will continue to buy SUVs.

supporting information:

In reality, only 5 percent of SUVs are ever taken off-road (1), and the vast majority of these vehicles are used for everyday driving. And there are a lot of them on the roads. In 1985, SUVs accounted for only 2 percent of new vehicle sales. (2). SUVs now account for one in four new vehicles sold(3), and sales continue to climb.

3. It is in our best interest to change above #1 & #2

4 The government, in our best interest, should impose legistlation to a) improve the vehicles or b) restrict them.

I have given you 4 points to refute. Please explain your opposition to one or more of these points and stay away from attacking me:
“especially somone who bases his argument on irrational hatred rather than facts.”

above information taken from here

P.S. Kamandi, care to explain? I can’t read your Raisin Bran.

[Jayrot]

It doesn’t make a damn bit of difference what we drive here in the US

lol

Anyway people worried about SUV emmisions are kind of missing the big picture. It’s like complaining about a small leak in the ceiling of your house right before the tidal wave hits and blasts it to smithereens.

Absolutely, I will admit that there are numerous other things that are hurting the environment, possibly to a greater extent.

Example:
1)My neighbor was murdered yesterday.
2)Thousands of people are being killed in religous wars around the world.
3)It’s silly to worry/do anything about about my neighbor’s murder.

sound logical?

[Jonathan_Chance]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
**Anyway to make a long story short, once Co2 concentrations reach a certain level nobody breathes anymore.

In the meantime we probably get huge algae blooms that completely choke the ocean of life.
**

But provide O2, don’t forget.

Actually, less a ‘concentration of CO2’ issue is the more important one of oxygen partial pressure. Without a sufficient level of oxygen it won’t be forced into our lungs through normal breathing.

And that’s bad.

Scylla’s right that 3rd world industrialization is going to dwarf current greenhouse gas emissions when they come online. It behooves us to come up with cleaner technologies before that gets rolling.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

PING

It is now the obligatory time on the obligatory SUV thread for those who ride bicycles to declare a pox on the house of both SUV and cars drivers. If you will clear me a small area, please.

cough
ahem

Neener. Neener. Neener.

We may now continue with the regular pattern of this standard issue SUV thread.

[Scylla]

Do you understand that compared to the real environmental problems out there, gas mileage is a pittance?

Assuming you spend all your efforts and activism and money convincing people not to drive SUVs, and people stop driving them, you have changed absolutely nothing.

However, if you spend all that time and effort and money lobbying for programs to assist in cleaner industrialization processes for the third world, you might actually save the world.

So let’s see on the hand you could try to save the world.

On the other hand you could waste your time pissing people off, and acting morally superior while accomplishing nothing.

Which will it be?

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by Jonathan Chance *
**But provide O2, don’t forget.
**

While killing all the fishies. Those that can still breathe will simply starve.

[Jonathan_Chance]

Well, there’s all that algae. Gotta be able to do something with that.

[erislover]

Do you understand that compared to the real environmental problems out there, gas mileage is a pittance?

Yes. So the better idea is to tax SUVs and put that money to researching more efficient and cleaner energy solutions while subsidizing the implimentations of those solutions in third world countries.

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by Jayrot *
**lol
Absolutely, I will admit that there are numerous other things that are hurting the environment, possibly to a greater extent.

Example:
1)My neighbor was murdered yesterday.
2)Thousands of people are being killed in religous wars around the world.
3)It’s silly to worry/do anything about about my neighbor’s murder.

sound logical? **

Not in the least.

You distance yourself from the religious wars around the world in your example. However, you have zero distance from the breathable air in the world.

Your example should be.

1. My neighbor was murdered yesterday.
2. I am in my house and it is on fire.
3. It is silly to worry/do anythig about my neighbor’s murder.