US drivers in SUV gas-guzzling buying

Reuters Environmental News Service ^ | 12/07/2001

[cogitator]

How about YOU don't buy an SUV and keep your nose out of my business?

Obviously I have no control over what you do, personally. But if we are "all in this together" in the war against terrorism -- and I think we are -- then the choices we make are not independent of each other. We have a strong dependence on imports of oil from the Middle East. It's my opinion that reducing that dependence is in everyone's best interest. Now, if you still want to buy an SUV, go ahead. There are alternative ways of conserving energy and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. But I think we should all try to do something.

[babyface00]

Can you guys see that far down to the ground from up there?!

[cogitator]

I think we could get all of us FReepers into it and take a LONG ride this weekend.

That's a good idea -- carpooling is another way of conserving energy.

As a matter of fact, one way that SUV owners who commute could keep the SUV but still help reduce our dependence on foreign oil would be to participate in carpooling to a greater extent. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

[babyface00]

Not to change the subject, but if we reduced taxes significantly so that only one person in the household had to work, we could cut down substantially on the numbers of people driving every day. Do you think the left would get behind us on this?

[balrog666]

"Americans are driving more in less-efficient vehicles,"

And more in more-efficient vehicles. SO WHAT? Each of the new vehicles is significantly more fuel-efficient than an equivalent vehicle from the 70's - how can you ignore all that progress?

At the time, light trucks were allowed to get lower mileage because they were used mostly by farmers and small businesses.

Another lie about history. Trucks are designed for a specific function, not styling or aerodynamics and CAFE would have brought about a conversion to larger trucks to preserve that functionality instead of more fuel-efficient lighter trucks, hence the lower standard to achieve a compromised goal.

Is this any different than rubber rationing and victory gardens during WWII?

Yes. Your inability to tell the difference highlights only your problems.

Is it left-wing of me to think that the U.S. is too dependent on oil imports from the Middle East,

No.

and that one of the fastest and effective ways to reduce our dependence on these imports would be to reduce our consumption?

Again, no.

If it is, well, then it's left-wing of me.

What's "left-wing of you" is your insistance that ridiculous, big-liberal-environmental-government CAFE standards is the best solution to that problem. Unfortunately, we must continue to point that out every time you post one of these ignorant, biased, left-wing articles, lest you convert the simple minded to your point of view.

[DoughtyOne]

Buying our third Mercury Mountaineer this evening. That'll be my fifth SUV since they became popular in the early 1980s. Aren't they great!

[DoughtyOne]

Hah hah hah hah hah hah. Let me tell you something, the left would rebelle, but guess who else would. Of course it's the purveyers of cheap labor. Good luck with that one. Just to be clear, I think you're absolutely right! Imagine one parent in the home again. Why the socialists would go stark raving mad!

[gnarledmaw]

Thunderbus bump! ('83 Dodge Ram Charger Pioneer)

[biblewonk]

You've got it backwards. It isn't a question of giving SUV's a break, the Feds shouldn't involve themselves in gas mileage regulations at all, for any type of vehicle.

Really. Why not?

[cogitator]

Not to change the subject, but if we reduced taxes significantly so that only one person in the household had to work, we could cut down substantially on the numbers of people driving every day. Do you think the left would get behind us on this?

Only if taxes could be reduced so significantly that there would be an actual demographic shift.

If you cut my income tax in half, I would still need another $15,000 or so to be equivalent to my wife's salary, and I wouldn't get close to that even if my taxes were cut to zero.

[Steve0113]

if we reduced taxes significantly so that only one person in the household had to work, we could cut down substantially on the numbers of people driving every day. Do you think the left would get behind us on this?

That's brilliant! I'd love to hear their answer to that.

[gnarledmaw]

See #68, my other car is a Le Baron convertible, in other words, suck it up, rub some dirt on it, youll feel better in the morning...

[cogitator]

What's "left-wing of you" is your insistance that ridiculous, big-liberal-environmental-government CAFE standards is the best solution to that problem. Unfortunately, we must continue to point that out every time you post one of these ignorant, biased, left-wing articles, lest you convert the simple minded to your point of view.

Fine! Suggest to me a better, realistic way that 1 million barrels of imported oil a day could be saved other than raising CAFE standards. This idea should also indicate what incentives would be provided to induce the use of new technologies in energy generation.

I really don't care if an idea is left- or right-wing. I'm primarily interested in ideas that will work.

[Tauzero]

"Fight terrorism -- don't buy an SUV."

Considering the huge chunk of the price of gas that is tax, you're right. :)

[oyez]

It is left wing to point the finger at everyone else and demand they solve the problem.

If you do produce a solution, it is never acceptable. For the left the issue must remain open like a festering sore. Don't you love these guys?.

[balrog666]

I'm primarily interested in ideas that will work.

And I'm totally against ideas that don't work, especially those that have significant unintended but obvious consequences, and CAFE is a prime example. Are you telling me that you can't think of a single idea that will accomplish your goals except raising CAFE standards? I don't believe that. Perhaps, you should try to think out of the big-government-stick box - try it, you'll like it.

Or is it that your goal it the total elimination of SUV's or any other so-called "fuel-inefficient" vehicles. Suppose half (or even 90%) of everyday commuters switched to motorcycles which get 75 mpg, would you stop bothering the people driving SUV's or pickup trucks? How about if they switch to bicycles? Frankly, I don't think you would ever stop harassing them to stop enjoying themselves and spending their own money in any way they desire to do so.

[rangerX]

Do you mind if I park my 1-ton crewcab dually longbed pickup next to you. It's not an SUV. ;-)

[AKbear]

Here is one article on the subject.

[xm177e2]

US drivers in SUV gas-guzzling buying spree

Perhaps the good folks at Reuters meant "US drivers in gas-guzzling SUV buying spree"