Posted on 12/12/2002 7:47:43 AM PST by new cruelty
If you own a sports utility vehicle, you live in sin. At least that's what the Rev. Jim Ball and his group, the Evangelical Environmental Network, would have you believe. And they've set out to make sure people become aware of this little-known sin through some controversial ads, which ask, "What Would Jesus Drive?"
Are they on to something? After all, 52 percent of the new vehicles purchased in America these days are SUVs. Under current federal laws, a passenger car must get 27.5 miles for the gallon, but an SUV needs to get only 20.7 miles a gallon. Transportation is thought to account for about a third of the global-warming pollution America produces each year, and America, as everyone knows, is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases. So the EEN, drawing what one can only assume it believes is the logical conclusion, says it is socially irresponsible to buy and drive an SUV. Many, of course, don't see the issue quite the same way. Some Americans buy SUVs for defensive and practical reasons. Others like the spacious inside of an SUV for comfort reasons. At some primary schools, as the last bell rings, SUVs are lined up around the block with moms and dads waiting for their tots to emerge. Why? Because mom and dad both feel their kids will be safer in big, spacious vehicles that won't crumple in an accident. And they're right. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that in a collision, large vehicles provide more protection for occupants than small ones (never mind recent statistics showing that rollover rates are higher for SUVs).
CAFE, anyone? If there is a moral problem with the pollution caused by a Ford Explorer, these parents say, it's not with the drivers but with the folks who make and regulate these cars. In the early 1970s, passenger cars polluted far more than they do today. Then in 1975, thanks to concern over America's dependence on foreign oil and pressure from environmentalists, the government passed the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. The new CAFE standards required carmakers to raise the fuel efficiency of passenger cars to today's levels. Today's new cars, as a result, produce less than 1 percent of the emissions produced by cars in 1970.
Why isn't that the answer today for SUVs? With trouble brewing in Iraq, reducing our dependence on oil--Americans consume about a fourth of the oil used each year in the world, and about 25 percent of that comes from the Middle East--might not be the worst thing. In fact, the government might feel this is the answer. President Bush is considering a proposal to raise SUV fuel standards. The recommendation would raise such standards by half a mile per gallon each year from 2005 to 2007, to 22.2 miles per gallon.
The Bush administration, thought by many to be environmentally unfriendly, is apparently in tow with this policy, and indications are that Bush will finalize the proposal by April 1.
But according to Andrew Kleit, a Pennsylvania State University professor, and George Will, who wrote about Kleit's argument, stricter standards on fuel efficiency for SUVs in the United States would be environmentally harmful. Foreign manufacturers, the argument goes, will regard the fines imposed for not meeting the new standards as a tax that they will simply pay, rather than spend the money to adjust their vehicles. American manufacturers, however, "fearing civil damages and stockholder suits," will comply. U.S. manufacturers will then reduce the number of SUVs they produce. Consumers will buy more foreign SUVs, making the environmental situation worse.
Furthermore, this school of thought says higher fuel-efficiency standards increase the number of miles people drive and perhaps the total amount of emissions. And finally, tougher standards mean higher-priced cars, which mean people will hold on to their high-polluting old cars longer.
Another bunch of nut-cases !!!
When i saw this title, I thought the article might describe some new and interesting recreational activities. Frankly I'm getting tired of the "what would Jesus drive" debate.
"only those truly struggling to survive have the right to drive an Suv",
and will give them away to the homeless and downtrodden..........
That's an easy one.
He wouldn't. He'd walk.
But when he did catch a ride, it'd likely be in one of these, 
given the size of his entourage.
This butthead shows disrespect to Jesus. Except we will laugh at him instead of calling for his head.
Under current federal laws, a passenger car must get 27.5 miles for the gallon, but an SUV needs to get only 20.7 miles a gallon.
Wrong! A manufacturer's sales of cars must average 27.5 MPG, or there is a penalty. A manufacturer can still produce cars that get significantly less than 27.5 MPG, as long as other sales balance this out, or can simply pay the penalty. NEXT!
Transportation is thought to account for about a third of the global-warming pollution America produces each year, and America, as everyone knows, is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases.
So, if 52% of the vehicle fleet produces 34% more CO2 than it "should", and the total emmissions account for about half of a third of the national total emmissions, completely eliminating SUV's would theoretically reduce the total US emissions of greenhouse gases by 2.9%. And US production is one-tenth of the world production, so we're getting all hyperventilating about 0.29%? NEXT!
The new CAFE standards required carmakers to raise the fuel efficiency of passenger cars to today's levels. Today's new cars, as a result, produce less than 1 percent of the emissions produced by cars in 1970.
A gallon of gas burned in 1970 produces the same amount of CO2 as a gallon of gas burned in 2002. In order to decrease the production of CO2 to 1% of 1970 levels, current cars would have to go 2000 miles on a gallon of gas. That just stoicheometry. NEXT!
Americans consume about a fourth of the oil used each year in the world, and about 25 percent of that comes from the Middle East...
So One quarter of one quarter or one third of a half or one third, using the same formulas as above, means that the excess ME fuel consumed by US SUVs as 0.5% of total ME production. The Bush proposal would cut that miniscule figure down to 0.3%. NEXT!
Here it is:
Speaking of religiously imposing morality on people...
Check out "The New Absolutes" by William D. Watkins
It's a Christian book but here's a quote from Chapter 3:
We Americans are absolutists, despite any rhetoric to the contrary. Over the years we have certainly changed what we believe and how we live, but we have not embraced relativism. Many of the clashes of values and lifestyles among us testify to our bekief that our moral convictions and practices should be accepted by others as legitimate, if not outright fully embraced by them as well. The American people may say they accept the notion that a truth claim or moral claim is relative, but they do not behave as if this is true. Their behavior exposes what they really accept -- that what they believe is true or right for them should be (and actually is) true or right for everyone else.
In effect the cardinal sins are not sins of exploitation (sexual, financial, or otherwise), but now it's smoking, driving the wrong car, or believing something not endorsed by the mainstream.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.