Posted on 01/09/2003 2:41:03 AM PST by kattracks
THE ANTI-SUV division of the wacky wing of the environmental movement has outdone itself in its hysterical criticism of people who drive sport utility vehicles. Now they are running television ads accusing SUV drivers of financing terrorists, which is outrageous.The ads were created by columnist and gadfly Arianna Huffington. She modeled them on the Bush administration’s anti-drug-use ads, which suggest that if you use narcotics you may be financing terrorism. The ads are so misleading that ABC’s New York affiliate won’t run them. An official from that station told The New York Times, “There were a lot of statements being made that were not backed up, and they’re talking about hot-button issues.”
If a connection between buying oil from the Middle East and funding terrorism exists, then everyone who buys petroleum products — from SUV drivers to long-haul trucking companies to Honda Civic drivers to people who grease their hair and dry clean their clothes — may indirectly contribute dollars to terrorists. But you would never see an ad suggesting that if you send your suits to the dry cleaners, you support terrorism.
In cities across the country, SUVs have been smeared with dog excrement, doused with acid and even burned by environmental activists. Yet no activists are attacking New England homes that use oil heat and are built with sawed down trees, or the owners of 20-year-old cars that get worse mileage and produce far more pollution than SUVs, or the owners of pickup trucks, which can get worse mileage than some SUVs and are better sellers.
If those in the anti-SUV crowd were rational, they would stop targeting SUVs and focus on retiring the fleet of aging gas guzzlers left over from the 1970s and ‘80s. These vehicles are much more damaging to the environment than are SUVS. But those old sedans aren’t driven by middle class and wealthy suburbanites, who are the real targets of hatred for the anti-SUV crowd. Can you imagine environmentalists shouting insults at a poor family in a 1978 Chevrolet or an old couple in a 1984 Cadillac? Of course not. But those people are doing more damage to the environment than a yuppie driving a 2002 Ford Explorer.
Global warming is part of the normal fluctuations that the earth's atmospheric temperature follows. Man's effects on earth's temperature are essentially a myth.
As for pollution, I'll stack my 1999 Explorer up against any 10 year old Honda.
So we try to conserve.
If there's such a crisis, they why are oil prices, adjusted for inflation, lower than they were in the 80's, 70's, and even the '60's? We conserve when it becomes economically beneficial to do so. Hell, oil is so cheap that we leave a good portion of our own wells shut down.
A single yuppy has more _choice_ about what to drive than a poor family.
And the majority of those that you call poor families (though the poor in the US are vastly better off than in most places in the world) climb up the socioeconomic ladder (except for those liberal welfare cases who choose not to work). Besides, having a choice in vehicles is something to strive for, not to be scorned.
Note: environmentalists have been advocating buying clunkers to crush them for years. Emission controls are lasting longer so clunkers are getting cleaner. But, commuting alone in an SUV will always be wasteful and selfish.
Well, if there were a pollution epidemic caused by automobiles, I'd agree with the "environMENTALists", but there is no such epidemic. Auto emissions are lower each year since the inception of emissions controls in the early '70's. Had you been around in the '60's, you'd know what pollution really was.
As for commuting alone in an SUV, do you think it would be more energy efficient for somebody to buy several vehicles, each with its own intended purpose (and consider the cost of production and the use of resources in this question)? Or, would you expect that a person would buy one vehicle to serve all, or as many of their own purposes as possible.
I drive an SUV. I often drive it alone. I drive it on trails; I tow with it, I commute with it, I take it on vacations (and ride in comfort, I might add). Its versatile and it meets as many of my needs as possible. And it doesn't cost that much to operate - I get better mileage with my Explorer than I did with my first car, an economical (?) 1971 Maverick!
It also requires less oil to go to the store and pick up a package of hot dogs than it takes to fly in your caviar from Russia, or than it takes to chaffeur your guests to and fro for your soirees and faux "charity" balls. Of course, you probably did not research how much oil it takes to fuel a limo as compared to SUV's. Research has no place in the journalism of accusation
You may also wonder why people in large cities such as New York prefer to drive SUV's. This is no doubt due to your lack of having driven in a large city. Not only is the view of traffic better, but one also has a greater sense of security when sharing city streets with delivery vans, trucks and buses. Even the "perky" Katie Couric admitted she would not want to be in "her Honda" and be in an accident with a Ford Excursion. One can only surmise she would likewise not care to be in "her Honda" and be in an accident with a truck or a bus. Of course, this is laughable since she was attempting to chastise Ford for making the Excursion. We all know that Ms. Perky has never set her derriere in anything other than a limo in quite sometime, and no SUV driver would want to be in an accident with a limo as only the limo occupants' lawyers would know how badly they were injured.
So if you want to "pin" a terrorist supporter label on someone by reason of how much oil they consume, look no further than yourself and your associates. And if you really want to blame someone for supporting terrorism, look no further than those who would keep the United States dependent upon Middle East oil by denying the exploration of our own oil reserves. Not only are they the true supporters of terrorism, they are also the enablers of oppressive, backward regimes that are in different time zones that are measured in centuries rather than hours.
For the record, the Bush administration's official position on anthropogenic global warming isn't that they subscibe to it. Their position is that they believe the science is uncertain and needs further research. And the more science that comes out, the more the notion is refuted (which is why the IPCC keeps revising their future forecasts downwards).
Then, yes, after feeling some political heat, Bush said the doc was "put out by the bureaucracy."
Wasn't that the report where the synapsis, as quoted above, had little to do with the actual brunt of the article. I'll state again that man's contribution to the temperature of the earth is negligable at best.
I'd also challenge your suggestion of the SUV vehicle being unsafe. No, the SUV I own doesn't handle like my sportscar and we drive it accordingly. It is however perfectly suited for this snowy season we've had, and we are safe on our long rides home. If your thought is centered on a belief that a smaller car will take on more damage in an accident than my SUV - I can say that yes it probably will. Further, I hope it does.
Only to someone who is too doped up to drive his SUV.
So here's a new skill for you to learn. . .negotiation. You can use it when you purchase your next car. It's really quite amazing.
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.