Slandering SUV drivers: Environmentalists go overboard with smear tactics

Union Leader ^ | 1/09/03

[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.

[jsraggmann]

Since you're obviously a lot smarter and more "earth friendly" than the Great Unwashed, you should show us the way. You DO walk or ride a bicycle everywhere you go, don't you?

[jsraggmann]

WRONG! The Explorer is basicaly the same vehicle that was introduced in the early '90s, with improvements in ride quality, handling, mileage, &tc. There is simply no substitute(presently) for the SUV.

[meyer]

A myth even the Bush admin now subscribes to, I guess. Here, for you: http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

I'll repeat; man's contribution to global warming is a myth. I'll not comment on your strange flat-earth web site.

try here for some further commentary on global warming.

"As for pollution, I'll stack my 1999 Explorer up against any 10 year old Honda."

Not sure how to respond to that - seems like an odd comparison.

Point being, despite claims otherwise, today's SUV's are less polluting than the typical sedan of 10 years ago.

Because production is relatively greater than demand. Low oil prices today don't imply that there is no reason to conserve today.

Low prices today don't imply that there is a reason to conserve either. Free markets are self-correcting. When a solution is needed, the market will produce one.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but you seem to be advocating that something other than free will should be used to dictate our individual policy towards conservation. I will say that government edict, especially when based on marginal information, has a less than a 50% chance of being the correct course of action. This is amplified when you introduce politics into science.

By "poor family" I meant someone who needs a car to live and can't afford, say, a 1999 Explorer, or anything that costs even half as much. Principled conduct is something to be strived for, not to be scorned.

Understood, but you seem to think that I have a duty to lower my standard of living to match that of the lowest common denominator. I profess that each of us, as individuals, is responsible for our own future. The "poor" family you outline may not be able to afford a 1999 anything, but there's plenty of 1994 vehicles out there. Principled conduct dictates that people act such that they don't become a burden to society.

The more energy efficient solutions vary on the individual mix of purposes. Energy efficiency and emissions are only 2 factors anyway.

This is true. My vehicle serves a variety of purposes, some utilitarian, some fun. It isn't like I bought it in a vacuum. I think its good to consider all those things when one buys a vehicle, new or otherwise. But, I would never dream of compelling someone to limit their choices based on what I thought they should have.

Perhaps an SUV is right for you. That's your decision. Do energy/environment issues enter into your process? That's up to you too.

Well, that's a little better than your earlier comment, "But, commuting alone in an SUV will always be wasteful and selfish."

For the record, energy consumption did enter into the decision, which is why I don't have a suburban or even a 4-door model. As for emissions, virtually anything made in the last few years puts out a tiny fraction of the garbage that was emitted by earlier models (which may explain why the Kyoto-ists wanted to turn CO-2 into a "greenhouse gas"). I'm not going to totally justify my purchase, but it was exactly what I needed and it is serving me well.

[freeper4u]

> 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.

Not according to about the EPA and about 80% of the scientists today who have researched the topic.

EPA: "Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities."


> As for pollution, I'll stack my 1999 Explorer up against any 10 year old Honda.

First, your 99 Explorer gets 18/23. My 1993 Civic gets 22/28. Second, why are you comparing apples to oranges? A 1999 Civic gets 32/37.


So we try to conserve.

> Hell, oil is so cheap that we leave a good portion of our own wells shut down.

We do not leave wells closed down if the cost to extract is cheaper than the cost to import.

> But, commuting alone in an SUV will always be wasteful and selfish.

I take it from your post that you make good use of your SUV and understand the trade offs between versitility and buying limited special purpose vehicles. That is great. But most people who own SUV's do not. They buy it for what you are right to call "selfish" reasons.

The reason they do that is because the low price to consumers does not take into account any of the negative effects of oil consumption on society such as pollution or paying more money to Saudia Arabia than would otherwise be necessary.

If big auto and oil companies spent more time catching up to the Japanese and less time and money lobbying the government to set it's own standards and marketing bigger vehicles to a mostly selfish US market, then maybe consumers would be a little more intelligent when picking the best car to meet their actual needs.