Slandering SUV drivers: Environmentalists go overboard with smear tactics

Union Leader ^ | 1/09/03

[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.