Ad
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
SUVs: ethical implications Login/Join 
posted
We had a discussion at macosxhints.com that started off being about using acetone in gasoline, then moved on to cover issues about energy alternatives in general, then, finally, U.S. consumption, SUVs, Kyoto treaty, etc. As we don't allow political discussions there, I had to finally pull the plug; I was also unhappy about what I perceived to be a few anti-American remarks.
- see http://forums.macosxhints.com/showthread.php?t=45638 - especially page two of the discussion, if interested.

I think some of the guys might be interested in finishing it, so I'm opening it up, here. It's a topic we've not addressed directly, and I think it's an important one.

----------

Here's my position at this time. It will sound paradoxical and contradictory, I know, but I'm open to changing it and look forward to the exchanges.

1. Oil is a non-renewable resource, and so we need to be conscious of how much we use if we want to have a supply for future generations. In the meantime, we ought to also be developing energy alternatives, as, in fact, we are (U.S. and other countries).
- see this link for an indication of what's going on in KS alone for ethanol production.

2. The U.S. consumes more than its fair-share of oil. Of course, our economic machine requires more than most countries.

3. Most Europeans drive more fuel-efficient vehicles than we do in the U.S., largely because their petro is heavily taxed to help pay for cradle-to-grave entitlements. Green Meme (Spiral Dynamics) Europeans also seem more conscientized about not wasting energy, and, as one member noted, don't view this as simply a private issue. Therefore, Europeans and others around the world tend to view U.S. consumption as selfish and wasteful, and Americans somewhat arrogant in this regard.

4. Americans really ought to be more concerned about their energy usage. Just because we have lower fuel prices, it doesn't follow that we ought to be wasteful in our usage of energy. I myself drive a Toyota Echo (45 mpg) and am conscious of how my consumption has repercussions beyond my own life.

5. All that said, I am skeptical about using taxation to control energy usage. European governments depend on this to help fund their social programs, and so it has a double-advantage to them. America is not so socialistic, however, nor does it seem to view this development as desirable. Hence, taxation of petroleum has been largely in the interest of generating revenues for highways, R & D for energy alternatives, environmental regulations, etc.

6. I am even more than skeptical about the Kyototo Treaty. Perhaps v. 2.0 might be an improvement over the earlier one, however, which would have had a very negative impact on the U.S. economy.

7. Nevertheless, it would be a good thing for the nations of the world to discuss our energy future. Oil ought to be viewed as a global commodity. Just because it is found more in certain places than others, and some nations can afford to burn more of it than others, it doesn't follow that we can adopt a laissez faire view of oil usage re. the future. Thinking "globally" here makes sense, and the U.N. ought to be calling nations to develop a plan to conserve more for future generations, who will surely need it even if alternative approaches are developed.

------

OK so far?

With all that in mind, I nonetheless affirm that it is not unethical for someone to purchase and drive an SUV. I would prefer they didn't, and that consumer habits would drive more responsible economic and political policies. That probably won't happen, however; people will continue to make choices based on other considerations, mostly what they find attractive and what they can afford. For many Americans, this means pruchasing an SUV. They have a legal right to do so, but they must also be prepared to endure the consequences -- generally (not always) less mpg, and a higher note. The benefits of safety, room, and style are apparently worth it for many, however, so it really does come down to a question of values.

Perhaps my ethical framework, here, is too narrow and legalistic? I do wish for more "global thinking" and less SUV use. Only, I find myself unable to pass harsh judgment on people who purchase them.
 
Posts: 7539 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 09 August 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
First off, I think we should acknowledge that there are two arguments here running side-by-side: the one that Phil is pursuing regarding how we might best manage a limited resource that so many depend on, and the stealth argument which is little more than about promoting socialism for socialism's sake.

SUV's aren't the only relatively low mileage cars but for some reason the image of the SUV works great in terms of class warfare. No doubt part of this resentment of SUV's is fueled by jealously. I certainly wouldn't want to live in Europe where choices are taken away by the government, taxes are astronomically high, and one has to drive around in little toy cars that make Yugos look like SUV's in comparison. What's left to do but to try and preserve one's manhood (or womanhood) and yell across the pond at the selfish Americans who believe in markets, not government? That's right. I think much of this has to do simply with reinforcing one's belief system. We can argue about the relative merits of government taxation of gasoline, but the zealotry displayed by those who treat Kyoto as if it were a Second New Testament that had fallen out of the sky leads me to believe there's much more going on here than the nitty gritty minutia of government policy.

I think it was Sean Hannity who absolutely nailed one of the leftist hypocrites (I forget which one) who was flying around in a private jet while espousing the need for fuel efficiency. And then we have the last presidential campaign where John Kerry was discovered to own an SUV. At first, of course, he denied it. Then he said "The family has it. I don't have it.'' All this is evidence that adds up to the fact that many people could care less about SUV's and mileage. For them it's an issue they use for fomenting class warfare or to make themselves feel better about the oppressive systems they have to live in. Of course, mixed in with this are genuine concerns for the environment, but even environmentalism has turned in such an irrationally zealous cause for many that wrapping one's self in the flag of environmentalism is no longer enough to give one the upper hand in an argument.

And let's not use the argument of the gulf war regarding oil as in "Oh, if only the big, bad selfish American were more fuel efficient then we wouldn't have wars." That is just more Marxist, leftist nonsense. Besides, even here the left has no moral advantage. In fact, they are in a weaker position. Free markets and freedom go hand-in-hand thus the free flow of oil is compatible with human rights and democracy. That is to say, yes, Americans are more than ready to shed blood for freedom. That's one of the few things worth shedding blood over. In the case of Europe, they are just as prone to violence only they don't have the guts to face up to it. This by no means includes all of them, but many sanctimoniously decry American policy as being violent while at the same time, because of their own dependence on oil, they let their countries become overrun by Islamic extremists and play footsy with the likes of Arafat, Saddam, and others.

If, Phil, you find that discussions regarding SUVs lead to anti-American remarks it is only because there are so many other issues hiding inside. They're all dumped on the issue of SUV's. It then leads to people talking past one another. If someone wants to talk about market economies vs. command economies, then let's do so. If one wants to talk about high taxes on gas leading to the emergence of alternative fuels, then let's do so. (Has it in Europe, by the way?) How about having a sane discussions about environment policies that do not hide simmering anti-Americanism inside such a sham of a treaty such as Kyoto?
 
Posts: 5413 | Location: Washington State | Registered: 21 September 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Lots of good points, Brad, especially re hypocrisy and the "stealth" issue. I think, for example, of how many critics of U.S. energy consumption are Canadians and northern Europeans, whose heating bills are much higher than the U.S. and other countries (Russia excepted Wink ) because they choose to live in the north. If they lived in, say, Texas, their bills would be much lower. Razzer
(Norwegians seem to use mostly hydro-power generated electricity for heat, btw. . . a good, clean resource.)

Still, just because the left is for something doesn't mean we ought to be against it -- only suspicious about where they might be going with it. I'm with you there. To stick with the issues and not impute motives seems the order of the day.
 
Posts: 7539 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 09 August 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
I took at glance at that thread over at "Hints" and found a few goodies:

Since we're talking about energy efficiency, has anyone calculated the lost fuel efficiency due to the obesity epidemic? I'm guessing all that extra fat being carried around in vehicles of all kinds has to be costing us more than any fuel additive could save us.

An interesting point. We�ll come back to this one.

I'm willing to bet that millions of cars and trucks sitting at ill-timed or basically uncoordinated traffic lights consume more energy on a weekday than all the SUVs and sport trucks in the country. As urban sprawl overtakes us all, we encounter more and more traffic lights that are neither sensitive to traffic nor linked with the preceding and following lights along a main commuter route.

A great point.

No arm-twisting is required as the price of fuel goes up. We're already seeing a decline in the sales of SUVs and a rise in the sale of hybrids.

A good point from Phil.

Free-market Phil makes another good point: Guys, people don't naturally consider global consequences when they act, and I'll agree that's short-sighted. What they do pay attention to is what they can afford. Until recently, the price of petro was affordable to SUV owners, and SUVs were rather reasonably priced. As the price of petro goes up, less people will buy them. Even so, as Carlos notes, some people will still pay a higher price for fuel and SUVs to suit their tastes, and if they can afford it, so be it. That's the way it works out here in the USA, and most everywhere else that has a free market system.

And Phil brings up a key idea: People generally don�t act with global consequences in mind. They act with their own self-interest in mind. But, of course, that�s just what the "globally conscious" have in mind, their own self-interest, if perhaps they may get there by a bit more circuitous (and often convoluted) route. One might try to say that their "global consciousness" has a higher goal in mind than just self interest, but let�s get real. Most of us are not Gandhi, although plenty on the left are Gandhi wanna-be�s who try to strengthen their arguments by wrapping them up in the flag of compassion. Let�s just be honest and say that we find our self-interest (at least on this issue) more in government regulation than in trusting the free market. A good argument can be made for both.

But getting back to that first point about fat people wasting gas, that�s a slippery slope that I don�t think most of us want to go down, having to justify each and every use of goods and services against some utopian liberal standard. Kiss freedom goodbye the day that happens because when it comes right down to it, life is full of frivolity and useless things. That�s called freedom. The dour liberal standard sees every action as being good or bad for the state[. We ought to thumb our gas-guzzling SUV�s at that notion even while attempting to join together in a larger community to thoughtfully consider some of the major problems of the day, one of which is cheap energy. And here we run into another hidden ideological bias of the left: they primarily think only in terms of conservation and not in terms of increasing our supply of energy. Somehow they have gotten the idea that only one of these is virtuous while the other is not. And this truly short-sighted notion is getting us ALL in some trouble. Wishful thinking doesn�t bring us new sources of energy. Dreaming that some future energy source that one reads about in Popular Mechanics is the answer to all our energy problems is not living in reality. Surely being globally conscious starts with being conscious and the means not irrationally opposing any and all efforts to expand, say, oil drilling in the arctic or adding (as hurricane Katrina showed us we needed) more refining capacity.
 
Posts: 5413 | Location: Washington State | Registered: 21 September 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
If they lived in, say, Texas, their bills would be much lower.

LOL. That�s a good point, Phil.

(Norwegians seem to use mostly hydro-power generated electricity for heat, btw. . . a good, clean resource.)

As do those in the Pacific Northwest!

Still, just because the left is for something doesn't mean we ought to be against it�

I think that�s a great point. But I think a number of these issues sort of have to be rescued from the environmental extremists so that thoughtful dialogue can then begin anew. Me, I�ve got a 18 mpg Lincoln that I inherited. I�ve cut down a driving a bit but it�s hard for me to justify a new car payment when this things is already paid for. Gas would have to be six dollars a gallon or so to make that worthwhile.

And before people go running to the government to solve these problems (which it usually can�t and can usually only make them worse), they ought to have some confidence in something called "peer pressure". Even though government (by way of public service announcements) played a part in the reduction in smoking, as did a rational exposition of the health risks, it was peer pressure that played a significant, if not decisive, role. So this is all a way to say that I have no problem with people using their free speech to demonize SUV�s in order to sway public opinion and to get people to buy higher mpg vehicles. Public opinion and peer pressure is a vital part of the free market. But when it comes to trying to sway governmental policy then we ought to get serious and let the truth do the talking. There have always been, and always will be, harmful repercussions when we start zealously inflating the truth in order to serve what we think are overarching moral considerations. The road to hell�.
 
Posts: 5413 | Location: Washington State | Registered: 21 September 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
To stick with the issues and not impute motives seems the order of the day.

That�s the interesting thing about internet forums, eh? One can talk about motives as one would in, say, some backroom strategy session. But when it comes to an actual formal debate, well then, as you say, one might find it best to stick to the issues because a good debater is going to make mincemeat out of an argument that relies too much on imputing motives.

BUT�when arguments turn into dead-end discussions, where facts seem to mean nothing and, errr, one�s intentions or motives seem to mean everything, then one is sort of forced into it�forced into at least pointing this out. That's how I see it, anyway.
 
Posts: 5413 | Location: Washington State | Registered: 21 September 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
I do wish that Bush had taken a stronger tone on conservation of energy, especially after 9/11. With a little creativity and sacrifice, we could easily wean ourselves away from the need for Middle Eastern oil and do much to help conserve resources for the future. I don't know that Americans would have made different purchasing decisions, but they might have been more mindful of some of the implications of their spending.

Of course, a big issue now is that China is wanting more and more oil. Estimates are that there might be enough for the next century or so . . . hard to say, for sure, of course. Still, that's not very long, considering the fact that when it's gone, it's gone. Frowner
 
Posts: 7539 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 09 August 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
I do wish that Bush had taken a stronger tone on conservation of energy, especially after 9/11. With a little creativity and sacrifice, we could easily wean ourselves away from the need for Middle Eastern oil and do much to help conserve resources for the future. I don't know that Americans would have made different purchasing decisions, but they might have been more mindful of some of the implications of their spending.

Yes, I remember after 911 that there were some smirks from the right about how un-Churchillian the moment was. We were not told to expect blood sweat and tears. We were told (or the implication was) that there would be minimal disruption. I thought at the time that Bush was simply playing to the financial markets, trying specifically not to cause any kind of a panic, which was probably a good idea. But in retrospect it seems that the leaders today believe that if they are going to engage in war that they better not disrupt or inconvenience in any way the lives of those at home. I think at the time that most of us just wanted to do something to help, if only we were asked. But we weren�t asked. In essence we were told to just keep shopping, which I feel to this day was kind of crass and that an opportunity was lost to bolster attitudes towards a healthy patriotism and away from a cold, gutless, detached commercialism. Such heartless commercialism is ostensibly at the core of some of those who protest globalization, although it seems such a small slice of their message that it becomes obscured by the usual anti-American anti-capitalist stuff.

Still, that's not very long, considering the fact that when it's gone, it's gone.

Here�s what Wiki has to say on the subject.

Here�s a table of oil and natural gas reserves, although I admit I�m not sure how to read that table or how many years of consumption the estimated reserve represents.

The whole SUV issue is ostensibly about the need for conservation by way of efficiency. But my back-of-the-envelope guess is that, although conservation can squeeze a few more years out of the supply, it�s a marginal gain at best compared to our need to do either one of two things:

1) Find new energy sources and exploit them or
2) Go back to the stone age and live like Fred Flinstone

Conservation alone is not a responsible energy policy.
 
Posts: 5413 | Location: Washington State | Registered: 21 September 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
The Scapegoat Utility Vehicle
by Sam Kazman

quote:
But perhaps the most interesting critique is that CAFE kills people by causing vehicles to be �downsized.� Larger, heavier cars are less fuel efficient than similarly equipped smaller, lighter cars, but they also tend to be more crashworthy in practically every collision mode. They have more mass to absorb energy forces, more interior space in which their occupants can decelerate, and more momentum, which reduces the severity of their deceleration in accidents. As a result, occupant death rates for small cars are generally higher than those of large cars, sometimes by a factor of four or more.

It�s true that new technologies can improve both safety and fuel economy for small and large cars alike. Nonetheless, no matter what new technologies are developed, CAFE will still impose a blood-for-oil tradeoff. Take the most technologically advanced car imaginable, and then add a hundred pounds to it. Two things will happen�that new car will become less fuel efficient, and it will become crashworthier. In short, even with advanced technologies we still have to choose, at a certain point, between more safety and more fuel economy�

� In 2001, however, any doubts about CAFE�s lethal effects should have been put to rest by a National Academy of Sciences study of the program.* The study concluded that CAFE�s downsizing effect probably contributed to between 1,300 and 2,600 traffic deaths annually. Given that CAFE has been in full force for more than a decade, that is one staggering sum.
 
Posts: 5413 | Location: Washington State | Registered: 21 September 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
quote:
The ads [What Would Jesus Drive?] had superb production values; no surprise, given the Hollywood crowd that was helping her. They were also nonsense�elitist nonsense, to be precise. Here we had a jet-setting celebrity criticizing the vehicles bought by people who had barely a fraction of her wealth. If she was concerned about our use of Middle East oil, then shouldn�t she be advocating opening up the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling? If her concern was our use of any oil, then shouldn�t she set an example by taking a vow of petroleum abstinence, perhaps, eschewing oil-fueled limos and planes? And if Huffington was serious, then why focus on the types of vehicles we own rather than on the amount of driving we do?

The answer, of course, is that the SUV is so easy to demonize. SUV has come to stand for Scapegoat Utility Vehicle.

While Huffington�s campaign was new, her sentiments, in at least one sense, were not. Changes in mobility have often upset elites. In the early 1800s, when railroads first began to spread across Great Britain, the Duke of Wellington reportedly sneered that they would �only encourage the common people to move about needlessly.� Today the concern isn�t commoners in railroads, but commoners with four-wheel drive.
 
Posts: 5413 | Location: Washington State | Registered: 21 September 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
The "Destroy Detroit" Project
By David Harsanyi

quote:
It is certainly reasonable to debate the negative effects of this country's dependence on foreign oil. And yes, it is commendable to campaign for the production of more fuel-efficient and alternative-fuel vehicles. (Fuel-efficient cars already exist for anyone who cares to purchase one. Ford, for instance, plans on selling a 40 mile-per-gallon gas-electric version of its Escape SUV later this year.) But to assert a "credible link between driving SUVs and our national security" is just bizarre. After all, since every car, truck, plane, motorcycle and tractor uses oil, aren't we all guilty of supporting terrorists?

The fact is that 80 percent of the gasoline in this country is refined from oil bought outside the Persian Gulf area. And the last time we checked, Osama bin Laden's fortune came from his father's construction business, not the oil sales of Saudi Arabia autocrats. Bin Laden's former home, Afghanistan, is highly dependent on farming and livestock, not oil.
 
Posts: 5413 | Location: Washington State | Registered: 21 September 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
The Suburbs, SUVs, and Unintended Consequences

quote:
The SUV makers and drivers don�t go out of their way to point this out, but a cursory examination will show that an SUV is really little more than a station wagon sitting on a truck frame. As such, it�s a �truck� and counts differently toward a manufacturer�s CAFE average. Other than that, and the fact that most SUVs have four-wheel drive, there�s not much difference. Compare the specifications of the 1996 Buick Roadmaster wagon, the last full-size American station wagon, with those of the current Ford Expedition, the largest and most-vilified of the mainstream SUVs:

The SUV weighs a little more, is significantly taller and has more cargo volume. The station wagon is longer by over a foot, though, and wider by over an inch.

These things sold by the thousands back in the heyday of station wagons, and nobody suggested that people were buying them because they were insecure, or stupid, or because they wanted to show off their buying power. It anything, people who bought stations wagons were seen as dull people, people who were so uninterested in showing off as to be worth ridicule for that.
Here's an amazingly great point:

quote:
The anti-SUV forces are trying to create a similar negative image for the SUV, but it�s not going to work. For one thing, nobody was ever really opposed in any organized way to the minivan, so there was never any kind of �rebel� image that went along with having one. The minivan�s entire image problem is quite the opposite: that some people � a lot of people � see it as signifying that you�re an unthinking conformist. When these people need a lot of vehicular space, they go out and buy SUVs even though a minivan might actually serve just as well.
quote:
SUVs, to the extent that they�re undesirable, are a symptom, not a problem. If you�re against the use of SUVs, you should consider that you�re really against the zoning laws, building codes, and high-tax cities that push people to live in widely-scattered houses in the suburbs. And, while you�re at it, you might examine why you think SUVs are so evil, while station wagons and minivans are not.
 
Posts: 5413 | Location: Washington State | Registered: 21 September 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
The Attack on SUVs
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

quote:
It's been building for some time now, the left-puritan hatred of the Sport Utility Vehicle. To them, it represents a repudiation of everything they've worked for over decades. They have done their darndest to regulate large cars out of existence, on grounds that they use too much gas, pollute the environment, encourage a sense of private power, promote large families, and provide more comfort than anyone outside a DC bureaucracy should be permitted to enjoy.
quote:
But why would the Department of Transportation want us to focus on rollover questions to the exclusion of other risks? To demonize SUVs of course. As the New York Times reveals, studies have found that "cars generally get five stars, the highest rating, or four; minivans get two or three; sport utilities, one to three, and pickups, one to four."

It also turns out that this anti-SUV initiative is entirely a Clinton administration affair. The DoT has been trying to design a measure of rollover risk since 1994, exactly the time when SUVs became hugely popular.
quote:
But there's another, more perplexing, point operating here. The Department of Transportation seems to think that safety, applied in a propagandistic way in this one narrow area [rollover], is all that matters, and that consumers have no legitimate demand for image, comfort, or simply fashion. In fact, these are important goods to consumers, who should be allowed the freedom to make their own choices between the risk-convenience (or fashion or whatever) tradeoff.

Making such choices is the very essence of freedom. Some people prefer speed, while others put a premium on safety. Some prefer space and size and are willing to pay the price in lower gas mileage. That is their right, and who really believes that government is able to supplant those choices with wiser ones of the bureaucrats' making? As usual, all the excuses about safety, the environment, and the rest, are just excuses for control.
 
Posts: 5413 | Location: Washington State | Registered: 21 September 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Anti-SUV Activists Versus the American Family

quote:
Critics characterize SUV and minivan owners as wannabe survivalists wasting gas and clogging the roads with unsafe vehicles. However, when driven properly, SUVs and minivans are actually safer than cars. For front, side and rear crashes, their occupant fatality rate per 100,000 registered vehicles is 5.83 percent lower than for passenger cars. Simply wearing seat belts would save an additional 1,000 lives per year, while driving with common sense greatly reduces much-publicized rollover deaths.

These critics also want to increase the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards that force manufacturers to improve gas mileage. Doing so, however, would lead to higher prices and compromise size and safety. Existing CAFE standards already are cited by the government as responsible for 2,000 traffic deaths per year. And, with every 100 pounds that CAFE standards cut from the weight of a vehicle, the annual death toll increases by approximately 300 lives.

Improving gas mileage, surprisingly, won't necessarily help the environment. According to Andrew Kleit of Pennsylvania State University, better gas mileage encourages more driving. Fuel-efficient cars that reduce the cost per mile make it cheaper to drive more. Since some pollutant levels are directly proportional to the number of miles driven, CAFE standards can actually increase pollution.
quote:
Faced with the increasing popularity of SUVs and minivans despite their best efforts to demonize them, some frantic environmentalists are resorting to slanderous rhetoric and even violence to try to stem the tide�In Virginia, Oregon and Pennsylvania, the eco-terrorists of the Earth Liberation Front are discouraging SUV purchases through vandalism, arson and the acidic disfigurement of SUVs at dealerships. These actions force owners to live in fear of becoming the next target of what the FBI considers to be one of the most active domestic terrorist groups.
 
Posts: 5413 | Location: Washington State | Registered: 21 September 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Anti SUV Bigots -- In their own words

quote:
There is something nasty going on here. Yes there are arguments that can be made against SUV's on the basis of fuel consumption and high centers of gravity, but placed in context they are rather weak. Rollovers are just one small subset of accidents and the risk incurred in them is more than offset by the protection afforded in other kinds of collisions; and SUV fuel consumption is only a tiny fraction of US total fuel consumption. Cutting it would have negligible effect on gas prices or national security concerns.

So why the horrible animus? Look at what these people are saying. First, they impute moral status to the drivers of SUV's [they are presumed to be arrogant, greedy, inconsiderate, selfish, gluttonous, dangerous, etc.] Then they argue that driving SUV's is in some way an anti-social act. But neither of these is justified -- in fact, from their own words these critics show themselves to be profoundly anti-social haters.
quote:
Innacurate as it is, the anti-SUV bias defines a fault line in our society today -- it is not just a replay of the old cities against suburbs and rural populations antagonism that has characterized much of American history. It seems to be grounded in moral sensibilities. It bears more than passing resemblance to the old anti-yuppie animus of past years. It has blatant anti-capitalist overtones, and a generational component, and it plays off economic anxiety [however misplaced that is]. What more? I'm not sure.
 
Posts: 5413 | Location: Washington State | Registered: 21 September 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Right, Brad, there are anti-SUV campaigns that are pretty silly and narrow. Also, some hypocrites are crying the loudest.

As I noted in my opening post, I don't think it's unethical for people to purchase SUVs; they're legal and have lots of nice features. But they do tend to burn more fuel than other vehicles used for similar purposes, so the point that we ought to be considering how much people are driving is a moot one in that context.

I guess the ultimate question is whether we ought to simply let the markets regulate this matter (as, eventually, they will) or whether it wouldn't be wiser for not just the U.S. but all the nations of the world to be more pro-active in conserving what really is a non-renewable resource? Ought civilians be concerned as well and be taking measures to reduce energy consumption through carpooling and purchasing vehicles that require less fuel per mile? I think the answers to these questions ought to be obvious, but it seems we're living as though the questions aren't really all that important. That's probably where a lot of the annoyance with SUV users comes from, leftist ideologues notwithstanding.

I see that the Bush admin recently proposed higher fuel economy standards for SUVs. That's a good thing, I believe, and I also think it was a terrible mistake for the Reagan admin. to roll back the ones that had been set in the 70's.
 
Posts: 7539 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 09 August 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
But they do tend to burn more fuel than other vehicles used for similar purposes, so the point that we ought to be considering how much people are driving is a moot one in that context.

One of the arguments was that there just isn�t any other vehicle that does quite what the SUV can do.

I guess the ultimate question is whether we ought to simply let the markets regulate this matter (as, eventually, they will) or whether it wouldn't be wiser for not just the U.S. but all the nations of the world to be more pro-active in conserving what really is a non-renewable resource?

It�s been shown decisively, and without question, that unless certain resources (especially fish) are managed that these resources can and will be relatively quickly wiped out. But in the case of oil it becomes a bit more difficult to manage simply because we haven�t discovered it all yet and a good chunk of what we have discovered is not considered economically viable to extract but could be with future technology (as well as higher prices). We also can�t see into the future to know what other energy sources could become a possibility. Nuclear fusion has long been a Holy Grail of energy, and maybe we are just a few years away.

But one of the problems as I see it (and we see this in everything from Kyoto to the left�s hostility to more oil drilling and refineries�or hostility even to windmills, as the Kennedy�s have shown) is that the left has a retrograde, almost Luddite attitude toward civilization. It�s been so hammered into so many people�s heads that we acquired our wealth only by victimizing other people that they seem to think that it is now time for us to slow down, to sacrifice, to give up this crass pursuit of material wealth so that the rest of the world can catch up. Analogous to the indigenous population decline in Europe, one sees that many have lost faith in the western, technological style of living. And it is not that this style is without fault, but it�s certainly a mixed message from those who say science is the answer to everything and that religion is a crock. Religion may or may not be a crock, by why this loss of faith in science? Why should we quit reaching for the stars? Screw this idea of conservation as the ONLY means. That�s as defeatist, unimaginative, cynical and unconfident attitude that tries to masquerade under the guise of compassion, sensitivity and "higher consciousness". Indeed, we could use more of all three of those, but I�ll take the real article, not a facsimile.

I think it�s very likely that if we let the markets decide and do not smother human ingenuity via excessive government taxes and regulation we will work our way out of the problem. But if we sit back like Europe, dig in behind our citadel, take the attitude that there is nothing better to do than conserve, and if we belief it is immoral anyway to continue to fuel the juggernaut of technological progress then let�s just sign Kyoto, take a HUGE economic hit in this country while the (and this is no small point) while the Communists become more powerful than we are. Hmmm. Why would the left want that?

They talk about trying Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney at the International Criminal Court but they really ought to consider trying the legions of anti-western, pro-totalitarian college professors, politicians, and media folk who have so turned the minds of many people that they now would rather bolster the murdering Communists of this world than support freedom-loving western civilization itself.

Ought civilians be concerned as well and be taking measures to reduce energy consumption through carpooling and purchasing vehicles that require less fuel per mile?

Sure. But I think we should do so with open eyes. We should see that instead of relieving pressure on resources we are often simply allowing the left�s version of utopia to become even more entrenched. Here in Washington we have virtually stopped building any new lanes of road for quite some time. What we have, though, are tons of carpool lanes that tend to remain empty and unused. Same with buses. This is more than a fight about mpg and the environment. This is a battle over style of government.
 
Posts: 5413 | Location: Washington State | Registered: 21 September 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
http://www.myfootprint.org/ My footprint is 21. It would take 4.7 Earths to support my lifestyle.
 
Posts: 2559 | Registered: 14 June 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata