Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Morality and Theology SUVs: ethical implicationsGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| SUVs: ethical implications | Login/Join |
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. | |||
|
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? | ||||
|
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  ) because they choose to live in the north. If they lived in, say, Texas, their bills would be much lower.  (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. | ||||
|
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. | ||||
|
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�. | ||||
|
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. | ||||
|
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.  | ||||
|
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. | ||||
|
The Scapegoat Utility Vehicle by Sam Kazman
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
The "Destroy Detroit" Project By David Harsanyi
| ||||
|
The Suburbs, SUVs, and Unintended Consequences Here's an amazingly great point:
| ||||
|
The Attack on SUVs by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
| ||||
|
Anti-SUV Activists Versus the American Family
| ||||
|
Anti SUV Bigots -- In their own words
| ||||
|
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. | ||||
|
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. | ||||
|
http://www.myfootprint.org/ My footprint is 21. It would take 4.7 Earths to support my lifestyle. | ||||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Morality and Theology SUVs: ethical implications