Why "going after" SUVs is a waste of time:

[Robb]

For this point I'm going to ignore aviation and rail, big consumers and polluters both.

According to the BTS, all passenger vehicles make up just over half of all the vehicles on the nation's roads. SUVs or light trucks make up about 20% of that (which is amazing, actually, but I digress).

The average passenger vehicle, SUV or otherwise, is driven less than an hour every day. An in-service freight truck averages 14 hours a day.

Unless I'm a bigger Dingbat than ever imagined, we should be concentrating on more efficient and less polluting freighting methods. In fact, given the fleet nature of shipping, it should be easier to focus on and change their behavior, because that half of the highway population is owned by far fewer people. I just don't see how "going after" this 10% that pollute and consume 7% as often is worth our time, other than as a briefly satisfying exercise in moderation/anti-consumerism or classism. :shrug:

[trotsky]

1. I guess every so often, dingbats DO have a point. ;-)

In all seriousness, that's an excellent point. We'd make a lot more friends if we abandon the quixotic quest against SUVs, because after all, the goal here is to reduce pollution, right?

[ma4t]

17. sorry, no

"(A)fter all, the goal here is to reduce pollution, right?"

Actually, I think not. The reason for going after SUVs is to allow persons who don't drive them to assert their moral superiority over those who do. After all, if reducing pollution was the goal everyone would hang their cloths out to dry instead of using clothes dryers. What percent of DU'ers would you guess use a clothesline exclusively?

[trotsky]

22. Well...

Here in Minnesota I would have a tough time using a clothesline for 6+ months out of the year, unless I wanted frozen boards for clothes. But we do have one, and use it whenever possible in the summer.

I don't for a moment believe that opposing SUVs is simply a way to assert moral superiority - in fact, I have heard that as a Republican talking point many times. A perfect strawman, in fact. How interesting you would bring it up on this message board.

I think that the reason SUVs tend to be Public Enemy #1 is that they are so conspicuous. You don't see ads for freight trucks, but you can't watch more than 5 minutes of TV without seeing an SUV ad. They're at the forefront of American culture, and so draw the fire.

[jmowreader]

31. I have seen an ad for a heavy truck

It was from Volvo Heavy Trucks, which (according to my freeper brother who drives a heavy truck) are some of the sweetest trucks on the road today.

In it, a truck driver was explaining how he loved his Volvo truck. How it featured one of the lowest costs-per-mile of any truck on the road today. How the Volvo truck's intelligent design actually improved its ability to service his customers.

And then the butler popped out of the sleeper with a tray of hors d'oeuvres, which gave the driver the chance to explain that a Volvo Heavy Truck comes with a kitchen too.

[Robb]

32. Far out.

Do you happen to remember what show was playing? I wonder what their target audience watches...?

[EV1Ltimm]

2. well, we've all seen that movie "Trucks"

We know it's just a matter of time before freight trucks become self-aware and start terrorizing diners in the middle of our deserts... so we're avoiding that issue altogether for when the time comes, the trucks know which side we're on.

But seriously, you make some great points. Makes me feel a little bit better about driving a jeep.

[Loonman]

3. Freighting, more efficient gasoline derivatives,

More efficient engines, more efficient emissions systems.



Vandalizing SUVs at a dealership is chickenshit.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. your post reminded me of an article

or at least a small piece of it, as far as shipping and what-not.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0714-02.htm

[Robb]

6. Great piece!

Thanks for the link. :thumbsup:

[tinanator]

5. Not hardly

the case against SUV's is far more serious than many here are willing to consider. I cant imagine why ;) Better to look at the percentage of new vehicles being sold, and the resource (both energy and wealth) depletion issues they represent. The situation we have been under since Reagan has been anti-CAFE, pro-consumption and entirely bipartisan. Bet you dont want to address any of these facts? Some discussion. Of course, vandalism and torching is counter productive and most likely cointelpro in nature.

[Onward]

7. I agree with tinantor

My apologies to those of you who own SUVs, but I feel the issue goes to the heart of our consideration for our fellow beings. I don't want to see our country -- or the planet -- full of Hummers. They're wasteful and overdone, and the US is already by far the world's largest consumer of just about everything. Do we care about other people on the planet, or not?

Big SUVs are also dangerous to the folks who drive regular cars. And they're hard to put up with, since drivers of regular cars can't see around them, either on the road or in parking lots.

So beside wasting resources, they are symbolic of a kind of "I've got mine" attitude. Plus they prop up the big corps, and their lobbyists, rewarding them for selling us stuff that kills us, and potentially the planet.

[el_gato]

11. SUV owners have made the choice, they need to live with the guilt

can't have it both ways

[Mountainman]

24. They don't feel guilty, that's your insecurity showing I think

To attack SUV owners is mentally off in my opinion. I can't describe it exactly but I feel there is something wrong with those who spend their hours ranting about what other people do with their lives and thier money.
It is similar to the religious folks who see all the evil others do.

Get your act together and stop taking other people's inventory for them.

[bloom]

18. I saw a Hummer parked yesterday

and I thought - what would people get that want to outdo the Hummer. It would have to be something like a backhoe.

We need somebody to make a movie with ordinary people driving around in Backhoes like they are Joe Cool or something.

Ridicule and better jokes - that is the answer!



(oh yeah - and legislation so that SUVs and TRUCKs and CARs for that matter, are held to better emission standards.)



(PS. ...and public transportation and better freight transportion methods....)

[IrateCitizen]

25. Then they'll come out with the Canyonero!

Can you name the truck with four-wheel drive
Smells like steak, and seats thirty-five?
Canyonero! Canyonero!
Well, it goes real slow with the hammer down.
It's the country-fried truck endoresed by a clown
Canyonero! Canyonero!
Hey, hey!
Twelve yeards long, two lanes wide,
Sixty-five tons of American Pride!
Canyonero! Canyonero!
Top of the line in utility sports,
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts!
Canyonero! Canyonero!
She blinds everybody with her super high-beams.
She's a squirrel-squashin', deer-smackin' drivin' machine.
Canyonero! Canyonero! Canyonero
Whoa, Canyonero! Whoa!


* song courtesy of The Simpsons

[treepig]

8. freight trucks have become somewhat more efficient

over the past two decades.

by contrast, suv's have been replacing passenger cars and getting only about 50% the fuel efficiency.

therefore, the trends are exactly the opposite of each other (i.e., the freight truck industry is already going in the right direction, the suv's are not - that's why the focus needs to be on suv's)

on edit - of course railroads are much more efficient than freight trucks on the highway, but that's not exactly relevant to the suv debate

[Robb]

14. Excellent point, but

still that means 10% are using (and polluting) twice as much. Is the trucking industry becoming 500% more efficient?

[GreyV]

9. Accidents?

In my life I witnessed three car accidents including one last October. two of them were SUV "induced". I think they give a false sense of security and power to their drivers. My biggest fear is getting rammed by some soccer mom who was busy putting on her lipstick while going 70mph.

[October]

16. Just moms, huh...

So you wouldn't mind getting rammed by a NASCAR dad who was busy drinking his Big Gulp Cola while going 70 mph?



<wink>

[StClone]

10. Syndrome

What gets me about SUVs is that they are part of a loophole. Being manufactured under the "truck category" and not having to fit into more stringent pollution control or safety laws.

Also, seeing people with a McMansion, SUVs and then bitching that they have no money for schools or anything else of real value is disgusting stupid and selfish. In the end the SUVs are seen parked at WalMart.

[DUreader]

12. Need More Data, what is a "passenger vehicle"

Many doctors, lawyers and other professionals who have their own

business are getting these $100,000 tax breaks and using their trucks

for their personal car but it may be classified as a non passenger

vehicle in your cite.

Enron style accounting is everywhere

[IrateCitizen]

13. It's part of a systemic problem

Here in the US, the SUV is just an extension of the self-destructive suburbia growth patterns that we've experienced over the past 50 years.

For example, do you realize that while people throughout all of Western Europe use an automobile for less than half of all of their trips, people in the US use an automobile for over 80% of their total trips? Why is this the case?

For one, Western European nations have put in place restrictive building codes to keep growth in the cities and towns -- and maintain open space and farms outside of them. Coupled with this effort is investment in excellent public transportation networks and public spaces. The end result is the establishment of communities in which you can walk, bike or take a streetcar to just about anywhere you have to go to run errands. You can even take a train on a long-distance trip if you want.

Here in the US, most of us have to get in a car to go ANYWHERE. We also put in place policies that emphasized PRIVATE rather than PUBLIC space. Therefore, parks in our cities are lacking (making them less attractive places to live), but people in suburban developments all have 0.5 acre lots where they can live in isolation from each other. As for public transit -- GM actually bought up and dismantled streetcar networks following WWII in order to increase dependence on the automobile.

The SUV is just a symptom of this philosophy. The American society was built on the basis of "me-ism" -- meaning the trading of public commons for the "right" to private space. The SUV is just an extention of that -- the choice of people who are foremost concerned with their own "safety" and the "right" to drive in luxury, without regard for any of the causual effects to that "right".

[K-W]

15. The point of the SUV issue is that it is people, not companies.

Regulating the enviromental impact of freight is something on the long list of enviromental regulations that need to be put on corporations. SUV's however can be very easily addressed at the consumer level by attaching a stigma to them and making them less desireable to consumers.

Edit: Also, the SUV issue is a microcasm of the fact that the general public is complicit in the corperate enviromental abuses by choosing image and consumerism over rationality and envirometalism.

[John BigBootay]

19. "Attach stigma" or "Outlaw?"

I am all in favor of legally stigmatizing SUV owners (at least those single passenger, urban dwellers who have no use for the features of an SUV) but I draw the line at legislation that would ban them for all-- whether through an outright ban or carefully crafted legislation that would outlaw the higher CO2 output of an SUV.

I am generally leary of the unintended consequences of such legislation.

[Terwilliger]

20. It's time to end life lived in oil

the only way to do that is to reject the industry of oil

we need alternatives

hell, if they had been working on making cars electric 20 years ago, we could have stupendous electric cars today, everywhere...so that while we sit around waiting to move forward, we're not polluting the air we breathe

but they don't want that...they need to you to have FAITH in the big car with the little fuel efficiency

it's like the Cold war and its after-effects....they had to do something to justify the use and consumption of so many resources, that we had an explosion of the War on Drugs, and now we're into the War on Terror...think of the savings

That's like the oil industry...they know that everything runs on them, and they have ridiculous amounts of money and influence to show for it...they know electric is probably coming...they know there are other means that will overtake oil...they know that research could probably make oil obsolete now, so they're pushing the need for oil with the need for "driving security" while they consider the best way to continue to demand so much money and effort from a society that no longer needs them

Demand transportation transformation NOW!

[treepig]

21. perhaps you could provide a link for your (dubious) statistics

according to
http://www.pewclimate.org/policy_center/policy_reports_and_analysis/brief_us_transportation/vehicles.cfm :



Light-Duty Vehicles. Light-duty vehicles (automobiles and light trucks) account for more than half of GHG emissions from the U.S. transportation sector, with emissions growing steadily. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 mandated Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for light duty vehicles. The initial round of standards in the late 1970s doubled fuel economy, but these standards have not been increased for passenger cars in over twenty years and have increased only slightly for light trucks. Because light truck standards are weaker than those for passenger cars, the shift from passenger cars to light truck purchases has led to an overall decrease in the fuel economy of new light-duty vehicles.

This trend could be reversed. Light-duty vehicle fuel economy could be increased by one-fourth to one-third at less than the cost of the fuel saved over the vehicle’s lifetime. Depending on technological progress, fuel economy could be increased by 50 to 100 percent by 2030. In the near term, improvements in engines and transmissions and in the reduction of aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance, and vehicle weight could be implemented without compromising safety, handling, or comfort. In the long term, advanced diesel engines, gasoline or diesel hybrids2, and hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicles can yield more dramatic improvements.

Heavy-duty vehicles. Virtually every new large truck and bus in the United States is already equipped with the most energy-efficient internal combustion engine available, since fuel costs are typically the largest expenditure item for commercial operators after the cost of the vehicle itself. Even so, in the near term, fuel efficiency could be improved by approximately 25 percent for long-distance transport and by 50 percent for short-haul stop-and-go transport. For long-distance transport, reducing tractor-trailer idling at truck stops by installing auxiliary power units could yield fuel savings on the order of 10 percent. Reducing driving resistance3 may offer even greater potential. For stop-and-go truck transport, hybrid drive trains are a promising technology. In the long term, according to the U.S. government’s 21st Century Truck program, a 140 percent improvement for medium-sized trucks, a 60 percent improvement for over-the-road tractor trailers, and a 160 percent fuel economy increase for transit buses can be achieved through a combination of engine, aerodynamic, rolling resistance, and materials technologies.4


seems like there's room for improvement in both cases, but considering the "light truck" category (which includes the totally unnecessary suv's) is larger than the "heavy truck" category, it still seems like a no-brainer to focus on suv's

[Robb]

23. Sure.

2003 BTS National Transportation Statistics, Table 1-11. Here's the index.

What the table you've cited is missing is that while SUVs are light trucks, not all light trucks are SUVs. BTS breaks things down by number of wheels, which might make the comparison easier.

[Pithlet]

26. I blame the automakers.

I've participated in one of the anti-SUV threads, and have made my opinion of them known. I hate them; mainly the oversized ones. But, I wouldn't personally criticize anyone for owning one. For one, it makes no difference, because they either don't believe the impact they're having is negative, or they don't care. Plus, there are things I do that aren't exactly green. Many of us choose which issues are important to us, and act on them. They may not be the same thing that others do. Because I'm not perfect myself, although I disapprove of buying SUVs based on image only, and not out of need, I pretty much keep that to myself whenever someone mentions that they own one.

The automakers make over sized SUVs that are dangerous to others, and have a substantial impact on our environment. They could design more fuel efficient SUVs that wouldn't completely decimate a Toyota Tercel in an accident, and phase out the behemoths. Some of the smaller SUVs on the market aren't so bad. They don't because they aren't forced to by legislation or market. Just because the market demands doesn't make it right to provide those demands.

If there were only a few here and there, based on need, I wouldn't even have a problem. But they are huge in my area. We get very little bad weather, no mountains, well maintained roads. There can't possibly be a need for all these ten ton monstrosities with the center gravity of a toothpick standing on end. They're almost always driven by cell phone talking, soda swilling aggressive drivers who can't be bothered to pay attention while they're driving. It makes the roads less save for me in my meek minivan. It does piss me off, and I think the automakers should be held accountable.

[Hammie]

27. It's not a waste of time

It is all about the remaking of society. We've got to realign peoples expectations. We've experimented with personal freedom and it is a failure. We've created a society where people expect each generation to be wealthier and better off than the generation before. Where will it end? We've got to reverse this trend now.

How many people actually NEED an SUV? Hardly any, they might prefer them, or like them, but do they really NEED them? They should be outlawed for private ownership. If someone really needs one, they can apply to the state atty general for a permit to buy one and have their need reevaluated annually. When they no longer need one they should have to sell it to a licensed SUV dealer to insure that it doesn't fall into the wrong hands.

Not only doesn't any really NEED one, they are unreasonably dangerous. Check out what insurance costs on one of these killing machines it must be hundreds of dollars per year! The corporate villains in Detroit might be able to pull the wool over the eyes of the soccer moms, but the insurance companies know the truth.

SUVs are just the start. Once we get people accustomed to regulation in their choice of vehicle, we can use the same principle to decide what kind of homes people own, and what kind of food people eat. Who needs to eat meat for example, you can get all the protein you need from tofu, and other vegetarian sources which are much better for the environment.

So you see, we've got to start somewhere and SUV's are perfect because we can use envy to help people start to see things our way.


Hammie out!



IBTL

[Pithlet]

29. I hardly think that pointing out

the damage that large SUVs (as do all vehicles, to an extent) do to the environment, and the fact that they are dangerous on the road, particularly to smaller cars is anywhere close to saying that. I'm assuming that you're being facetious, as if people concerned about the impact of SUVs on our environment are wackos. If you weren't, then I think your view is a bit extreme, and not like most people who actually care about the environment.

[guitar man]

28. I agree

I think the oversized SUV thing is a fad.Everyone I know that has bought a Hummer or H2 so far has turned right around and got rid of it. I had to go pull a friend's H2 out of the mud with my truck,a 2000 Ford f-150 4x4.He asked me what kind of gas mileage I was getting.When I told him 16-17,he traded the H2 on an '04 f-150 the next day.Hasn't been stuck since.

When we got the truck,my wife was drooling over a Ford Expedition. I told her I didn't really want a station wagon,which in reality is what the current SUV is."Back in the day" the old joke was "when you get married and have kids,you'll have to trade that Trans-Am in on a Vista Cruiser.The automakers figured out how to "put lipstick" on a station wagon by mounting it on a 4x4 truck frame and calling in an SUV.

When I got her to realize that our f-150 and the Expedition were essentially the same under the skin,except the pickup has a beefier suspension,she went for it,and saved us about 7 grand to boot.Now I can't get her out of the truck long enoug for me to get to drive it:(

[tjwash]

30. Don't forget about the tax break....

....that exists that that SUV owners are able to take advantage of. The jobs bill that dim-bulb enacted in May of last year, included a provision that allows small business owners to deduct the entire cost of vehicles over 6,000 pounds gross weight, up to $100,000. This was supposed to be a tax break for farmers and businesses that use large vehicles, but Joe hummer-head can also deduct his whole cost of his small-penis mobile by telling his accountant it is a work vehicle. And believe me they have, to the tune of almost one and a half billion in lost tax revenue.

Of course that is Just fine to the republicans in congress. They couldn't trample over themselves fast enough to reject the challenge to it...