Jimmy Higgins

Want an SUV, fine. Have it. You'll get the bad mileage, but if you actually use the car for what it is for, you'll save money. Getting your boat hauled probably costs a fortune. If you can do it yourself, then you save a bundle.

However, owning an SUV does not mean you are anti-environment. If you don't think SUV's should get better mileage then I think you are against the environment.

So how many of our SUV owners like the status quo and how many would be for making the SUV a better and more efficient vehicle without compromising its abilities?

Zar

We are not presented with the choice between environmentally and energy efficient SUVs on the one hand, and polluting, gas-guzzling ones on the other with all else being equal. The whole debate around SUVs and their even more massive truck and "Suburban" brethren centers around the notion that people must give up or sacrifice something in order to achieve these better results, namely horsepower, money, convenience or status.

The bottom line is that people who commute to work in a huge truck or vehicle are the one's guzzling the gas and polluting the air more than anyone, and will have to buy a fuel efficient car and rent a truck when they need to haul something in order to rectify this. The fact that many people say "Over my dead body" makes them the opposition of the environmentally and politically concerned.

So, maybe my answer is, except for when having an SUV is necessary for, say, your line of work or to haul a big family all the time, you cannot own an SUV and be environmentally concerned at the same time presently.

HaysooChreesto!

But who decides what is necessary? Wouldn't that effectively kill the SUV market and put thousands out of work? I have several relatives who live in Michigan and they all work for the Big Three (as they call them) Ford, Chrysler, or GM.

The best answer to this is for things to stay the way they are. If one doesn't want one, don't buy one, and vice versa.

If the demand for better mileage SUV's should arise, then people will stop buying them and the manufacturers will have to adjust accordingly.

August Spies

I think this is a bad argument for two reasons.
1. As far as I am aware there are no SUV companies. There are car companies that ALSO make SUVs. If people dont' buy SUVs, they will still buy cars.

2. So what? Try applying this logic to something else "What? you can't buy lightbulbs, it will destroy the candle making industry" (omg... did I just make an Ayn Rand reference?)

3. You could just as easily claim buying SUVs is damaging other parts of the automobile industry. Are those workers less important?

beco

My girlfriend is quiet progressive, but she drives an Ford Explorer. She saids she needed a car that could handle upstate NY snows. BTW she thinks she going to "ECO HELL" for having it.

SUVs are a fad, giving time it fade. Just need a good raise in gas prices and people will start switching


I would buy hybrid car if they would make one I could fit into. I'm 6'2 with long legs, right now I'm driving a VW beetle.

HaysooChreesto!

1. There are many factors that come into play when a line of vehicles are discontinued. When the Fiero model came out in the 80's many workers were given the choice to either stay where they were and continue to work on their given product line, or move to the new line and start making Fieros.
When Fieros were discontinued there were thousands of layoffs and some of the people who were laid off spent almost two years trying to find employment. They simply just didn't go back to the line they were working on before as those jobs had already been filled or the lines modernized to be more labor efficient.
Some would be put back to work fairly quickly but the lag time to rework shifts, retrain workers, reconfigure plants and up production of other vehicles would take a very long time for most.
In the meantime, many of these blue collar people who live paycheck to paycheck would have a very scary and uncertain future.
Some could get by on unemployment I guess...


2. The analogy doesn't work. A lightbulb is a superior product when compared to the candle. It really doesn't have any bearing on this particular subject.

3. I don't understand what you're saying. I never said anything about A being more important than B.

Eliminating the SUV market would have real and long lasting repercussions that would mostly affect the blue collar types. But at least the air would be about .000000000000002 % cleaner.
But then what's next?

August Spies

2. You can change the analogy to be whatever you want "oh you can't go buy product X because it will hurt the workers of product Y. "

3. How so? Cutting out SUVs, there will still be (most likely) the same number of car buyers. and the car industry will need the same number or workers. The blue collar types... AS A WHOLE will be in the same position. Individually there would be ups and downs, but that is the way the economy works (for good or for bad)

Again I could just as easily claim that the SUV industry, but growing and having lots of people support it, is harming the rest of the automotive industry. This will result in layoffs for other types of workers and thus will harm the blue collar types. Oh but at least the air will be more polluted.

Mecha_Dude

what about smaller SUVs that get reasonable gas mileage? I don't have problems with those. Especially where I live (PA=Hills from Hell)

What I have problems with are those that I call "SUAVs" (Sub-Urban Assault Vehicles). Y'know the type: Bolt a turret on top and fill the passenger compartment with ammo and go conquer a small nation...

Zar

Hi, Lamma.

Of course individual people may know best what exactly it is they are doing with their SUVs. But I'm not really arguing the case for making a law against SUVs at this point, I'm just trying to make ethical distinctions from the point of view of being environmentally concerned between a person who intends to and in fact does use a Sport Utility Vehicle for real Sports and real Utility, and someone who buys it mainly because it is fashionable.

I'm not making the argument that large vehicles are not needed or are not at least very convenient for some purposes, I'm talking about those who really don't make much use of that and drive a big vehicle to be "tough", look "big" or be "cool." One interesting borderline case is that some women drive SUVs because they feel safer in them, and though I question the facts on whether they really are safer, I am ambivalent as to the ethical aspect of this choice.

As far as whether moving away from SUVs will kill the economy, I think that is hogwash. They'll just make something else. Have you seen those new "Mini" cars (not so new in Europe)? They advertise that they are the anti-SUV. Maybe Detroit or whoever should start making those. And this may put a dent in the oil company revenue, but who cares? The amount of money spent on gas is that much less spent on toys for the kids and dinner for the wife. People will spend their money somewhere else.

Autonemesis

You sound like a snob. I bet you drive a small car so you can feel morally superior. How many square feet is your house? Do you really put all that space to use?

When can we put this topic to rest?