Point taken, but I guess I'd rather freedom remain at a cost to the environment than the other way around.
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Point taken, but I guess I'd rather freedom remain at a cost to the environment than the other way around.
Originally posted by: BoberFett
SUVs already pay higher taxes, they use more fuel per mile. Adding additional taxes on them is like any other sin tax. The tax on liquor, cigarettes, whatever vice you can think of is nothing more than thinly veiled social engineering. Have you ever heard the saying "A mind convinced against it's will, is of the same opinion still?" I think it applies here. You can tax every SUV owner out of existence, and they'll despise you for it and fight against other environmental initiatives simply because you took away their toy. Alternatively, you can let the market do it's thing, and when gas is too expensive SUVs will disappear. We're already seeing SUVs fade away and smaller vehicles sell more. Let people make changes by choice and they're far more receptive than having it shoved down their throats.
Really though we're way off topic. And sorry if that got a bit heated there (no pun intended), I actually enjoyed our exchange. :beer:
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Excelsior
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Excelsior
Find me a scientific study that suggests SUVs are a large factor in our overall CO2 emissions. The impact they make is not large enough to make a fuss about, IMO. Until we start using a different energy source altogether, all cars that use gas are a part of the problem.
I guess, for some people, its a hard equation.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www...es/transportation_industry/003127.html
So, lets use some logic here. If there are 24.2 million SUV's in the country, 9 million more than 5 years prior, that means that there are 9 million vehicles using roughly 75% more fuel than the standard passanger car.
Thus, considering the fact that the annual miles driven is ~12k and guestimating average SUV mpg is ~15, that would mean that each SUV consumes 800 gallons of gas per year. That is equal to 19,360,000,000 gallons of gas.
Consider that the average passenger car gets ~25mpg, or 480 gallons, and equiv number of cars will consume 12,096,000,000.
Now, consider that there are roughly 28 gallons of gas in a barrel of oil. That equals 259,428,571.42 barrels of oil difference, or $20,235,428,571 dollars annually, assuming $78/barrel.
Consider that the world consumes 75 million barrels a day, we could supply the world with oil for 3.45 days just from SUV conversion to regular passanger cars, in 2002.
Or, we can fuel the entire country for an additional 13 days just on the savings.
Consider if average mpg raised to 35 mpg. 342 gallons per car and 8,618,400,000 gallons of gas, and 307,800,000 barrels of oil. We could fuel theworld for 4 days and the US for almost 15. Just on those savings.
But hell, there is no difference. Saving the economy 20 billion dollars, polluting a hell of a lot less, and dramatically reducing the amount of oil needed is pittance to rampant consumerism.
Excellent post! *applause* I mean it, really. I love the way you worked all of that out.
However, I said "....that suggests SUVs are a large factor in our overall CO2 emissions. "
All you did was prove that SUVs use more gas than a standard passenger car, and that if nobody drove them, we could cut down on our total use of gas, "save money", and pollute less (still waiting for some facts concerning how SUVs really affect the total amount of pollution in this country. Something tells me it is quite small (less than 2%).
I hate to break it to you, but getting rid of SUVs isn't the answer (I don't drive one, btw). I dislike "rampant consumerism" just as much as you.
Isn't the idea that you consume a lot less gas, which produces Co2 when burned in an ICE, enough?
2% is 2% less than what we are using today, that is significant enough to warrant their elimination.
I never said outlaw suvs. I merely suggest taxing the living shizzle out of them and then reinvesting that money into a fund for natural conservation.
2% is 2% less than what we are using today, that is significant enough to warrant their elimination.
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: BoberFett
We could do even more by eliminating personal automobiles altogether? Why not do that?Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Isn't the idea that you consume a lot less gas, which produces Co2 when burned in an ICE, enough?
2% is 2% less than what we are using today, that is significant enough to warrant their elimination.
lol, there is some good ole extremism. Instead of recognizing the problem and dealing with it, you just go to the extreme and jump the shark.
suvs are the biggest, most wasteful, and idiotic thing ever devised to lure consumers into buying.
Originally posted by: Excelsior
While we're at it, lets get rid of all of those dumptrucks/construction equipment too. Afterall, they put far more pollution into the air than SUVs.
You just don't realize that SUVs are not the problem. I know it is easy for you to point fingers at the people who drive SUVs (that don't need them) but it is a waste of energy.
Actually, you said you want them to be eliminated.
What you need to realize is that the overconsumption in amerian will not be stopped by getting rid of SUVs. Instead, we need to seek a solution that is long term. So many people in the US don't drive SUVs, but yet they still produce tons of pollution everyday (as you know). The only way we can really reduce pollution is to use a cleaner source of energy.
This could take many many years to fully implement, but it is the only true answer. Again, the SUVs are not the only example of over-consumption in the US. Hell, I'd argue that Walmart is a better example. People want everything, a lot of it, and for very little $$$. Most of them don't care about the consequences of this behavior and that is a shame.
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Excelsior
While we're at it, lets get rid of all of those dumptrucks/construction equipment too. Afterall, they put far more pollution into the air than SUVs.
You just don't realize that SUVs are not the problem. I know it is easy for you to point fingers at the people who drive SUVs (that don't need them) but it is a waste of energy.
Actually, you said you want them to be eliminated.
What you need to realize is that the overconsumption in amerian will not be stopped by getting rid of SUVs. Instead, we need to seek a solution that is long term. So many people in the US don't drive SUVs, but yet they still produce tons of pollution everyday (as you know). The only way we can really reduce pollution is to use a cleaner source of energy.
This could take many many years to fully implement, but it is the only true answer. Again, the SUVs are not the only example of over-consumption in the US. Hell, I'd argue that Walmart is a better example. People want everything, a lot of it, and for very little $$$. Most of them don't care about the consequences of this behavior and that is a shame.
1. If you look at any of my posts, I never said anything about commercial vehicles. So quit jumping the shark.
2. I have always championed a long-term solution. The SUV thing is a quick fix and an important one.
Originally posted by: Excelsior
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Excelsior
While we're at it, lets get rid of all of those dumptrucks/construction equipment too. Afterall, they put far more pollution into the air than SUVs.
You just don't realize that SUVs are not the problem. I know it is easy for you to point fingers at the people who drive SUVs (that don't need them) but it is a waste of energy.
Actually, you said you want them to be eliminated.
What you need to realize is that the overconsumption in amerian will not be stopped by getting rid of SUVs. Instead, we need to seek a solution that is long term. So many people in the US don't drive SUVs, but yet they still produce tons of pollution everyday (as you know). The only way we can really reduce pollution is to use a cleaner source of energy.
This could take many many years to fully implement, but it is the only true answer. Again, the SUVs are not the only example of over-consumption in the US. Hell, I'd argue that Walmart is a better example. People want everything, a lot of it, and for very little $$$. Most of them don't care about the consequences of this behavior and that is a shame.
1. If you look at any of my posts, I never said anything about commercial vehicles. So quit jumping the shark.
2. I have always championed a long-term solution. The SUV thing is a quick fix and an important one.
And I am telling you that it is hardly a fix, wouldn't make enough of a difference, and spending any time/energy on eliminating SUVs would be counterproductive to a long-term solution. You said it yourself, they are a symptom of the problem. Instead of treating a symptom, we need to "treat the disease itself". This is best done not through rash decisions such as getting rid of an entire group of vehicles, or demonizing their owners.
But it doesn't matter, because BoberFett already said almost everything I would want to say.
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Excelsior
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Excelsior
While we're at it, lets get rid of all of those dumptrucks/construction equipment too. Afterall, they put far more pollution into the air than SUVs.
You just don't realize that SUVs are not the problem. I know it is easy for you to point fingers at the people who drive SUVs (that don't need them) but it is a waste of energy.
Actually, you said you want them to be eliminated.
What you need to realize is that the overconsumption in amerian will not be stopped by getting rid of SUVs. Instead, we need to seek a solution that is long term. So many people in the US don't drive SUVs, but yet they still produce tons of pollution everyday (as you know). The only way we can really reduce pollution is to use a cleaner source of energy.
This could take many many years to fully implement, but it is the only true answer. Again, the SUVs are not the only example of over-consumption in the US. Hell, I'd argue that Walmart is a better example. People want everything, a lot of it, and for very little $$$. Most of them don't care about the consequences of this behavior and that is a shame.
1. If you look at any of my posts, I never said anything about commercial vehicles. So quit jumping the shark.
2. I have always championed a long-term solution. The SUV thing is a quick fix and an important one.
And I am telling you that it is hardly a fix, wouldn't make enough of a difference, and spending any time/energy on eliminating SUVs would be counterproductive to a long-term solution. You said it yourself, they are a symptom of the problem. Instead of treating a symptom, we need to "treat the disease itself". This is best done not through rash decisions such as getting rid of an entire group of vehicles, or demonizing their owners.
But it doesn't matter, because BoberFett already said almost everything I would want to say.
I would hardly say getting rid of 25 million vehicles that get half the gas mileage of a good sedan is rash. Furthermore, it's a very good start at conservation and normal use of vehicles.
Originally posted by: Excelsior
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Excelsior
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Excelsior
While we're at it, lets get rid of all of those dumptrucks/construction equipment too. Afterall, they put far more pollution into the air than SUVs.
You just don't realize that SUVs are not the problem. I know it is easy for you to point fingers at the people who drive SUVs (that don't need them) but it is a waste of energy.
Actually, you said you want them to be eliminated.
What you need to realize is that the overconsumption in amerian will not be stopped by getting rid of SUVs. Instead, we need to seek a solution that is long term. So many people in the US don't drive SUVs, but yet they still produce tons of pollution everyday (as you know). The only way we can really reduce pollution is to use a cleaner source of energy.
This could take many many years to fully implement, but it is the only true answer. Again, the SUVs are not the only example of over-consumption in the US. Hell, I'd argue that Walmart is a better example. People want everything, a lot of it, and for very little $$$. Most of them don't care about the consequences of this behavior and that is a shame.
1. If you look at any of my posts, I never said anything about commercial vehicles. So quit jumping the shark.
2. I have always championed a long-term solution. The SUV thing is a quick fix and an important one.
And I am telling you that it is hardly a fix, wouldn't make enough of a difference, and spending any time/energy on eliminating SUVs would be counterproductive to a long-term solution. You said it yourself, they are a symptom of the problem. Instead of treating a symptom, we need to "treat the disease itself". This is best done not through rash decisions such as getting rid of an entire group of vehicles, or demonizing their owners.
But it doesn't matter, because BoberFett already said almost everything I would want to say.
I would hardly say getting rid of 25 million vehicles that get half the gas mileage of a good sedan is rash. Furthermore, it's a very good start at conservation and normal use of vehicles.
*sigh* Forget it. You're right, telling 25 Million people that they can't drive their vehicle anymore because it gets bad gas mileage isn't rash. Sorry for ever doubting you.
Have a good day. :lips:
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Excelsior
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Excelsior
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Excelsior
While we're at it, lets get rid of all of those dumptrucks/construction equipment too. Afterall, they put far more pollution into the air than SUVs.
You just don't realize that SUVs are not the problem. I know it is easy for you to point fingers at the people who drive SUVs (that don't need them) but it is a waste of energy.
Actually, you said you want them to be eliminated.
What you need to realize is that the overconsumption in amerian will not be stopped by getting rid of SUVs. Instead, we need to seek a solution that is long term. So many people in the US don't drive SUVs, but yet they still produce tons of pollution everyday (as you know). The only way we can really reduce pollution is to use a cleaner source of energy.
This could take many many years to fully implement, but it is the only true answer. Again, the SUVs are not the only example of over-consumption in the US. Hell, I'd argue that Walmart is a better example. People want everything, a lot of it, and for very little $$$. Most of them don't care about the consequences of this behavior and that is a shame.
1. If you look at any of my posts, I never said anything about commercial vehicles. So quit jumping the shark.
2. I have always championed a long-term solution. The SUV thing is a quick fix and an important one.
And I am telling you that it is hardly a fix, wouldn't make enough of a difference, and spending any time/energy on eliminating SUVs would be counterproductive to a long-term solution. You said it yourself, they are a symptom of the problem. Instead of treating a symptom, we need to "treat the disease itself". This is best done not through rash decisions such as getting rid of an entire group of vehicles, or demonizing their owners.
But it doesn't matter, because BoberFett already said almost everything I would want to say.
I would hardly say getting rid of 25 million vehicles that get half the gas mileage of a good sedan is rash. Furthermore, it's a very good start at conservation and normal use of vehicles.
*sigh* Forget it. You're right, telling 25 Million people that they can't drive their vehicle anymore because it gets bad gas mileage isn't rash. Sorry for ever doubting you.
Have a good day. :lips:
I never said I'd tell them not to drive it, I'd disincentivize it. As I said before, smack on a 30% guzzler tax onto the sticker on anything that gets under 18mpg in *real world* tests. Smack on a yearly guzzler tax for anybody who uses it for any mileage over 8,000. Of course, this only applies to personal vehicle, not commercial.
All funds would go to a master trust for distribution to national parks or other preservation.
Keep in mind, as Dave called me, I am a "corporate whore", not a tree hugger. I just think that there is a "too far".
Originally posted by: Excelsior
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Excelsior
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Excelsior
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Excelsior
While we're at it, lets get rid of all of those dumptrucks/construction equipment too. Afterall, they put far more pollution into the air than SUVs.
You just don't realize that SUVs are not the problem. I know it is easy for you to point fingers at the people who drive SUVs (that don't need them) but it is a waste of energy.
Actually, you said you want them to be eliminated.
What you need to realize is that the overconsumption in amerian will not be stopped by getting rid of SUVs. Instead, we need to seek a solution that is long term. So many people in the US don't drive SUVs, but yet they still produce tons of pollution everyday (as you know). The only way we can really reduce pollution is to use a cleaner source of energy.
This could take many many years to fully implement, but it is the only true answer. Again, the SUVs are not the only example of over-consumption in the US. Hell, I'd argue that Walmart is a better example. People want everything, a lot of it, and for very little $$$. Most of them don't care about the consequences of this behavior and that is a shame.
1. If you look at any of my posts, I never said anything about commercial vehicles. So quit jumping the shark.
2. I have always championed a long-term solution. The SUV thing is a quick fix and an important one.
And I am telling you that it is hardly a fix, wouldn't make enough of a difference, and spending any time/energy on eliminating SUVs would be counterproductive to a long-term solution. You said it yourself, they are a symptom of the problem. Instead of treating a symptom, we need to "treat the disease itself". This is best done not through rash decisions such as getting rid of an entire group of vehicles, or demonizing their owners.
But it doesn't matter, because BoberFett already said almost everything I would want to say.
I would hardly say getting rid of 25 million vehicles that get half the gas mileage of a good sedan is rash. Furthermore, it's a very good start at conservation and normal use of vehicles.
*sigh* Forget it. You're right, telling 25 Million people that they can't drive their vehicle anymore because it gets bad gas mileage isn't rash. Sorry for ever doubting you.
Have a good day. :lips:
I never said I'd tell them not to drive it, I'd disincentivize it. As I said before, smack on a 30% guzzler tax onto the sticker on anything that gets under 18mpg in *real world* tests. Smack on a yearly guzzler tax for anybody who uses it for any mileage over 8,000. Of course, this only applies to personal vehicle, not commercial.
All funds would go to a master trust for distribution to national parks or other preservation.
Keep in mind, as Dave called me, I am a "corporate whore", not a tree hugger. I just think that there is a "too far".
I must have a lot of trouble understanding what you post, because you said " I would hardly say getting rid of 25 million vehicles.."
So now "getting rid of them" = taxing them?
Eitherway...I think it is bogus. Gas is already taxed more than enough, IMO... but you have your opinions, and I have mine. I highly doubt the money would be used properly anyway.
But, Good night to you sir.
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
That's the Republican way.
Tons of money flowing into private Corporate pockets even if it's supposed to go for public projects.
Just like turning the roads over to Foreign Companies thereby keeping the Tolls forever.
Rape Rape Rape
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
That's the Republican way.
Tons of money flowing into private Corporate pockets even if it's supposed to go for public projects.
Just like turning the roads over to Foreign Companies thereby keeping the Tolls forever.
Rape Rape Rape
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
That's the Republican way.
Tons of money flowing into private Corporate pockets even if it's supposed to go for public projects.
Just like turning the roads over to Foreign Companies thereby keeping the Tolls forever.
Rape Rape Rape
Originally posted by: marvdmartian
Hey, I heard on CNN this morning (sorry, looked for it online, but couldn't find it) that Tropical Storm Beryl had just been named as this year's 2nd tropical storm.....
and that by this time, last year, we'd already had SIX named storms form up in the Atlantic....
.....must be more positive proof of that "global warming" thing, eh? :roll:
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: marvdmartian
Hey, I heard on CNN this morning (sorry, looked for it online, but couldn't find it) that Tropical Storm Beryl had just been named as this year's 2nd tropical storm.....
and that by this time, last year, we'd already had SIX named storms form up in the Atlantic....
.....must be more positive proof of that "global warming" thing, eh? :roll:
One thing that is strange is that this is the 2nd that has spontaneously formed off of the coast, whereas most traditional storms form off of Africa.
While I do agree that the ocean's temps are increasing, which does spawn more hurricanes, they are within the threshold of the last major hurricane cycle.
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Weather is cyclical? Say it isn't so!
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Wow, these Brits must be as Moronic as me.
7-19-2006 Ill-equipped Britain endures heat wave
Britain was facing one of its hottest days on record Wednesday ? so hot the pavement melted on the roadways.
The temperature south of London hit 96.6 degrees, the hottest temperature ever recorded in Britain in July.
London's Underground has no air conditioning and the Evening Standard newspaper measured temperatures in the train system at 117 degrees
In Spain, two people died during a heat wave that has seen temperatures climb above 104 degrees.
There was little London officials could do besides tell people to carry a bottle of water.
Andrei Danilov, 32, dutifully cradled mineral water on a central London bus.
"It gets worse and worse every year," he said. "I can't stand it."
The heat failed to dash one of Queen Elizabeth II's annual garden parties. Nearly 8,000 people lined up to enter Buckingham Palace.
"Oh my gosh, it's so hot," said Sonia Read, as she flapped her fan. "I have never seen anything like this."
Originally posted by: Lazy8s
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Wow, these Brits must be as Moronic as me.
7-19-2006 Ill-equipped Britain endures heat wave
Britain was facing one of its hottest days on record Wednesday ? so hot the pavement melted on the roadways.
The temperature south of London hit 96.6 degrees, the hottest temperature ever recorded in Britain in July.
London's Underground has no air conditioning and the Evening Standard newspaper measured temperatures in the train system at 117 degrees
In Spain, two people died during a heat wave that has seen temperatures climb above 104 degrees.
There was little London officials could do besides tell people to carry a bottle of water.
Andrei Danilov, 32, dutifully cradled mineral water on a central London bus.
"It gets worse and worse every year," he said. "I can't stand it."
The heat failed to dash one of Queen Elizabeth II's annual garden parties. Nearly 8,000 people lined up to enter Buckingham Palace.
"Oh my gosh, it's so hot," said Sonia Read, as she flapped her fan. "I have never seen anything like this."
OMG!!!! To quote one of the greatest men alive "Dee dee dee!!!" You EGWT#Q$$@!%^TGEASFDWEFAWE#%@#^$^@#!!!!!!! Seriously wtf I can't stand this my head hurts! So two people off the streats make some off handed remarks and you use it as support for global warming! I really really really REALLY hope you're just Fing around, otherwise I have finally met the stupidest person on the face of the planet. Please, for the love of all that's holy tell me you're just kidding. I am so sorry for you if this is how you live your life. I can't imagine having an IQ below 80. I don't think I can take this any more...where's the ignore user button....
EDIT: If you are being serious I want to meet you in person so can shake the hand of the stupidest person in all of recorded history.