Time to give SUV drivers a break? 5

[jmw]

In an article in Novembers "What Car?"; "how green is your car?" (

http://www.whatcar.com/news-special-report.aspx?NA=222582)

According to CNW's table of 96 cars sold in the UK, the Honda Civic Hybrid finished 73rd and the Toyota Prius 74th, .......the Range Rover Sport finished higher in the list. Top of the table was the Jeep Wrangler ........

This is based on a "dust to dust" analysis which measure the "carbon footprint" for the car and takes into account not only the fuel use and CO2 emissions but the energy costs of production and end of life costs.

Of course, the report mentions the different manufactruing technologies involved so we should anticipate improvements as the hybrid car technologies improve (super capacitors? see thread769-165886) but will it improve enough?

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[EddyC]

When SUVs get in accidents with cars, the people in the cars are usually severly injured. Why should the folks who prefer to drive cars be put at unnecessary risk? Should they be forced to drive SUVs as well in order to mitigate this risk?

 

[Ussuri]

Visigoth

Socialism is generally when everything is owned and run by the state, not private companies. This used to be the case many years ago but in the 80's the Conservative Government sold most of the state owned companies(British Rail, Water Companies, British Steel, British Gas etc) into private ownership. A trend more closely associated with capitalism.

It is not only the USA who help the poor of the world other countries also do their part. But that is a discussion for another day.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"The world keeps turning, it keeps me in my place; where I stand is only three miles from space"
Spiritualized

 

[VisiGoth]

Ussuri, thank for the info. I did not know that happened in the UK. I do know other countries and the people of those countries do private help to the poor. We see representation of some small Eastern euro countries helping out on the African continent all out of proportion to their population (IMO, I am just making an unsupported observation, I did not hear that from anywhere).

jsolar

 

[SnTMan]

I don't have anything in particular against SUV (or other) drivers, but I can't help but think its funny, that with gas prices up, people are droppng them like hot rocks, because....they don't get good fuel mileage. Duh. And the US car makers have no Plan B.

Regards,

Mike

 

[bvanhiel]

As for charging more fees and allowing government to decide what I can drive, we're not all communists or socialists, thank God. Our men and women didn't give all they had so Jon B.H. Liberal could take away our rights and freedoms.

Capitalism only works long term if the consumer pays the true cost of what is consumed. Otherwise the result is the "tragedy of the commons". Taxing fuel/emissions/impact is one way to keep it from happening.

The purpose of government as I see it is to serve the greater good when the free market is incapable. That's the reason we have laws requiring seatbelts, airbags, 5mph bumpers, pollution controls etc. The free market saw those things as costly features that would put them at a disadvantage pricewise with the competition. It was only the government requring all players to implement the systems that made it happen.

Yes, people who are most invested in their vehicles would be hurt initially, but the market will find a new equilibrium, and we will all benefit from more sensible use of our resources.

-b

P.S. Please don't invoke names of the millions of soldiers who died for this country to defend your right to an SUV. Most of them died before they knew what one was.

 

[SomptingGuy]

[quote[I don't have anything in particular against SUV (or other) drivers, but I can't help but think its funny, that with gas prices up, people are droppng them like hot rocks, because....they don't get good fuel mileage. Duh. And the US car makers have no Plan B.[/quote]

Too true. The strangest part of the story is how fuel price affects what we (consumers) buy and what we (manufacturers) make.

In the US, fuel prices are low because the tax on fuel is low. Fluctuations in base fuel price feed right through to consumers. A hike in the base price causes panic for consumers who suddenly shop elsewhere for their cars. The same climate that encourages thirsty cars also makes them dangerous to make.

On the contrary, in Europe fuel is expensive and mostly made up from tax (>70% of the price). It takes a large change in base fuel price to really impact a consumer. This climate that favours economical cars may be a harsh one, but it's very stable.

 

[UcfSE]

P.S. Please don't invoke names of the millions of soldiers who died for this country to defend your right to an SUV. Most of them died before they knew what one was.

That's irrelevant to why people fight. The Revolutionary War (as it's known in the US), or any other, wasn't faught for the right to do this or that, but for all rights for all time to come.

It seems as though, even given an article on the net (and we all know that reading something on the net makes it true) that SUV owners are not going to get a break, at least not from this forum. The question is, do they really not deserve a break or do you (you in general) have vehicle envy?

 

[Tomfh]

Here's one guy who doesn't have vehicle envy:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=409518&in_page_id=1770

 

[bvanhiel]

That's irrelevant to why people fight. The Revolutionary War (as it's known in the US), or any other, wasn't faught for the right to do this or that, but for all rights for all time to come.

The revolutionary war fought for a rather definite set of greivences (read the declaration of independance). The most significant in my view was the capricousness with which the colonies were controlled and taxed by the King without representation. We took the power to make laws from the King and gave it to Congress, but certain rights were believed to be basic tenets of natural law (read the bill of rights) and not to be fooled with. The "infinite individual right to own whatever the hell I want" was not listed.

The question is, do they really not deserve a break or do you (you in general) have vehicle envy?

I, and pretty much any engineer, can afford to drive an SUV. That's just the point. Their true cost is subsidized by low fuel costs and no fees/taxes on their environmental and safety impact. Reread my earlier posts and particularly follow the link to the tragedy of the commons to help you understand my position.

We are consuming "common" resources (atmosphere, highway space, land) by driving the way we do. I'm not saying we have to stop. Only that we need to pay the true cost for our choices.

In my idealized future, OWNING a car would not be the primary cost. OPERATING it would be. Hence I could own a big pickup for towing/hauling, but drive my commuter car to work every day. Our current system of taxes/insurance encourages ownership of only one car, because of the large fixed costs.

-b

 

[UcfSE]

Don't talk to me about the Bill of Rights.

I understand your position. I just don't agree with it at all. Then again, nothing says we have to agree does it?

 

[jmw]

Tomfh,
Nice link:

"Then he said one day 'I want to buy a tank' and I said 'Ok, love, it's up to you.'"

I'm quite sure that would not be the reply I'd get from my wife!

UcfSE and BVanheil,
Actually, I think the soldiers of world war II had a very good idea of what an SUV was and what you could do with one: the JEEP! I know it wasn't called an SUV then but General Purpose or Sport Utility Vehicle --- what's in a name? It was the original SUV and trully became one in army surplus role.

Interesting that it is the "Jeep" that scored top of this list for the lowest Carbon Footprint and that is the ppoint of this thread; that the propaganda says SUVs are loathsome things and little electric cars are "guilt free" (see the thread on the electric sports car). And that, I think, is the real concern: we are being swamped by propaganda from all sides and can trust none of it. So, if in doubt the Frankenstein complex wins the day.... anything you enjoy must be harmful to you or your fellow citizens.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[bvanhiel]

Don't talk to me about the Bill of Rights.

You brought it up.

I understand your position. I just don't agree with it at all. Then again, nothing says we have to agree does it?

That's your right. I've laid out my argument as best I can.

So, if in doubt the Frankenstein complex wins the day.... anything you enjoy must be harmful to you or your fellow citizens.

I think that's how the current system works, but I don't think it has to be that way.

As for the original intent of the post, the origination cost needs to be considered, I just don't think they have their weightings right. The jeep was at the top of the list because of it's low plastic content, but it still carries around a lot of steel and the mpg sucks (I have one as a project car). I think a lighter, more fuel efficent gas car is probably still the best for the environment. Hybrids have too many nasty chemicals in the batteries, and many of the newer generation don't even improve on fuel economy, only power.

-b

 

[UcfSE]

bvanhiel, where did I bring up the Bill of Rights prior to you? Do you follow your own opinion and pay the "true cost" for everything you own or use, or ride a bicycle?

jmw, that's a good point. For all the information someone has that says some cars are good or bad, someone else can find something that says the opposite. At the end of the day, what should you do?

 

[SomptingGuy]

At the end of the day, what should you do?

Well, it's the end of my day so I'll get on my bike and cycle home. Hopefully I'll not get hit by any invincible SUV drivers.

 

[Dinosaur]

Someone brought up the fact that there are different government rules for SUVs than for cars (US govt, that is).

As I understand it, the same "feel good" crowd that hates the SUV essentially created the beast with their campaign to create the CAFE standard (Combined Average Fleet Economy) intended on reducing the emissions from autos by requiring higher and higher mpg ratings from the major automakers.

As a consequence of the CAFE laws, the family station wagon became untenable. These were reduced in size to become something less than the market wished to own. The automakers and consumers stumbled on a concept, "Hey if we build a car on a pickup truck chassis, then we have to go by these other standards." Thus was born the SUV; a family wagon built on a pickup truck chassis. And the family got better visability and superior crash worthiness, what a bargain!

Now the "Do gooders" are insulted that a family would deign to purchase one of these monsters so a mom could run a kid to baseball practice or whatever.

The underlying problems are not in the vehicles. The underlying problem is in the social engineering going on around us that create problems worse than those that were originally present.

I am saddened to hear so many folks that are dying to run my life. Maybe someone else is waiting patiently to run yours. Every time you get legslation that helps you stick your nose into my business, you give someone else leverage to stick their nose into your business. Good Luck with that.

 

[bvanhiel]

bvanhiel, where did I bring up the Bill of Rights prior to you?

In your post of 14 Oct 06 9:12 you said:

That's irrelevant to why people fight. The Revolutionary War (as it's known in the US), or any other, wasn't faught for the right to do this or that, but for all rights for all time to come.

Revolutionary war...rights for all time... sounds like the Bill-O-Rights to me.

The underlying problems are not in the vehicles. The underlying problem is in the social engineering going on around us that create problems worse than those that were originally present.

I agree entirely that we've created the SUV boom due to loopholes in regulations. If you really want to encourage people to use less gas, then you need to tax gas directly (and perhaps reduce income tax to compensate). Then leave the market to figure out the right mix of vehicles. That way the poeple who choose to use the roads pay for them. If they have long commutes it will encourage them to use more fuel efficient vehicles, to carpool, and to build and use better public transport. They can still drive their H2, it'll just cost more per mile, and if they have a short commute it might be offset by the dive in SUV prices.

I don't want to tell you what to drive. I just want us to pay the true cost of operating our vehicles so that we make rational choices (which does not preclude SUV's). Those costs are the roads we build, the enviromental damage, maintaining the security of our oil supply, safety, and time lost to traffic congestion. Right now those costs are borne by everyone.

-b

 

[UcfSE]

I didn't say Bill of Rights nor was I referring to it. You assumed. We all know what that means.

 

[bvanhiel]

I guess I was mistaken to infer. What rights were you referring to then?

-b

 

[moltenmetal]

Dinosaur:

I'm saddened to hear that you feel that I'm dying to run your life! In fact, all I want is to stop any stupid choices you might make from unintentionally harming me and my own family.

Get over yourself: I don't care what choices you make.

All I want you to do is pay the full and fair cost of your fuel consumption without having me subsidize it in any way. I don't want to fund the wars that give you continued access to your cheap fuel supply. I don't want to fund the cost of asthma medication for my kids caused by your exhaust. I don't want my kids to bear the cost of fleets of spaceships dumping dust into the atmosphere, or of "painting deserts" etc., in some idiotic attempt to reduce the solar flux to the earth to keep us from roasting as a result of your wasteful fossil fuel consumption.

As to the problems caused by bad public policy: bad public policy permits the capitalist economy to trade goods at rates which allow one group of people to shift costs to others who are not involved directly in the transaction. Bad public policy ignores how the market works. That's exactly what we do now with fossil fuels at this moment: we ignore their third-party costs.

We agree that smacking auto makers on the head with fuel economy standards is fundamentally wrong-headed. The auto makers are merely responding to their profit imperative as they should, by designing and building what their market demands. Though recent fuel price spikes have altered auto purchasing behaviour somewhat, present pricing doesn't provide nearly enough disincentive toward purchasing fuel-inefficient vehicles. The fuel cost still does not represent the full cost of that fuel consumption to everyone involved. It's not the car manufacturers who are in need of repair: it's the market itself.

Tax fuels to provide a cost of atmospheric pollutant and greenhouse gas dumping, and use that money to subsidize the transition to more energy-efficient and sustainable alternatives, and the market will take care of itself. Only the very rich or the very stupid will drive fuel-inefficient vehicles: the rest will take subsidized public transit, carpool, or buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. The SUV will once again be purchased only by those who truly need the features of that class of vehicle and are willing to pay its entire cost, rather than by those who convince themselves that they want these features and can "afford" them.

 

[jmw]

This discussion about "paying" a fair price for what we do is going to get us very confused.

I don't know how it is elsewhere, but in the UK, if you add up all the taxes on petrol, the VAT on buying a car, the fact that a car cost more in the UK than that same car elsewhere in Europe, not to mention the speed cameras that rake in the millions(a recent study found the death rate increased where some cameras were located and another study found that speed was a factor in only 5% of all accidents), parking fines, road tolls, bridge tolls, congestion charges, etc etc... you will find that taxes on motorists (and on smokers and drinkers) already pay for just about everything including the biggest expansion of the civil service and the glut of consultants to quangos....

avourite word for the deputy prime minister: "Hypothication" actually, the lack of it: the government will not link road derived taxes to road investment.

This means that any "carbon taxes" will be yet another meaningless money grab with no true link to any achievments.

Is it any different where you are? Are your politicians any more rational, ethical and honest? or do they just go for anything that gets votes and taxes?


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com