🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1008o2kfe56km99@corp.supernews.com>, Jeff Strickland 
<beerman@yahoo.com> writes
>"John Beardmore" <wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:vAbb8RGXkBBAFwn9@wookie.demon.co.uk...

>> > nor would
>> >I call for people to abandon their SUVs without offering them a
>replacement.
>>
>> Smaller vehicles are readily available from most leading manufacturers.
>
>That is precisely the point, the people that buy SUVs are convinced that
>they need the shere size. Just because you and I may not agree with them
>doesn't make them wrong, it ojnly says that they have different priorities
>than you and I have. We can not take away the size, but we should be able to
>replace the gas guzzling with fuel efficiency.

So you don't mean:

     "nor would I call for people to abandon their SUVs without
     offering them a replacement"

at all.  What you in fact mean is

     'keep your huge cars and we'll see if a better engine
     technology happens to emerge before we run out of
     gas or notice global warming'.


> I happen to think this is
>just around the corner, probably something on the order of less than 10
>years, and perhaps in as few as three years.

Indeed, but some petroleum geologists thing a huge oil supply crunch is 
going to come in order of ten to twenty years, so essentially your 
cunning plan amounts to making some improvements to the current 
generation of SUVs just before the fuel cost goes crazy, and regardless 
of the contribution made to CO2 emissions.

I think you may have to pardon environmentalists for thinking that you 
are missing the point.


>> > There have been arguments here that SUVs ought to be
>> >banned for no other reason than their size -- the drivers accused of
>being
>> >anti-social because of the size of the SUV. There have also been
>arguments
>> >that promote banning the SUV with no suitable replacement.
>>
>> What did you have in mind ?
>>
>What do I have in mind? Nothing.
>
>I predict that hybrid technology will find its way into the SUV market. It
>should be adequate for families if not sufficient for commercial uses. (The
>actual suitablity remains to be seen.)

There's no doubt that hybrid technology is an improvement, but it seems 
a rather slender one if that's your answer to running out of fuel and 
global warming.

Just how much better do you think can hybrid technology be than it is
now ?


>> I think the environmentalists case is that while a truck may haul goods
>> to perform worth while trade, the use of an SUV as a commuter 'ego
>> basket' is an unnecessary use of road space and fuel, and an
>> unnecessarily polluting way to travel.
>>
>>
>I do not buy into the "ego basket" theory. Here is why. I have an ego the
>size of Mount Rushmore,

:)


> so I drive a BMW. My Bimmer gives me nearly 30 mpg
>at close to 90 mph. Why would anybody satisfy their ego in a Suburban and
>get less than half the fuel mileage and none of the handling, comfort and
>safety? People that drive Suburbans must have some other need to satisfy
>than an ego.
>
>For the price of a Suburban, one can have a 5 Series BMW wagon, or similar
>Mercedes, or any of a dozen other choices. These all lack something that the
>buyer of a Suburban needs. I can't begin to know what they lack, but the
>buyers are willinig to buy twice as much gas as I buy just to satisfy an
>ego. I think there are other forces at work on the purchase decision than
>just ego.

Maybe there's a macho element too.


>> >I happen to think that emerging technologies will go a long way in
>reducing
>> >the environmental impacts of SUVs (hybrid is around the corner and fuel
>> >cells seem to be looking good),
>>
>> Maybe, though we may need to make deeper cuts in consumption, and more
>> radical changes to what we consume, than just finding ways to burn
>> hydrocarbons in a fuel cell.
>
>But a fuel cell can be used to power a host of residential and even some
>business power supply needs, it is not a technology that will be limited to
>cars.

Indeed, but while that's kind of cute, it doesn't seem sensible if the 
fuel is scarce and the emissions imperil the atmosphere.


>> > but we will still have the issue of size -
>> >an issue that I have never been opposed to.
>>
>> My opposition is contingent on the type of use.  If you have a big
>> family and a big dog, a six seater may be wholly appropriate.
>>
>> If on the other hand you generally use a vehicle this size to get to the
>> office, then I'm happy that this is seen as antisocial.
 >
>But, how do you know that the 6- or 9-seater sitting in front of the office
>is not going to go and get 5 or 8 more people later today? You and I only
>see that 6-seater (or whatever) for a tiny fraction of the the time it is
>being used. It is very dangerous to draw conclusions as to how the vehicle
>is used the rest of the time based upon the few minutes that we have to
>share the road, or parking lot.

Yes and no.  If you keep seeing the same underutilised vehicles in 
commuter roles, then the people using them to commute would do us all a 
favour by commuting another way.

Bike for example.  Now of course. They might get wet on a bike, but 
2500kg is the mother of a weight for an umbrella !


>We can't go around bashing another's purchases just because our purchases
>might be different.

No, but we can complain if they deplete the 'environmental commons' 
without bringing about communal benefit.


> We should understand that all purchases go through some
>kind of thought process,

And that it may be a poor one.


> and the buyers make decisions that suit them, not
>you and I.

Indeed they do, but I'm not sure that their right to do that should 
extend to the right to deplete resources and pollute more than is 
necessary.


> the best we can do is recognize what drives them, then offer
>products that meet their needs and satisfies environmental concerns.

Well, show us an SUV that uses the same amount of fuel as a hybrid small 
car, and I'll show you a very big cheque, especially if it can have se 
same footprint on the road as a small car.


> We
>can't force them to make ecologically sound decisions if those decisions
>cramp their style.

Actually, governments can do EXACTLY that.


> It is incumbant upon us to design stuff that meets the
>consumer demand, not alter that demand to meet what we have designed.

Not really.  I suggest that it is incumbent on us to reduce waste of 
resources and live sustainably.

If that means that some SUV enthusiasts that don't utilise their 
vehicles well have to feel aggrieved for a while, I don't think that's 
much of a loss.


Cheers, J/.
-- 
John Beardmore