SUV Self-righteousness
Offline There's something that happens with addicts of any drug, it seems, when they're firmly entrenched in their need. They compare themselves to other drug addicts, and find that they aren't "that bad". "I'm certainly not doing as much cocaine as she is" is the common refrain of many a party girl. But what does this have to do with SUVs?
The popular take on the Hummer is that it's a symbol of our environment-killing decadence. Humvees burn more fuel than other cars, and presumably pollute more as a result. Like other SUVs, they're unnecessarily large and opulent.
However, just because the owner of a Prius doesn't pollute at a faster rate than someone with an SUV doesn't mean they aren't polluting. They are. They're still addicted to the same drug as the owner of the SUV.
I've heard people say that they simply couldn't survive without a car, and that may be true for them, since they don't know any other way to live. From supporting family and friends in their efforts to fight addiction, that pattern is extremely familiar. The number of times I've heard people say that they couldn't live without alcohol staggers the mind.
Also familiar is the self-righteousness in pointing at others as "worse polluters" (ie "worse users"). If you drive a car, you're addicted, and you're an oilaholic. We all are. Blaming others and putting the bulk of the blame somewhere else is another common denominator among addicts.
Hey, don't worry, we can go on fuel-cell methadone. No problem. Wind power will save us, sure. How about solar power? That looks promising, doesn't it?
The frank and simple answer is "no". We're going to have to quit the same way every addict does: the drug becomes too expensive, both personally and financially. That includes Prius drivers, who may believe themselves somehow immune from environmental criticism by their car purchase. Not so, fellow oilaholics.
We're in this one together. The type of mirror you use to snort your coke doesn't make that much of a difference.
Will: no gyration without funkstification.
I walk almost everywhere I need to go, and bike to most of the farther places. I still pollute. Everything out of foot and bike range means a bus ride.
Guess why I walk and bike and bus? Yep, just like he said, it got too expensive.
We have one hell of a lot of adapting to do before we can get off the oil.
We are afraid of the known and afraid of the unknown. That is our daily life and in that there is no hope, and therefore every form of philosophy, every form of theological concept, is merely an escape from the actual reality of what is. All outward forms of change brought about by wars, revolutions, reformations, laws and ideologies have failed completely to change the basic nature of man and therefore of society. - Thomas Jefferson
I don't accept the drug analogy at all. The energy need grew inextricably with our society, and oil happens to offer a proportionally cheap and effective payoff. So far. For a person to become dependent on oil, they need only accept the basic function of society; rejecting it means either having the circumstances in place, or making specific choices and sacrifices to practice an alternative way of live, counter to society. If you're able-bodied, and don't need to get anywhere far or fast, you can bike; but not everyone can. If you've got good public transportation, that works; if you have it, and you don't mind giving up controlling your own curfew. Not that these things are bad, but they're not practical for everyone, and they are contra to the culture to which we've been acclimated.
Eventually, the issue will become more forced, and greater numbers of people will seek alternatives to fuel-burning personal vehicles, and the cost to the many people who will continue to operate them will grow.
I hope you guys like seeing my avatar because it looks like I'm not leaving the house... While the rest of you might be able to walk to the grocery store I can't cross the bridge to downtown in my chair. And public transportation? Even in a large city like NY, I'd practically be housebound.
What's with the focus on fuel all of a sudden? I do other things to be environmentally friendly - I always bring my own bags to the store, recycle, live in a condo, buy local foods, etc... but I guess I'm going to have to fit into the 'couldn't survive without a car' analogy since I 'don't know any another way to live'?!
Whatever happened to the idea of focusing efforts on developing reasonable means of more environmental ways of life rather than chastising us with carbon footprints?
Beltway Atheists "We're good people, just not god people."
I've never heard any of my fellow hybrid drivers claim that driving a more fuel efficient vehicle wasn't polluting the environment. All you have done is knock down a strawman.
Vote McCain, he brought back Czechoslovakia and will veto beer. The Real McCain
Screw the little pussy Hummers. Here's a pic of my new pickup truck.
I fill it with bio-diesel....
COGITO ERGO DOLEO
Rest in peace HeyZeusCreaseToe
Cars are a neccesary evil, especially in my city where everything is spaced out and I don't live in town. Just drive only when you need to and plan so you can get everything done in one trip.
But then again gas in my city is $1.33 so I feel sorry for those in the penis compensators. Oh wait, I don't.
If at first an idea does not sound absurd, then there is no hope for it ~Albert Einstein
We all think your idea is crazy, the question is "Is it crazy enough?" ~Niels Bohr
Umm what country are you in Cpt ? Oh a $1.33 a liter I suppose ?
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/
I'm Canadian $1.33 /litre
Here in the north of Scotland, we're paying up to £1.10 per litre - that's $2.00. And I'm learning to drive... It feels somewhat futile...
=P
When I stated driving at 16, in 1967 gas war prices were 19 cents a gal. Min wage was $1.25. Just some trivia ....
jeffrick
I don´t really see the point in this thread. I guess the initial point was to make some sort of statement about the smugness of Prius-owners (I have to say Matt Stone and Trey Parker did a much better job in the acclaimed South Park episode "Smug Alert", which gives a good piece of asswhopping to San Fransisco as well hehe.
Cars are necessary in a country where everyone needs to live in an enormous house, with really broad streets and really crappy public transportation. I know alot of you folks here go on about the greatness of your respective nations (Jeffrick: Mississauga has perhaps THE crappiest public transport system on the planet, so don´t give me the canuck response of "hey I´m not from the States"
.
There´s a million ways to solve this. Initially I guess the premise of the post was wrong: Thinking that people buy hybrids merely for their own moral reasons seems inadequate. Sales vary with fuel-prices, which seems like the biggest catalysator for alternative ways of transportation.
Having said that I guess my biggest problem with the Hummer is that its really loud, ostentatious, dangerous to both passengers and pedestrians in case of accidents, and additionally a really really really crappy car for everyday use, unless you live in the vicinity of Tikrit.
Nice being here...I´m gonna have to get back to you later
Thunder Bay.
If at first an idea does not sound absurd, then there is no hope for it ~Albert Einstein
We all think your idea is crazy, the question is "Is it crazy enough?" ~Niels Bohr
According to my Mac's conversion widgets, that comes out to $5.71USD/gallon. I think you need to invade more countries. That seems to help.
Hey HenrikNorway Mississauga does have a crappy public transit system, how did you know? We are a very well to do city of 750,000 most of the houses and condos here have two or more cars each plus some of the longest and widest streets and highways in Canada, Public transit just can't compete for riders under these circumstances..
About that typical Canadian answer "hey I'm not from the states!" well I am from the states, Brewer, Maine U.S. of A. 1957 to 1976 and thats as "yankee" as one can gee-it, ehyeahp.
My post was based on owning an SUV (not a hummer) without guilt.
jeffrick
I'm not a city planner, I don't map out transit routes and the company I work at has multiple offices throughout the city. I need a car until all of these things change.
Does it help if I'm driving a more fuel efficient car compared to a 1982 boat-on-wheels? Yes. Does it help if I trade in a 2002 mid-sized car for a new eco-machine? Not after you factor in construction costs on the environment.
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien
The costs would be about the same. Somebody put out a lousy piece of research a while back claiming the SUV is better for the environment that a hybrid. The article was filled with lousy research based upon assumptions which were easily refuted.
http://www.thecarconnection.com/article/1010861_prius-versus-hummer-exploding-the-myth
Vote McCain, he brought back Czechoslovakia and will veto beer. The Real McCain
As for the Mississauga affiliation: My brother did his BsC @ UofT in Mississauga. As for your SUVophilia: Good for you that you can afford it, but bear in mind that most people in this world make due with cars half the size the one you´re driving around in. I´m sure its really comfortable and all, but as you know there is a word in the dictionary called Solidarity.
At the same time I kind of endorse liberalism, and the right to make individual choices. It is when those choices start to have an impact on other people I get worried. Such as the aggregated use of cars in the western hemisphere. North America may be bad, but that´s merely because of a steady supply of cheap oil, a society based around the production and assistance of cars (remember, most european cities are not very well planned for the use of cars - it just makes more sense using public transportation). So I guess us Europeans shouldn´t be too smug: A man is about as moral as his options allow him to be
ake the life-lie away from the average man and straight away you take away his happiness.
- Henrik Ibsen
We are still going to need to use oil for some time, but we should definitely be cutting back. I do still like the analogy though. Maybe it works better if you compare oil addiction to pot instead of coke? Wake and bake is not a good way to live, but an occasional toke seems to work fine for many.
It would be good to see more discussion everywhere about realistic public transportation. I was able to live fine without a car in a semi-rural area of Mexico due to extensive public transportation routes. I have a much harder time trying to ditch the car here in Southern Oregon even though I do live in town. And Shelley makes a really good point, we have to take into account those who have mobility issues.
People are going to have to be more willing to share space and time with others before any change happens though. It is going to take some form of pain and suffering before people are more willing to share.
"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible got stoned.
... the growth of which depended entirely on the Green Revolution (ie intensive farming) which relies on petroleum and natural gas. As soon as we started using the drug, we needed it. I doubt India would have the population it does now without Green Revolution farming. We need oil because we use oil. That's why I use the drug analogy.
Exactly. My point being that we are unprepared for a reduction of our collective available energy.
Will: no gyration without funkstification.
You would housebound for sure - the state of public transportation in North America is generally terrible. My point here is that WE have become dependent upon this oil infrastructure for the way we live (which only exists because we have this extra available source of energy), not specifically that we're terrible people for using oil. I personally don't think, for instance, that there's a big difference between driving a Hummer and driving a Prius ecologically speaking. With the amount of oil we probably have available to us, we're predictably going to transform all of it into air pollution. So it doesn't really matter at what rate we do it, frankly. (However, someone noted that a modern engine is better than an old 1982 boat, and they're absolutely right.)
The sooner it becomes expensive, the sooner we won't be able to pollute at a rate that causes our environment to become uncomfortable to us.
I'm obsessed with energy, so for me, it's not "all-of-a-sudden", but you probably mean in general?
It wasn't my intention to chastise, but I can understand why you would feel that there was an attack in there. Developing reasonable ways of life would be wonderful. I just think they'd be disappointing for those people who still think we're going to have flying cars.
Will: no gyration without funkstification.
This is closer to my point. There's no reason the driver of an SUV should be considered any less "ecologically friendly" than someone with a Prius, given modern engines and the difference in emissions therefrom.
Will: no gyration without funkstification.
Absolutely true. The way we have things set up, we don't know any other way to live. That's my point. There's no blame, here (seriously, are you guys doing this on purpose to help me illustrate the common reactions of addicts to intervention, or is this unintentional?). We're all in it together, and we're going to need unprecedented ingenuity to resolve the issue.
Will: no gyration without funkstification.
(well, one last trip there: This may be the air-car of the future.)
We are afraid of the known and afraid of the unknown. That is our daily life and in that there is no hope, and therefore every form of philosophy, every form of theological concept, is merely an escape from the actual reality of what is. All outward forms of change brought about by wars, revolutions, reformations, laws and ideologies have failed completely to change the basic nature of man and therefore of society. - Thomas Jefferson
The biggest complaint I have about SUV drivers is that many of them seem to be as ignorant as a 'deliverance' redneck by tailgating and shining their fucking headlights onto the back of my neck as if I am supposed to go faster for them because I am in their all-fucking-important way.
§§That fact that I cannot prove the nonexistence of a thing called god is inconsequential and nugatory because nonexistence cannot be proven of anything.§§
My point is that some of this material crap that is bad for the environment enables many of us who are not in perfect health or able-bodied to live. Does anyone that is able bodied have any idea how many disposable non-biodegradable health products someone like me goes through every day? I have at least a 13 gallon trash bag full every three days. Typically it's every day and half - I just happen to not be on IV antibiotics at the moment. Should we just let people die for the sake of reducing emissions or should we focus on more energy efficient means all around?
At the time I wrote that this subject seemed was dominating the 'recent posts' in various threads.
Beltway Atheists "We're good people, just not god people."