Recently I was traveling through New England and I saw several bumper stickers that villianized my SUV. It seems that my car is the problem with global warming. I was worried that I was less than 90 minutes from the site of the Boston tea party and people were demanding for the government to outlaw a consumer product. Consumer Tyranny seems to be the new solution.
I drive an SUV and I drive it with great pride because it was made in my home state of Ohio by the men and women employed by Chrysler at the Jeep plant in Toledo, Ohio. Americans giving up SUV’s would mean Toledo giving up more precious manufacturing jobs. The vehicle isn’t the problem it is the attitude of the driver.
Now is the time for innovation of alternative fuel sources. When the market grows I will be the first person converting my Jeep to flex fuel. In my community I would burn more fuel driving to my E85 filling station. So for now, I ride my bike to work two times a week and have also made a commitment to ride the bus that is fueled by a B-90 blend of bio diesel.
My lifestyle choices are helping reduce carbon emissions regardless of the car I drive.
“Get your hands off my SUV you damn dirty apes”
This entry was posted on Friday, September 14th, 2007 at 1:39 pm and is filed under Alternative Energy Technology, Climate Change . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 14th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Don’t bother converting to flex fuel. American ethanol (made from corn) uses more energy in fossil fuels to fertilize, grow, and process then it produces. In other words, using E85 would be burning more oil per gallon (and getting worse mileage due to ethanol having less energy content per gallon) and recent studies also show that burning ethanol releases more global warming gases than plain old gasoline.
The solution isn’t ethanol (at least not american corn ethanol) its using less gas, which you already seem pretty intent on doing, however, you should really consider if you really need such a large car for your actual needs. While supporting local economy is good, having a car that is too large for your needs 100% of the time means you are always wasting fuel when you drive it. Period.
September 16th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
I dont believe in the oil company propaganda that ethanol uses more energy than it yields. If somebody would like to convert to E85 other non petroleum or cleaner burning fuels, I am all in favor. Unfortunately, current government regulations have all but destroyed the after market fuel conversion industry, so good luck converting you car to E85.
Lets look at the buy a car that doesnt exceed your needs argument. Lets expand the argument to say dont use any thing you dont need. No air conditioning, no trips for vacation, no clothes washers or dryers, etc. Imagine how we could cut energy consumption, global warming. etc. Too bad the economy would tank.
October 8th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Mr. Davis assumes that conspicuous consumption, consumption just for the heck of it, just to show we have it, is needed to support the economy.
Lighting cigars with $100 bills helps the economy (the Federal Reserve thanks you, you have in effect done away with $100 in national debt) so I wholeheartedly approve of burning money just to show that you have LOTS of it !
But burning energy just to show that you have LOTS of money and “energy to burn” hurts the economy AND the environment.
Yes you sent a few dollars to the autoworkers in Toledo, but you are sending more $ overseas to the tyrants in Saudi Arabia that finance 3/4 to 7/8s of the attacks on American troops in Iraq. Yes, “private” Saudi citizens are the primary source of funding for the Sunnis, who are responsible (depending on the date) for 3/4 to 7/8ths of US causalities. And al Queda in Iraq is majority Saudi, as is Osama himself.
What are the exports of Saudi Arabia ? Crude oil, refined oil and petrochemicals. And a few dates I think. al Queda in Iraq NEEDS American SUVs !
The other sources of oil imports are also often unpleasant nations that oppose US interests.
I have chosen to minimize my energy use. I burn about 5 gallons/month in my 1982 Mercedes diesel (manual transmission ~30 mpg in the city), I use a minimum of air conditioning in the summer and my combined gas & electric bill is level billed at $47/month. Last month (Aug 16 to Sept 14) was $42.88 actual. I try and add a couple of days onto any business trip and explore the city I am in without making an unnecessary “vacation” trip. Although I would be quite happy and satisfied vacationing within 5 miles of my home in New Orleans. (Actually I could stay within 2.5 miles
I use that unAmerican appliance (outlawed in MANY subdivisions so it MUST be unAmerican) the “clothesline”. I do wash my clothes though (in an energy efficient side loader).
How do I keep the economy from tanking ? Well, I donate to charities and people struggling to get back on their feet and out of tents pitched inside their gutted homes, trying to make up in my small way for the failures and lies of the GWB administration.
My money tends to end up in US made drywall, US or Canadian lumber & plywood, US made tankless hot water heaters, roof shingles (made from imported oil in US factories), US made Energy Star appliances, US made insulation, US made windows and local labor. Or in a fine meal at a local restaurant made with Louisiana seafood
Or at a local night club listened to New Orleans musicians :-))
My money does the US and more importantly, the local economy, more good that wasting energy unnecessarily. in a SUV.
I am well aware that half the carbon I burn each day (and yes I do use fossil fuels) will still be warming the planet a century from now. So I try hard to minimize it.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Try not to let emotions rule you. You felt threatened by the villainizing bumper stickers, and the title of your post conveys your reaction. That is a good argument against the villainizing bumper stickers, byt the way. But this is not really true:
“My lifestyle choices are helping reduce carbon emissions regardless of the car I drive.”
Huge props for riding the bus and bike. HUGE, really. But… driving an SUV does not reduce carbon emissions. If you took a bus or biked to reduce vehicle miles driven, then you reduced from what you otherwise would have done, but “regardless of the car I drive”? If you drove a more fuel efficient car the same number of miles, well, there would be more reduction. There’s really no way to justify an SUV environmentally. If you love it then you love it and you’ll drive it regardless. I know that donuts are bad for me but I eat them regardless, because I love them. But yeah, they’re totally bad for me. I don’t eat them very often, because they’re bad for me, BUT - they are totally bad for me. And your SUV is totally bad for the environment.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:14 am
Your SUV is a huge ad saying “just burn gas now”, whether you do or not.
You also assume people who are targeting the effect of millions of SUV’s are going to look in the window of each one and say, “Oh sorry, Jim - you use mass trans sometimes, we take it back”.
When you manage to push your representatives to actually increase fuel efficiency requirements on SUV’s (whether using flex fuels or not), you’ll have done something. Until then, your measures are just stanching an artery bleed with a cotton swab.
October 10th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
It’s possible to modify the modern SUV to vastly increase its fuel economy. Of course our auto makers have decided to choose profits over our future and have succeeded in fought CAFÉ standards at every opportunity. Same as how they fought seat belts and catalytic converters.
If you like your SUV you could lobby Chrystler to build more fuel efficient versions, and they’ll laugh in your face naturally.
I’m sure there is some disagreement here as to weather government regulation or the free market is a better method to increase national fuel economy. I suppose the proof is in the pudding, since CAFÉ Standards haven’t been raised in twenty years and once again the Japanese car makers are kicking our asses. (In the 70s US automakers provided about 80% of the cars on our road, today that number is around 54%) Maybe if you care so much about the auto workers you can help them out by forcing the company to produce cars more people will buy.
I’m lucky enough to live where I don’t need to have a car, sold mine last December. The next step for us as a civilization is to bring mass transit out to the suburbs. And Bikes.
Lots of Bikes.
November 23rd, 2007 at 10:18 am
I cannot believe America has come to this. It is none of anyone’s dam business what I choose to drive. Nobody can get on this man for driving an suv unless you live in the forest under a tent, and you drive a bike to work everyday. If you do not do that — you are a hypocrite and I will not listen to you about contributing to global warming.
November 25th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Did anyone who is calling for this man to toss his SUV stop to think about whether or not he does need the vehicle?
I own a large pickup truck that probably burns as much or more than his SUV. I need it. I have trailers to pull, equipment to haul, and earth, rock, and other material to move around.
It’s a myth that all people who own an SUV don’t need it. I would probably buy one if I had a family; I would need a vehicle that could pull heavy trailers AND fit my passengers comfortably. A lot of folks are in that category. Maybe the author is, maybe he isn’t, but before you call him wasteful, maybe ask?
I don’t consider driving my truck wasteful. I need it, and that’s that - maybe the author does, too.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:11 am
That bushel of corn refered to would be eaten by a cow and pooped out on the ground with our present system. 90% of our corn crop is used for livestock feed, either in this country or abroad. Used for ethanol production only the starch is removed from the corn. A higher percentage of protein is left than the bushel of corn origionally had because of the yeast and distillation process. It is better livestock feed now because excess starches cause most of them problems. It is also cheaper to ship because it is not as large a volume in this state. Actually it should be illegal not to make ethanol from it first before it is fed to livestock. Lots of plus’s for America here: energy jobs that will never go away, all this money staying in counrty, less demand for oil thus lower it’s price. Just to mention a few. So how can this be an energy loss from a bushel of corn we already had?!!