Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So a lot of people in the world love their huge tank-vehicles.

SUVs, 4x4s, Hummers, y'know.

Now, granted some people think Global Warming is a ton of rubbish (for some reason) how can ANYONE argue against this logic:

Oil = Finite resource.

For the sake of mankind, consumption is rising every year... Do your bit to stop wasting the irreplenishable, once we replace it with something else, go ahead.. But Jeez, I hate seeing people who use agricultural vehicles and the like simply as status symbols... At the end of my road is a private school and you see the blonde housewife-mothers in their sunglasses with their huge vehicles with blacked out windows emitting the carbon equivalent of a Chinese Coal Plant and what's the cargo? One little kid on the backseat... Really not worth the price!

I'm expecting to be bombarded with some Libertarian "I make my money I can spend it how I please": I offer the preemptive counter, show some duty to your fellow man... Unless you drive that car specifically to show others that you just don't care about mankind.

Henners91 wrote:So a lot of people in the world love their huge tank-vehicles.

SUVs, 4x4s, Hummers, y'know.

Now, granted some people think Global Warming is a ton of rubbish (for some reason) how can ANYONE argue against this logic:

Oil = Finite resource.

For the sake of mankind, consumption is rising every year... Do your bit to stop wasting the irreplenishable, once we replace it with something else, go ahead.. But Jeez, I hate seeing people who use agricultural vehicles and the like simply as status symbols... At the end of my road is a private school and you see the blonde housewife-mothers in their sunglasses with their huge vehicles with blacked out windows emitting the carbon equivalent of a Chinese Coal Plant and what's the cargo? One little kid on the backseat... Really not worth the price!

I'm expecting to be bombarded with some Libertarian "I make my money I can spend it how I please": I offer the preemptive counter, show some duty to your fellow man... Unless you drive that car specifically to show others that you just don't care about mankind.

I started driving a smaller car to save money on fuel and because the maintenance on trucks and vehicles on truck frames tends to be more expensive. Personally, I think a station wagon is a more rational choice for transporting multiple people, but other people choose vehicles for reasons I may not. Ultimately, I worry about what I do, and I try not to worry about other people. I think everyone would be better off asking themselves what they can do to reduce pollution, rather than criticizing others. I think there is also a lot of social class angst in that whole debate, which I think is missing the point.

Grignard wrote:but other people choose vehicles for reasons I may not.

We specifically bought an SUV recently because of where we live. At 5800 to 6500 ft above sea level, we get snow pretty easily(even during summer), and an SUV simply handles snowy and icy roads better than a smaller, more fuel efficient car.

Platuan4th wrote:

Grignard wrote:but other people choose vehicles for reasons I may not.

We specifically bought an SUV recently because of where we live. At 5800 to 6500 ft above sea level, we get snow pretty easily(even during summer), and an SUV simply handles snowy and icy roads better than a smaller, more fuel efficient car.

Yes, people in cities just don't understand that some people might have to find a way to drive for several miles in knee deep snow, with roads that may not be fully cleared.

Platuan4th wrote:

Grignard wrote:but other people choose vehicles for reasons I may not.

We specifically bought an SUV recently because of where we live. At 5800 to 6500 ft above sea level, we get snow pretty easily(even during summer), and an SUV simply handles snowy and icy roads better than a smaller, more fuel efficient car.

That's arguably (if you're truthfully stating that was your primary reason for selecting the vehicle, rather than its status) an excuse then, I used the example within my OP of agricultural vehicles, which is what I'd argue a 4x4 technically is: If I see one in a rural area with under-developed infrastructure or in the hands of a farmer I wouldn't bat an eyelid, if I see one on the streets of Chelsea, I'd get my keys ready

As for myself, I'm fairly conscious but I'm just a student... I don't drive, I use public transport, I turn off lights and power when I am not using them, I don't use heating much... I don't see how I could cut down further other than by using my PC less.

Grignard wrote:I started driving a smaller car to save money on fuel and because the maintenance on trucks and vehicles on truck frames tends to be more expensive. Personally, I think a station wagon is a more rational choice for transporting multiple people, but other people choose vehicles for reasons I may not. Ultimately, I worry about what I do, and I try not to worry about other people. I think everyone would be better off asking themselves what they can do to reduce pollution, rather than criticizing others. I think there is also a lot of social class angst in that whole debate, which I think is missing the point.

If you honestly use it for hauling a lot of people, then fair enough... Not that I mean to scrutinise everyone who posts here, but I see a LOT of mothers who just drive about with one kid in the back during the school run. And I'd also say that hauling a lot people doesn't necessarily warrant a large vehicle: My mother drives a Vauxhall Zafira that she purchased when I was a lot younger and we had friends over a lot, today I probably wouldn't agree with it but she's used the vehicle for hauling a lot of things... And yet, afaik, it uses the same engine as a normal-sized car and isn't drastically worse for efficiency, so why not buy that kind of car? Though, to be honest, I'm not sure what classifies as a station wagon, that's a Yankee term... It's probably a similar vehicle (larger car running on a normal car's engine I believe).

I've been a SUV driver for the last 10 years.

2000 Nissan Pathfinder, 2004 Honda Element, 2008 Jeep Wrangler 4 door, 2010 Ford Escape

For me, I like being higher when I drive, I feel I can see more of the road and I feel safer. I hate regular cars because it feels like I'm sitting in the street.

I also want some sort of 4 wheel drive or all wheel drive or whatever. We don't get tons of snow here in philly (not including this winter :/ ) but I like to know if it does snow or even if it's just raining really bad, I can still get to where I'm going. I'm not one of those people that drives 80 mph in a blizzard thinking my 4WD makes me immortal.

Yeah, gas mileage isn't as good, but it is improving and more and more hybrid SUVs are appearing. I got my ford escape a month ago, regular not hybrid because hybrids are just too expensive and you don't really recoup the money spent in gas savings anyway. Maybe I'll look into it for my next one if it becomes more affordable. But I got rid of my jeep after 2 years mostly due to gas mileage, that and I hated the soft top that I thought I would love. Hot in the summer, cold in the winter, and always hella loud.

Henners91 wrote:

If you honestly use it for hauling a lot of people, then fair enough... Not that I mean to scrutinise everyone who posts here, but I see a LOT of mothers who just drive about with one kid in the back during the school run. And I'd also say that hauling a lot people doesn't necessarily warrant a large vehicle: My mother drives a Vauxhall Zafira that she purchased when I was a lot younger and we had friends over a lot, today I probably wouldn't agree with it but she's used the vehicle for hauling a lot of things... And yet, afaik, it uses the same engine as a normal-sized car and isn't drastically worse for efficiency, so why not buy that kind of car? Though, to be honest, I'm not sure what classifies as a station wagon, that's a Yankee term... It's probably a similar vehicle (larger car running on a normal car's engine I believe).

Its a vehicle that looks like a car and has a car frame but is longer and carries more passengers.

Henners91 wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Grignard wrote:but other people choose vehicles for reasons I may not.

We specifically bought an SUV recently because of where we live. At 5800 to 6500 ft above sea level, we get snow pretty easily(even during summer), and an SUV simply handles snowy and icy roads better than a smaller, more fuel efficient car.

That's arguably (if you're truthfully stating that was your primary reason for selecting the vehicle, rather than its status) an excuse then, I used the example within my OP of agricultural vehicles, which is what I'd argue a 4x4 technically is: If I see one in a rural area with under-developed infrastructure or in the hands of a farmer I wouldn't bat an eyelid, if I see one on the streets of Chelsea, I'd get my keys ready

Yep. We live in Colorado Springs(well, towards the less develop areas of the city), but my wife works at an Air Force base outside the city and there's a chance that in a heavy snow storm(barring them locking down the base), she'd have to drive in the sort of snow that small(and therefore lighter) cars wouldn't make it through even with 4-wheel drive. As well, the Springs doesn't have a very well organized(or on time) system for salting/de-icing the roads and with the amount of traffic in the city, the roads ice over pretty quickly.

It wasn't my first choice, I would have preferred another standard transmission Hatchback that get 38-40 MPG(I miss my Aerio, but she had a lot of problems towards the end).

Henners91 wrote:So a lot of people in the world love their huge tank-vehicles.

SUVs, 4x4s, Hummers, y'know.

I'm expecting to be bombarded with some Libertarian "I make my money I can spend it how I please"

Holy crap, somebody got a hair stuck today!

In lieu of the Libertarian response, I'm going counter even more simply: "What in the feth gives you the right to tell me what to do? Mind your own goddam business."

And why the hell should I care about people who don't care about me?

Finally, some of us are larger people, who don't want to be crammed into a tin box like a bunch of sardines, and like to have some space. We also carry friends and relatives in our cars from time to time. Or maybe we just have stuff.


For the record, my home drives:

BMW 5-series (me!)
Mercedes R-class (her)

I actually wanted to get a HUMMER H2, tonka yellow, with the giant wheels, but the timing just wasn't right. Pity, as those things are fukken awesome. Plus, getting a giant HUMMER H2 would have completed the trifecta with my neighbor's Yukon XL Denali next door and the Escalade across the street.


@OP: When you grow up and start having friends and family and kids and relatives, then you can talk.

My wife drives the very modest and fuel efficient toyota corolla.

I drive my 14 miles to the gallon Dodge Dakota...

I will NEVER go without one of us having a truck or SUV. There are things you just cannot fit in a car. There are times when you just have to have the carrying capacity of a suv or truck, thats why i have mine.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Henners91 wrote:So a lot of people in the world love their huge tank-vehicles.

SUVs, 4x4s, Hummers, y'know.

I'm expecting to be bombarded with some Libertarian "I make my money I can spend it how I please"

Holy crap, somebody got a hair stuck today!

In lieu of the Libertarian response, I'm going counter even more simply: "What in the feth gives you the right to tell me what to do? Mind your own goddam business."

And why the hell should I care about people who don't care about me?

Finally, some of us are larger people, who don't want to be crammed into a tin box like a bunch of sardines, and like to have some space. We also carry friends and relatives in our cars from time to time. Or maybe we just have stuff.


For the record, my home drives:

BMW 5-series (me!)
Mercedes R-class (her)

I actually wanted to get a HUMMER H2, tonka yellow, with the giant wheels, but the timing just wasn't right. Pity, as those things are fukken awesome. Plus, getting a giant HUMMER H2 would have completed the trifecta with my neighbor's Yukon XL Denali next door and the Escalade across the street.


@OP: When you grow up and start having friends and family and kids and relatives, then you can talk.

I dunno, the fact that I have just as vested an interest as you in being efficient with limited resources? I just don't see why one should squander fuel when it isn't strictly necessary, simply for the fact something's "fukken awesome".

As for me, hopefully I'll have the sense of mind to just purchase something like the station wagon described above if it's strictly necessary?

Y'know, if you believe the sensationalists that claim we only have 30 years until we run out of oil (I doubt it's THAT dire) then that's the children of today and tomorrow who're going to have to cope with that...

I love the freedom to drive whatever I want.

I say more power to the people who want to drive to work daily in a vehicle getting less than 20mpg on the highways.

If someone wants to drive an H2 to work and back and they live within the city I'm not going to complain or key it or protest it. More power to them for wanting to waste money on fuel.

Lithium is a less common resource than oil.

Do you own an IPod?

I dunno, the fact that I have just as vested an interest as you in being efficient with limited resources? I just don't see why one should squander fuel when it isn't strictly necessary, simply for the fact something's "fukken awesome".

As for me, hopefully I'll have the sense of mind to just purchase something like the station wagon described above if it's strictly necessary?

Y'know, if you believe the sensationalists that claim we only have 30 years until we run out of oil (I doubt it's THAT dire) then that's the children of today and tomorrow who're going to have to cope with that...

So? cope. They can drive what they want. You can drive what you want. Leave them the feth alone and maybe they'll leave you alone.

Fateweaver wrote:I love the freedom to drive whatever I want.

I say more power to the people who want to drive to work daily in a vehicle getting less than 20mpg on the highways.

If someone wants to drive an H2 to work and back and they live within the city I'm not going to complain or key it or protest it. More power to them for wanting to waste money on fuel.

It doesn't bother you that their needless consumption endangers you and makes your gas prices go up? The H2 was hardly a safe vehicle and oil is a finite resource we get from regimes that oppress their people and often times fund terrorism. None of that bothers you?

Why drive a polluting car?



To show your allegiance!

Frazzled wrote:

I dunno, the fact that I have just as vested an interest as you in being efficient with limited resources? I just don't see why one should squander fuel when it isn't strictly necessary, simply for the fact something's "fukken awesome".

As for me, hopefully I'll have the sense of mind to just purchase something like the station wagon described above if it's strictly necessary?

Y'know, if you believe the sensationalists that claim we only have 30 years until we run out of oil (I doubt it's THAT dire) then that's the children of today and tomorrow who're going to have to cope with that...

So? cope. They can drive what they want. You can drive what you want. Leave them the feth alone and maybe they'll leave you alone.

Technically as oil and roadspace are finite resources it's not really an issue of a mans car being his castle. His choices and actions do indirectly effect those around him.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

I dunno, the fact that I have just as vested an interest as you in being efficient with limited resources? I just don't see why one should squander fuel when it isn't strictly necessary, simply for the fact something's "fukken awesome".

As for me, hopefully I'll have the sense of mind to just purchase something like the station wagon described above if it's strictly necessary?

Y'know, if you believe the sensationalists that claim we only have 30 years until we run out of oil (I doubt it's THAT dire) then that's the children of today and tomorrow who're going to have to cope with that...

So? cope. They can drive what they want. You can drive what you want. Leave them the feth alone and maybe they'll leave you alone.

Technically as oil and roadspace are finite resources it's not really an issue of a mans car being his castle. His choices and actions do indirectly effect those around him.

So, nothing's changed. Suck it up and everyone leave everyone the alone.

What if I don't really care about the end result of my fellow man and have no intention of having children? I'm saving up for an 06 pontiac gto. 400hp and low mpg. It will be even lower with my lead foot. I don't say this due to any political view I just have an honest apathy for the future of mankind. So can I drive my gas guzzler for fun now or do I need to give better reasons?

Frazzled wrote:So? cope. They can drive what they want. You can drive what you want. Leave them the feth alone and maybe they'll leave you alone.

I don't like people telling me what to do either, but the fact is that fuel consumption, carbon emissions, and pollutants effect everyone, so I sort of see his point. However, I think that telling a few people they can't drive their big cars really doesn't matter in the long run. I think transportation of goods and food has a lot more to do with emissions than what kind of automobiles people are driving.

To be honest though I think driving a car as a status symbol is avaricious and shows insecurity.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

I dunno, the fact that I have just as vested an interest as you in being efficient with limited resources? I just don't see why one should squander fuel when it isn't strictly necessary, simply for the fact something's "fukken awesome".

As for me, hopefully I'll have the sense of mind to just purchase something like the station wagon described above if it's strictly necessary?

Y'know, if you believe the sensationalists that claim we only have 30 years until we run out of oil (I doubt it's THAT dire) then that's the children of today and tomorrow who're going to have to cope with that...

So? cope. They can drive what they want. You can drive what you want. Leave them the feth alone and maybe they'll leave you alone.

Technically as oil and roadspace are finite resources it's not really an issue of a mans car being his castle. His choices and actions do indirectly effect those around him.

So, nothing's changed. Suck it up and everyone leave everyone the alone.

I wasn't saying ban the cars, I was telling you you are wrong. There's a difference. NOOOOOW i'm saying ban the cars. Oil is a national security issue and more stringent gas mileage and emmissions standards are required for us to wean ourselves off of the mideast. I want the best for this country, not the best for the donkey-caves that want to drive hummers to work in the middle of cities. feth them.

Henners91 wrote:

Now, granted some people think Global Warming is a ton of rubbish (for some reason) how can ANYONE argue against this logic:

Oil = Finite resource.

Yes mined crude is a non replenishable resource, all resources being finite. However plant oil is replenishable.

People alrerady have cars that run on rapeseed, there is the cae of a chip shop owner who clarifies the oil from his fat fryer and uses it to run his deisel powered car. However here is part of the clue, he still has to pay tax duty on the oil he recycles. The system is not set up for alternative oils, whether this is due to oil company interference os just government dogma I do not know and cant really guess. You can argue against recycled oils being made tax free because plant oils pollute as much if not more than gasoline and not all plant oil motor cars are recycling, most in fact grow the oil to burn as fuel without having another function between.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

I dunno, the fact that I have just as vested an interest as you in being efficient with limited resources? I just don't see why one should squander fuel when it isn't strictly necessary, simply for the fact something's "fukken awesome".

As for me, hopefully I'll have the sense of mind to just purchase something like the station wagon described above if it's strictly necessary?

Y'know, if you believe the sensationalists that claim we only have 30 years until we run out of oil (I doubt it's THAT dire) then that's the children of today and tomorrow who're going to have to cope with that...

So? cope. They can drive what they want. You can drive what you want. Leave them the feth alone and maybe they'll leave you alone.

Technically as oil and roadspace are finite resources it's not really an issue of a mans car being his castle. His choices and actions do indirectly effect those around him.

So, nothing's changed. Suck it up and everyone leave everyone the alone.

I used to feel the same way you do Fraz. I've had experiences though that changed my viewpoint. If you have consideration for those around you, most of them will do the same for you.

Orlanth wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

Now, granted some people think Global Warming is a ton of rubbish (for some reason) how can ANYONE argue against this logic:

Oil = Finite resource.

Yes mined crude is a non replenishable resource, all resources being finite. However plant oil is replenishable.

People alrerady have cars that run on rapeseed, there is the cae of a chip shop owner who clarifies the oil from his fat fryer and uses it to run his deisel powered car. However here is part of the clue, he still has to pay tax duty on the oil he recycles. The system is not set up for alternative oils, whether this is due to oil company interference os just government dogma I do not know and cant really guess. You can argue against recycled oils being made tax free because plant oils pollute as much if not more than gasoline and not all plant oil motor cars are recycling, most in fact grow the oil to burn as fuel without having another function between.

Aren't farmed plant oils still a net negative for energy consumption? As in they are actually significantly worse than oil which, while finite, is an amazing net gain on energy produced?

Perhaps if we drilled in more locations oil wouldn't be an issue. Oh wait, we tried that, an accident happened and now we won't ever try that again because the administration will listen to the "i told you so's" coming from the tree huggers.

Grignard wrote:

I used to feel the same way you do Fraz. I've had experiences though that changed my viewpoint. If you have consideration for those around you, most of them will do the same for you.

Well there's your problem right there. I already have empathy, more than most others on this board. I don't want to tell you what to do any more than I want your losers tying to tell me what to do.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

Now, granted some people think Global Warming is a ton of rubbish (for some reason) how can ANYONE argue against this logic:

Oil = Finite resource.

Yes mined crude is a non replenishable resource, all resources being finite. However plant oil is replenishable.

People alrerady have cars that run on rapeseed, there is the cae of a chip shop owner who clarifies the oil from his fat fryer and uses it to run his deisel powered car. However here is part of the clue, he still has to pay tax duty on the oil he recycles. The system is not set up for alternative oils, whether this is due to oil company interference os just government dogma I do not know and cant really guess. You can argue against recycled oils being made tax free because plant oils pollute as much if not more than gasoline and not all plant oil motor cars are recycling, most in fact grow the oil to burn as fuel without having another function between.

Aren't farmed plant oils still a net negative for energy consumption? As in they are actually significantly worse than oil which, while finite, is an amazing net gain on energy produced?

I haven't decided and I don't know enough about it yet. In theory biofuels should be zero net carbon emissions, but they still can produce particulate, amongst other things, and if you're using gas fueled equipment to harvest and transport it, you haven't achieved much.

Henners91 wrote:
I'm expecting to be bombarded with some Libertarian "I make my money I can spend it how I please": I offer the preemptive counter, show some duty to your fellow man... Unless you drive that car specifically to show others that you just don't care about mankind.

Unequivocal compassion to your fellow man is a questionable virtue, at best. Conservation of limited resources is not feasible when you are but one source of consumption in a world of billions. Recently, my city had a cold winter and a freeze for a few weeks. Despite us being in a drought warning, the strawberry farmers were allowed to run their field sprinklers all day and night long to save their crop. At the end of those 2 weeks, we had 67 sinkholes in the city. The water table had dropped something like 50 feet in the area. Your average citizen stayed on water restriction during this time, and will remain there until next year.

I'm sure a similar situation is occuring with the blown oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. I could go buy an electric car tomorrow or a 9 mpg Urban Assault Vehicle. If I drove them both for the rest of my days, I doubt that I'd come close to having an impact on the environment, when compared to that oil rig.

If you want to have a meaningful impact on the environment, plant a tree, adopt a stray dog, clean up a highway, participate in a replanting project or put out a bird feeder. What you drive is not going to change anything other than how easily you can judge those around you.

Fateweaver wrote:Perhaps if we drilled in more locations oil wouldn't be an issue. Oh wait, we tried that, an accident happened and now we won't ever try that again because the administration will listen to the "i told you so's" coming from the tree huggers.

There isn't enough oil on our coast to matter. I've said that in every thread relating to the subject and so have the oil companies and the EIA. It's a smoke and mirrors issue which is totally irrelevant to our actual national interests at this point. We're better off tapping our natural gas or reducing our national oil use, those would be orders of magnitude more effective than pissing off environmentalists by drilling what little oil is miles under the ocean miles out.

If you want to have a meaningful impact on the environment, plant a tree, adopt a stray dog, clean up a highway, participate in a replanting project or put out a bird feeder. What you drive is not going to change anything other than how easily you can judge those around you.

Hence the case for national regulation rather than allowing the free market to handle something of this nature (which it can't).

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

I dunno, the fact that I have just as vested an interest as you in being efficient with limited resources? I just don't see why one should squander fuel when it isn't strictly necessary, simply for the fact something's "fukken awesome".

As for me, hopefully I'll have the sense of mind to just purchase something like the station wagon described above if it's strictly necessary?

Y'know, if you believe the sensationalists that claim we only have 30 years until we run out of oil (I doubt it's THAT dire) then that's the children of today and tomorrow who're going to have to cope with that...

So? cope. They can drive what they want. You can drive what you want. Leave them the feth alone and maybe they'll leave you alone.

Technically as oil and roadspace are finite resources it's not really an issue of a mans car being his castle. His choices and actions do indirectly effect those around him.

So, nothing's changed. Suck it up and everyone leave everyone the alone.

Why? There are plenty of situations where if someone's being a dick you're allowed to ask him to stop: Why not when it comes to the planet, roads, fuel, etc?

rocklord2004 wrote:What if I don't really care about the end result of my fellow man and have no intention of having children? I'm saving up for an 06 pontiac gto. 400hp and low mpg. It will be even lower with my lead foot. I don't say this due to any political view I just have an honest apathy for the future of mankind. So can I drive my gas guzzler for fun now or do I need to give better reasons?

It makes you impossible to persuade but doesn't leave me with warm feelings toward you

Orlanth wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

Now, granted some people think Global Warming is a ton of rubbish (for some reason) how can ANYONE argue against this logic:

Oil = Finite resource.

Yes mined crude is a non replenishable resource, all resources being finite. However plant oil is replenishable.

People alrerady have cars that run on rapeseed, there is the cae of a chip shop owner who clarifies the oil from his fat fryer and uses it to run his deisel powered car. However here is part of the clue, he still has to pay tax duty on the oil he recycles. The system is not set up for alternative oils, whether this is due to oil company interference os just government dogma I do not know and cant really guess. You can argue against recycled oils being made tax free because plant oils pollute as much if not more than gasoline and not all plant oil motor cars are recycling, most in fact grow the oil to burn as fuel without having another function between.

Fair enough, like I said the climate's not my main qualm... if a car's justifiable then go for it, I just feel like it's acceptable to be preachy on issues such as Earth's limited resources when it comes to the well-being of the species.