Disney may lose GM sponsorship for Test Track

As I mentioned I have a 3 hour commute, DC isnt 3 hours wide.. (well unless in the parking lot of 95 it could be..) I live in southern Virginia.. There is not public transportation from my house to DC. Great idea, doesnt exist. Whole new tread on politics in this state that I choose not to get into.. However once I hit DC, I stop at first metro station and commute in via Metro.

Ive lived here for over 20 years.. I think i have a firm grasp on transportation options in my area.. ;)

Lord Gonchar said:
I think I read somewhere that if every SUV and truck owner switched to a Prius tommorow the US would only reduce gasoline consumption by 7%.

Assuming for a moment that's true (and I believe it could go either way), does the amount of change make it not worth doing? There is no silver bullet, so people get into this lazy mode of thinking that it simply doesn't matter. But take that gas savings plus more efficient distribution of goods (something in the financial best interest of anyone who ships stuff), cleaner energy generation, etc., and suddenly the aggregate difference has real impact. We've had this discussion before. The aggregate impact is always meaningful. A great many causes to a problem require a great many solutions.

Ride to Work has some good statistics from the various fed agencies about commuting and such. Granted they're a bunch of motorcycle nuts, but the stats they quote are pretty staggering. 22.3 mpg average for passenger cars is pathetic, especially when you figure on how many of those are single-driver cars.

But again, I'm tired as hell of the argument that any one thing doesn't make a difference, and that's an excuse to do nothing.

"But again, I'm tired as hell of the argument that any one thing doesn't make a difference, and that's an excuse to do nothing."To me, that's the perfect argument for doing everything in terms of producing more power AND using less, then letting the data tell you where the cost-benefit warrants expansion. Clearly given the politics of the Middle East we cannot afford too many corn-ethanol boondoggles. (Other ethanol sources MAY still have merit). Maybe within ten years of researching and having some significant successes, we could get out of the oil importation business entirely within the next generation or so.

I've never understood the ethanol fascination. It seems completely immoral to be burning food for fuel with starvation and malnutrition still being a problem all over the world.

I'm still a strong proponent of nuclear energy, as it's the cleanest scaling way to generate electricity, and if we'd recycle the spent fuel, I think it's a slam dunk, despite the cost. I just don't know that we'll ever get to a place where the regulatory nature of the business ever creates incentive to build and produce safely.

I also feel strongly that generating and storing electricity has enormous promise. As Tesla motors becomes less of a science project and more of a realistic premise (assuming the economy of scale takes place), I tend to feel even more strongly about it.

Just want to point out I don't necessarily disagree with what some of you are saying. I'm in this one totally for sport. :)

Jeff said:
Assuming for a moment that's true (and I believe it could go either way), does the amount of change make it not worth doing?

Not necessarily. You selectively quoted and forgot to include the part where I mention that it is indeed a first step...but question whether it feels like enough. I'm not doubting you have to start somewhere, I just think there's better places to start.

The aggregate impact is always meaningful.

I know what you're saying but that 7% is the aggregate...of everyone with an SUV or truck trading it for a Hybrid...suddenly that aggreagte isn't good enough and we have to look further. The aggregate of the aggregate, if you will.

And like I said that's just fuel consumption. It doesn't stop there. How much is offset by the very nature of the enviromental impact of production. That sort of thing can't be ignored. I'm just not buying that the impact of fuel efficient vehicles is a major part of the game right now.

But again, I'm tired as hell of the argument that any one thing doesn't make a difference, and that's an excuse to do nothing.

I'm tired of the argument that thinks those that say the effort isn't worth the results is making excuses or being lazy. Work smart. ;)

I look at it like any ROI situation. (see, it all really does come back to ROI here at Coasterbuzz :) )

Is the return worth the cost? I'm not convinced that the "SUV issue" is. I don't think that's our biggest problem nor the one that offers the best return.

22.3 mpg average for passenger cars is pathetic...

Based on what? What's out there? The potential? Personal opinion? What makes 22 mpg pathetic?

Still seems like a marvel of modern man that we are able to travel 22 and a half miles on a gallon of liquid to me. Heck, a little old fashioned carpooling and you're creating just shy of 100 man-miles on a gallon of gas. Heck, fill that SUV that's getting 12 mpg with 8 people and suddenly it's every bit as good on paper as 2 people in a little Prius or Smart car buzzing around.

There are lots of ways to change. Changing what people drive and forming an opinion about what's 'ok' to drive and what's not is only one very specific way to change the game.

Still no match for my nimble feet and the walk to the corner store. I am indeed the most holy and sanctimonius of them all. :)

ridemcoaster said:
Gonch. Not sure where you live, but due to urban sprawl, cost of housing vs location, etc, very few people live less than 10 miles a week from work, especially in coastal citys.

Then that needs to change too, huh? Maybe if people lived closer to where walking and/or shorter drives were the norm, then we could worry about gas mileage later.

As for my personal situation - $53.55

Whch illustrates my point perfectly. We drive a 2005 Nissan Altima and a 2008 Chevy HHR. Neither exactly known for the awesome mpg stats they possess. But I'd be willing to be I use far less gasoline than some of the very people telling me I need to buy a vehicle with a better mpg rating or a certain mpg rating.

And sure, if I did then my gasoline useage would be even lower. But on the opposite side if those people changed their situations then theirs could be lower too.

So while I don't think it's the most pressing issue or even have much concern, in reality I'm probably consuming less resources in 'bad' vehicles that I like driving than some holier than thou tree hugger sporting a Prius on his 25 mile one-way commute every day.

And sure, we might both be exceptions but it just furthers the concept that it's not as black and white as some people will have us all believe.

Which goes back to:

Jeff said:
A great many causes to a problem require a great many solutions.

Exactly. And in the big scheme of things, getting pissed at and making people change the type of vehicle they drive is one very narrow solution of many possible solutions to just one larger issue of countless larger issues.

And yeah, the aggregate...blah blah blah. I choose we take the first steps somewhere else...I'd bet a lot of other places would yield equal or better results with similar effort and really get the ball rolling in a more meaningful way.

What makes 22 mpg pathetic?

Well if you benchmark it against most industrialized countries in the world that sport a required fuel economy standard of 30+ mpg.. I would say that makes it pathetic..

US and our indulging behavior (present company included as I look at all my computers in my room), have managed to put us well at the bottom of the required fuel economy scale for new autos.. That then rolls into its part in the the environmental impact. Can we blame the vehicle owners for the lack of US standards compared to the world.. Sorta.. We elect the bubbas into office that seem to not care, but purchasing a car that is clearly not sensible doesnt help the matter, and I firmly believe not every SUV on the road has a sensible purpose.

I by no means am screaming to SUV owners because of their purchase choice (unless they run me off the road), in fact quite opposite as I make less stops to gas station (even with my occasional DC trips) then those battleship cruisers on the road do and even got a better chuckle back in the $4+ days when I would pull up and fill to max $50 while Joe SUV continued to near $100, openly complain about it during idle chit chat at pump and still barely had the same range as me.

In my opinion 22mpg is semi-decent based on the given US standards, however anyone who owns a vehicle less than 20 (and they are out there) seems on the surface, openly not concerned with the state of the environment now or future. I honestly think the "not my problem now, someone elses problem later" mentality is alive and well in our country and some respects the world.

Yes the type of car/mpg of said car is one small piece of the environmental puzzle, but what good is a puzzle if you throw away even one piece of it?

Lastly, why should we take first steps elsewhere.. Are we that single lane in our mindset that we cant work on envoronmental issues in multiple lanes? We would be posting our blogs on a cork board somewhere in Jeffs front yard if we just worked on one innovation at a time. Im glad we have parallal thought. We may find fixing one issue may spin off into helping lots of others. So all steps should be considered important.

I've never understood the ethanol fascination. It seems completely immoral to be burning food for fuel with starvation and malnutrition still being a problem all over the world.

Me either. The number one job of humanity is to feed ourselves. Taking food production, and using it to reduce the costs of a commuting-based lifestyle seems bass-ackwards to me.

As to folks who do/don't care about the environment: Our Odyssey gets around around 20 depending on the mix of highway/town driving. Our Prius gets 43 in cold weather, and 48-49 when it's warm.

"I hate the environment! I need to hug a tree!"

We own the van because with kids/dogs/etc. we often need something that seats more than five. We own the Prius because we're limousine liberals, and it makes us feel good about burning gas.

That said, my commute is 5 minutes, so the fact that the van sucks gas doesn't really matter---I only fill it every 2-3 weeks. My wife is a contract physician, and has three different offices---one about 45 minutes away. She drives the Prius.

Lord Gonchar said:
I know what you're saying but that 7% is the aggregate...

No, no, not... you're not hearing me. "The aggregate" is everything that we do, as I said. The car thing is one part of that. See my previous comment about the other things that make up a bigger picture.

Is the return worth the cost? I'm not convinced that the "SUV issue" is. I don't think that's our biggest problem nor the one that offers the best return.

And again, you're looking at one dimension and writing it off. Many causes, many solutions. The aggregate. There is no silver bullet. If you're looking for that kind of solution, it doesn't exist, and nothing will ever improve.

Based on what? What's out there? The potential? Personal opinion? What makes 22 mpg pathetic?... Heck, fill that SUV that's getting 12 mpg with 8 people and suddenly it's every bit as good on paper as 2 people in a little Prius or Smart car buzzing around.

First off, the Smart Car is a nice story, but at 41 mpg does not deliver the kind of pay off you'd expect despite its size. A Prius, since it sounds like you've not been in one, comfortably fits adults. You and I know a certain 6'1" person originally from Michigan with a brother the same height that drove one. Test drive one and get back to me.

But back to your other "point" about who decides, that is some b.s. lazy thinking. People driving SUV's are not packing in eight people, they're single drivers. A random sample of SUV's on my downtown commute back in 2001 revealed that 98% of the SUV's I passed had one person. I don't care if you think that's scientific or not, because it was convincing enough to me.

Furthermore, since energy derived from fossil fuels is a finite resource, deciding what fuel economy is good is a pretty obvious function of higher is better, and cars relative to each other, the higher wins. That's not arbitrary, as you suggest.

Neither exactly known for the awesome mpg stats they possess. But I'd be willing to be I use far less gasoline than some of the very people telling me I need to buy a vehicle with a better mpg rating or a certain mpg rating.

You're a fringe case because you don't have a job. At issue is not people who have inefficient cars sitting in their garage most of the time. Why even bring that up?

But since you ask, yes, it does matter. You refuse to look at the aggregate beyond your own nose. And (brace for impact) given your stance on voting, I'm not surprised. :)

...in reality I'm probably consuming less resources in 'bad' vehicles that I like driving than some holier than thou tree hugger sporting a Prius on his 25 mile one-way commute every day.

And sure, we might both be exceptions but it just furthers the concept that it's not as black and white as some people will have us all believe.

But you're the one making it black and white, saying that if your individual impact is negligible, or someone else's is greater, than it doesn't matter. I don't see anyone else making any black and white statements, except to say that everyone has an impact to varying degrees. You either help the problem or you don't.

And in the big scheme of things, getting pissed at and making people change the type of vehicle they drive is one very narrow solution of many possible solutions to just one larger issue of countless larger issues.

And yeah, the aggregate...blah blah blah. I choose we take the first steps somewhere else...

Spoken like someone who never starts anything. No one is "making" anyone do anything. People like me are just calling out people who do nothing.

My Ford Explorer only gets about 20 MPG, but I find that I'm always hauling something, like furniture, large purchases, firewood for camp, or band equipment. I used to have a Bonneville, but got rid of it when I decided that I need more room.

Some people need the gas guzzlers. Some people just want a large vehicle to make up for something else that they lack.

When I go on a large trip, I borrow my Mothers Cadie, like this afternoon when I'm taking my cousins to a concert 3 hours away. It sure does give a nice ride.

What's your point? I've taken a great many six-hour trips in my rice burner. It gives a "nice ride" too. I'm comfortable and get there with half the gas you do.

Well, Honestly (and no offense intended at all) I found this entire conversation pretty boring, but I thought that I would read it and try to learn something. I guess I didn't have a particular point, but to add my limited experience on the subject. Sorry if I have offended you in any way.

Why do you slip into victim mode and assume you offended someone any time someone disagrees with you?

Jeff said:
No, no, not... you're not hearing me. "The aggregate" is everything that we do, as I said. The car thing is one part of that. See my previous comment about the other things that make up a bigger picture.

Well, now if I said I wasn't going to move to a fuel effiicient vehicle because little ol' me couldn't make a difference, you'd be telling me it isn't just about me - it's about all of us. I don't make a difference. You don't make a difference. No single individual makes a difference. But together it adds up and makes a difference. It's about the aggregate.

Suddenly, like in this case, when the aggregate really isn't making much diference, then that's not the aggregate.

But whatever, it's irrelevant.

First off, the Smart Car is a nice story, but at 41 mpg does not deliver the kind of pay off you'd expect despite its size. A Prius, since it sounds like you've not been in one, comfortably fits adults. You and I know a certain 6'1" person originally from Michigan with a brother the same height that drove one. Test drive one and get back to me.

But back to your other "point" about who decides, that is some b.s. lazy thinking. People driving SUV's are not packing in eight people, they're single drivers. A random sample of SUV's on my downtown commute back in 2001 revealed that 98% of the SUV's I passed had one person. I don't care if you think that's scientific or not, because it was convincing enough to me.

And this is exactly where it starts to show that you're missing my point.

There are other ways to change than, "Arrrggghhh! SUV Bad! Grrrr!" And you seem to imply that every Prius owner is carpooling while the single SUV driver dumps gasoline out his window as he speeds down the interstate. I don't doubt most SUVs have one passenger. I don't doubt most Priuses (is that the plural?) are doing the same.

Let's change what we do. Get 4 or 5 or 6 or 8 people in that SUV and it's every bit as efficient as the average Prius on the road in actual man-miles. Get multiple people in the Prius too. Hell, get all the people in the SUV and the Prius and put them on a bus.

I'm saying no one up until I jumped in really seemed to be making the case for any change other than more fuel efficient vehicles. Seems incredibly narrow-minded to me. There are lots of way to change one's useage.

Furthermore, since energy derived from fossil fuels is a finite resource, deciding what fuel economy is good is a pretty obvious function of higher is better, and cars relative to each other, the higher wins. That's not arbitrary, as you suggest.

Wow, that seems in direct contrast to this comment of yours from the previous page:

"Big vehicle hybrids are a joke. The gains in fuel efficiency are relatively insignificant and still not anywhere above 30."

So does higher win or does it have to be a certain level of higher to win? :)

Regardless, I never suggested that, just asking why the line has been drawn in the place you guys are drawing it. It is indeed a finite resource, so guess what? 50mpg kills us too. Just at half the rate of 25mpg. Wooo!

Better than nothing, but still not good enough in the big picture. Which is why is seems so funny to me when you guys get all worked up over a vehicle that burns fuel quicker but might be (or at least still could be) used more efficiently.

Obviously the best answer is both answers, but like I said, no one really seemed to be saying that before I jumped in.

But the ultimate answer is that it's not solved until we reach 0mpg. And we can reach that number...we just have to change how we live. But you know...that's hard and stuff, right? Let's just up it a little and all feel good about ourselves. That won't be too painful.

You're a fringe case because you don't have a job. At issue is not people who have inefficient cars sitting in their garage most of the time. Why even bring that up?

But since you ask, yes, it does matter. You refuse to look at the aggregate beyond your own nose. And (brace for impact) given your stance on voting, I'm not surprised. :)

But my wife does and I take the kids to and from school every day and we shop like normal people and do everything else that everyone does. All that's missing in my own daily drive to and from a place of employment...not sure that would really raise the bar. I live a very gas efficient life.

Not sure why my lifestyle is a 'finge case'? Seems like a viable avenue for change. People need to change what they do. Isn't that your argument? We have to change how we use these fuels. I think changing *how* we live is every bit as valid and probably would have more impact than what we drive.

You either help the problem or you don't.

I couldn't agree more..and someone in a inefficient vehicle changing how they drive (in terms of distance, passengers, etc) is making all the impact that someone changing their vehicle is making.

Spoken like someone who never starts anything. No one is "making" anyone do anything. People like me are just calling out people who do nothing.

No, until I jumped in you guys were calling out people who don't do what you think needs to be done. (eliminate SUVs from the road)

I just ran out and checked the info on the HHR, in the life of the vehicle I've gotten 18.6mpg. Not real good. I could certainly do better, but I can pretty much guarantee I use less gasoline than anyone telling me in this thread that that's a horrible average... and that feels awfully hypocritical.

Change happens in many, many ways and considering I feel like I'm being preached to by people who use more of those fossil fuels than I do...well, it makes me smile just a little. I guess we all could be doing more.

Brian Noble said:
We own the Prius because we're limousine liberals, and it makes us feel good about burning gas.

Missed that the first time though this thread. Funny stuff. :)

Jeff said:
Why do you slip into victim mode and assume you offended someone any time someone disagrees with you?

Jeff, our disagreement on the issue has offended me and I refuse to do the podcast any longer. I also retract my acceptance to be at your wedding. :) ;)

(sorry for the taboo triple-post, but it seemed like three distinct ideas I wanted to share separately)

Funny stuff.

No kidding. But, seriously, you should give one a spin. It's amazing how much room they packed into that thing. It was pretty much the wife's call to buy it, and I was skeptical. After owning it for a bit more than a year now, I love it.

Lord Gonchar said:
Suddenly, like in this case, when the aggregate really isn't making much diference, then that's not the aggregate.

But whatever, it's irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant. I feel like I'm talking to an f'ing wall. If the maximum win on passenger vehicles is a 7% reduction in oil consumption or greenhouse gas emission or whatever, then that's 7%. Maybe shifting to nuclear power is 12% (made up number). Maybe putting corks in the asses of cows is another 2%. Do you get what I'm saying here? As Ridem' said in a previous post, there are many pieces to the puzzle, and if you throw any of them out, you never have a complete picture. Why don't you get that?

And you seem to imply that every Prius owner is carpooling while the single SUV driver dumps gasoline out his window as he speeds down the interstate. I don't doubt most SUVs have one passenger. I don't doubt most Priuses (is that the plural?) are doing the same.

So then you get people to use hybrids, car pool, use public transportation or whatever. Oh look, now you're looking at aggregate improvement! You keep getting hung up on these exceptions that in your mind negate any difference made. But if you do that with every case, you have no net improvement.

I'm saying no one up until I jumped in really seemed to be making the case for any change other than more fuel efficient vehicles. Seems incredibly narrow-minded to me. There are lots of way to change one's useage.

No one is denying that, but what you're doing isn't expanding anyone's horizons, you're poo-pooing all of the baby steps that add up to the bigger solution.

Furthermore, since energy derived from fossil fuels is a finite resource, deciding what fuel economy is good is a pretty obvious function of higher is better, and cars relative to each other, the higher wins. That's not arbitrary, as you suggest.

Wow, that seems in direct contrast to this comment of yours from the previous page:

"Big vehicle hybrids are a joke. The gains in fuel efficiency are relatively insignificant and still not anywhere above 30."

So does higher win or does it have to be a certain level of higher to win? :)

There's no contradiction there. What the hell are you talking about? If big hybrids suck at life, and they're not contributing to the solution, then they're not contributing to the solution. Did anyone suggest that all hybrids were created equal? It seems to me that I've been making the case all along that there is no silver bullet. Some solutions are better than others. You keep saying put 8 people in a gas guzzling SUV and that makes it all better. I'm saying put 8 people in something that's not gas guzzling. Or put 50 people on a bus.

Regardless, I never suggested that, just asking why the line has been drawn in the place you guys are drawing it. It is indeed a finite resource, so guess what? 50mpg kills us too. Just at half the rate of 25mpg. Wooo!

Technology is iterative, and you seem content on throwing your hands up and saying to hell with anything that is an incremental improvement. That's lame.

Better than nothing, but still not good enough in the big picture. Which is why is seems so funny to me when you guys get all worked up over a vehicle that burns fuel quicker but might be (or at least still could be) used more efficiently.

Perhaps that's because there are options that burn fuel slower and can be used more efficiently.

People need to change what they do. Isn't that your argument? We have to change how we use these fuels. I think changing *how* we live is every bit as valid and probably would have more impact than what we drive.

Yeah, no kidding, so again, why do you reject anything that is an incremental improvement?

I could certainly do better, but I can pretty much guarantee I use less gasoline than anyone telling me in this thread that that's a horrible average... and that feels awfully hypocritical

That doesn't make it OK. If everyone like you, and you insist so many people are like you, all drove more efficient vehicles, then your aggregate impact is enormous. It's like the person who doesn't recycle a single milk carton times thousands, or the single voter who doesn't vote times thousands. The positive impact is lost because of apathetic people like you who don't think it matters.

And it's not just the sum of everyone at a given moment in time, it also applies to your lifetime impact. If at 35 years old I had not been recycling since I was a teenager, I would literally have contributed to 16 tons of garbage in a landfill by now.

You know, we can all do better. No one is denying that. I'm having my wedding reception on a freakin' boat with 50 people on it, so we'll be poluting the Gulf of Mexico together on that one. But aside from my temporary lack of judgment, the things I do day to day have small impact daily, but huge impact when others do the same, and huge impact over the course of my life.

^Bravo. I think the point that SEEMS to be missing Gonch (I can *always* be wrong) it that there's no one "reasonable" here arguing from some high horse. We ALL live in this particular glass house. We can, and MUST, do better. We really don't have a choice. In the meantime, every incremental step in the right direction is at least HELPING...until we can develop some sort of perpetual power generation that's renewable and "green".

edit: I had typed this earlier, but must have failed to submit, LOL. I try like he** to minimize my impact on the planet. Carpool, check. Live close to work, check. Compost, CF bulbs all over the house, yadda yadda. And you can ask any of my co-workers what happens when I see them throwing recyclables into the trash. I take the office recycling home since we don't have it at work. Still, taking everything into account, when I calaculate my "carbon footprint", I stink. Turns out the time I spend in an airplane virtually crushes all the good I try to do. Nonethless, I'm still going to have to fly every so often...so to me, it's all the MORE important that I do all those "little things".

I came across this search engine on the US Dept of Energy site and thought it was interesting given the discussion. It allows you to search for vehicles based on a desired mpg fuel efficiency.

What I found most interesting is that in the family sedan category you have to drop to 25 mpg before you get more than three vehicle options. I'm not sure I would consider a family sedan to be a large vehicle, particularly in the styles they are being made in these days.

It goes without saying, although you can look for yourself of course, that the minimal options available for the higher end fuel efficient vehicle in that category also carry a higher end sticker price. I would say that's a notable obstacle in fostering a cultural change for environmental protection.

Jeff said:

You keep getting hung up on these exceptions that in your mind negate any difference made. But if you do that with every case, you have no net improvement.

Not at all. I'm saying your solution isn't the only right one...and possibly not even a decent one. The way people tend to use SUVs now is bad. Using a Prius the same way is better. But using an SUV differently could essentially be better than how we use the hybrid now.

Before I jumped in, this thread was nothing but "SUVs are the problem" talk and it's just not that simple.

...but what you're doing isn't expanding anyone's horizons, you're poo-pooing all of the baby steps that add up to the bigger solution.

Yeah, but Jeff I'm purposely poo-pooing the SUV thing. Mostly because that's the only thing you guys were getting on. That was my point. There's tons of ways to change - all of them help a little and all of them together help a lot. That wasn't being said until I jumped in...and I suppose given the direction of the thread it might not have made sense to, but still...

Harping on one of those thing from one angle just feels preachy. The SUV didn't cause the problem and could still technically be part of the solution...even if it's a baby step in the big picture.

And speaking of poo-pooing the baby steps:

If big hybrids suck at life, and they're not contributing to the solution, then they're not contributing to the solution. Did anyone suggest that all hybrids were created equal? It seems to me that I've been making the case all along that there is no silver bullet. Some solutions are better than others.

You still really don't see the hypocrisy in telling me I don't get the 'baby steps' and then telling me big hybrids are a joke?

Technology is iterative, and you seem content on throwing your hands up and saying to hell with anything that is an incremental improvement. That's lame.

See above. :)

Yeah, no kidding, so again, why do you reject anything that is an incremental improvement?

I haven't. Not once. I've been the one saying the are a myriad of ways to become more efficient beyond the "SUVs are killing us all!" rally cry. I'm all for the incremental improvements - like hybrid SUVs for those who won't cut the cord quite yet, or lifestyle changes that incorporate less driving, carpooling or public transportation. I've mentioned them all...several times. Lots of incremental solutions that go beyond the singular mentality that people using SUVs in all forms are the problem.

If everyone like you, and you insist so many people are like you, all drove more efficient vehicles, then your aggregate impact is enormous.

And if everybody like you made the other changes we've talked about we'd get the same results. You drive a car that gets 30 or 40mpg and will probably purchase one that does even better next time. I live a life that requires little driving. I'd bet we're about even...even if I had an SUV. :)

...the things I do day to day have small impact daily, but huge impact when others do the same, and huge impact over the course of my life.

Agreed. But the things you do aren't the only things we can do. Some of us may be doing other things (even unintentionally) that have the same or similar impact...they're just not the things you think we should do (based solely on the anti-SUV discussion of this thread prior to my joining in). That person in the SUV might actually be making more impact and real change in their lives than you are.

And that's what I was trying to bring to the surface all along. :)