Disney may lose GM sponsorship for Test Track

Carrie M. said:

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.

Actually theres a lot more that needs to be said to the site you quoted, and it goes back to a comment I made a few threads ago..

There are a choice of vehicles that have better MPG, and they happen to be the same vehicles in the list. The difference.. The country they are sold in.

Eurpean Union and Japan have the most stringent Fuel Economy Standards in the world. Unlike the US which sits near the bottom.

You can take some of those same cars you listed on that web site, place them in the EU or Japan and the MPG goes up 5+ gallons or more. Why? Because the countries enforce they be made to a higher mpg standard. It can be done, but the country has to care to enforce it. UK to US comparison for example. Or the US to the world . These are general examples but fairly accurate to solidify my point.

The two lines to compare are UK mpg and US mpg on same cars. The choices are there for better mpg (and I dont get why the mindset of some feel that even a few mpg better is somehow... not...better), its just we really have to work on the higher standards which then forces folks in no matter which vehicle they drive to be a bit more environmental. My thought process is another 5mpg on every vehicle potentially buys us another few years on a non-renewable resource.. Those bought few years gives a bit more time to research the alternatives.

For me SUVs are strictly an example of the greatest abuser in MPG ratings.. There are a host of other cars.. But I cruised the Honda dealership today on my way home from store and looked at their vans and even in their vans you are looking at mid to high 20s. (and it wasnt a hybrid). So big vehicles can be better, and I suppose hybrid suvs are "trying", but it still doesnt get around one of my other points of practicality. But I guess it was my upbringing.. Between my wife and I, we make a decent living, but we also live practical.. Sure we could go buy a huge gas guzzler.. But why? Its just the 2 of us..

My final thought is this.. If we as a society lived within what was practical I firmly believe there would be, in generations to come, an level impact on the environment to some degree (not to mention less financial issues like foreclosures, bankruptcy - but im skidding off topic). Instead we as a US society generally live in the here and now, hell with later mentality.

My house is an environmental field day for decent percentage, giving all thanks to my sig. other. Even if my part in the environment is a minuscule impact to what it would take to prolong the Earth resources, Ive still created more of a positive impact, than one who doesnt give a flying flip.

Unfortunately people treat the envoirnment like the election. "My vote doesnt really count anyways"....

Btw.. One of my purchases last month because im a network geek.

Network Controlled thermostat will be installed in my house this spring. I already have a highly programmable one installed (which that in itself is a major environmental bonus), but now I can log in from work or vacation or wherever and read house temp and lower or raise, thus saving more energy in the house)..

For all you geeks:

Network Thermostat:
http://www.proliphixstore.com/basicnt10e.html

...please forgive my double posting thus wasting electrons ;)

ridemcoaster said:
The choices are there for better mpg (and I dont get why the mindset of some feel that even a few mpg better is somehow... not...better)...My thought process is another 5mpg on every vehicle potentially buys us another few years on a non-renewable resource.

...I suppose hybrid suvs are "trying", but...

I just don't understand how you guys can keep saying that with a straight face.

More double-posting naughtiness, but I just took a look at Carrie's link.

There's three SUV's that do better than 30mpg. (previously mentioned as the magic number or a good starting number or something)

There's 8 small cars that top the 30mpg mark...but if you're a city driver, then only one bests the hybrid SUV's mpg.

Three family sedan hybrids are available at that level and while the Prius excels, the other two are comparable to the SUVs (within 1 or 2 mpg)

There's really only three models on the entire list that do better than 35 miles per gallon. And the Hybrid SUVs do 34 in the city.

I dunno guys...

Well look who is now setting arbitrary baseline numbers after commenting to others about setting arbitrary baseline numbers.. ;)

Its easy to say it with a straight face, especially when you take my whole quote instead of stopping right at the conjunction word, which really completes the thought/point of that sentence.

That is a cheap comparison by the way.. How many of those SUVs are on the road that fit that 3 model mold vs how many of those 8 do you see that top the 30mpg mark? Already you are at an 8:3 ratio just by placing 1 person in each vehicle in its most abstract comparison. If you do statistics you would be better off base lining SUVs vs mid size or compacts, then comparing them to the # on the road.

Cant we look at this as an overall comparison? I honestly think the part of the record the needle keeps skipping on with you is the fact that you feel that 5mpg better (arbitrary mpg difference), makes no difference to the overall impact to the environment and that part makes me wonder how you can say that with a straight face.

I liked the analogy Jeff gave earlier of the pile of trash over time if he never recycled/resued. It adds up, but you have to think past the next hour to understand it.

ridemcoaster said:

Actually theres a lot morethat needs to be said to the site you quoted, and it goes back to acomment I made a few threads ago..

There are a choice of vehiclesthat have better MPG, and they happen to be the same vehicles in thelist. The difference.. The country they are sold in.

Eurpean Union and Japan have the most stringent Fuel Economy Standards in the world. Unlike the US which sits near the bottom.

Actually I didn't say there wasn't anything more than needs to be said about the site. I just said it goes without saying that the higher the fuel efficiency, the higher the sticker price.

I don't think anyone could argue that there's a lot of room for higher environmental protection standards in our country. If we all lobby our government to establish a higher standard, that will indeed make a big difference. That's one part of the discussion.

The other part has been about an apparent flagrant disregard for the environment as demonstrated by not driving more fuel efficient vehicles. I offered the site to speak to that part of the discussion.

If choosing to drive a more fuel efficient vehicle was as simple and easy as turning off the spigot while you brush your teeth, you would have to ask, why doesn't everyone do it? Besides the excused few who have a reason such as size of the driver or occupational dependence, the only reasons that have been offered were perceived status and selfish lack of concern for the future.

I think there are other reasons. And for those who have legitimate reasons for driving vehicles with a lower fuel efficiency, there are other ways they can be making a difference.

Agreed Carrie this is a difficult topic to address wrt the Environment... wait.. did I just agree? ;)

I would like to see the statistic of if the US raised MPG standards how much would the cost delta really be? This may be a point thats easily thrown out. Apparently its not a big issue across waters..

However this thread in its broadest sense dealt with the automobile industry. We could throw in every other environmental effort people can take but we would be horribly off-topic at that point. All efforts are indeed valid outside the thread topic, but (conjunction) my rant is strictly about SUVs/Gas guzzlers and my impression of:

1) the US and its lack of concern of MPG standards vs World.

2) How even the slightest change affects the future (butterfly effect - horrible movie, accurate viewpoint.)

3) Purchase of gas guzzlers just for status symbol, being the biggest one on the road, bla bla bla.. (watch MTV cribs or some of those other silly shows for that point) VS practical purchases (obviously there are cases when larger vehicles are required). Seems its more slanted on the first, than the second.

I think these arguments are valid and each weighing on the minds of most environmental agencies.. I didnt just pull this stuff out thin air.. These are real sought after issues.

Quick fix??Nothing in the environmental realm is..

Still wont stop me from practicing in every avenue possible. Hell, even in my server room at home, I used to have 15 computers running constantly to host multiple websites, mail etc outta my house.. Now Ive cut down the constant running ones over half using VMWare to virtualize many physical hosts into one, the environment (and my electric bill) thank me for reducing my footprint.

Im drifting off-topic again, but making the point I dont disagree there are other avenues, but doesnt mean not try as many as possible.

ridemcoaster said:
Well look who is now setting arbitrary baseline numbers after commenting to others about setting arbitrary baseline numbers.. ;)

Mostly used those numbers based on on what Jeff said a couple of pages back when I first jumped in:

"Big vehicle hybrids are a joke. The gains in fuel efficiency are relatively insignificant and still not anywhere above 30. This includes the Toyota Highlander hybrid."

Just pointing out that they do...and ironically (or maybe not) two of the three models that do are made by a Big 3 american company (that supposedly sucks accoring to the first few pages of this thread)

In fact, there's only 14 2009 models that best 30mpg on average and three of them are hybrid SUVs. And if you use the tougher city rating only 9 best 30mpg...and the three hybrid SUVs are still there.

Seems to be that certain hybrid SUVs are among the best options out there for those concerned about making a difference.

That is a cheap comparison by the way.. How many of those SUVs are on the road that fit that 3 model mold vs how many of those 8 do you see that top the 30mpg mark?

1. No idea where to find that data.

2. In the city - exactly two of them.

My point with that info isn't about what's on the road. At this point it's about you guys saying the hybrid SUVs don't do good enough. (and then repeatedly telling me how every little bit counts)

I honestly think the part of the record the needle keeps skipping on with you is the fact that you feel that 5mpg better (arbitrary mpg difference), makes no difference to the overall impact to the environment...

Not sure I ever said that...even once. I may have said that the impact is minimial, but never that it doesn't matter. The point remains that I'm still the one who said, "Look beyond the vehicle type, there's other ways to make equally valid impact. Perhaps your habits with a more efficient vehicle are actually more wasteful than another's habits with a less efficient vehicle"

I think the part that sticks with you guys is that that you feel SUVs are bad. And in and of themselves they aren't and don't have to be.

It adds up, but you have to think past the next hour to understand it.

You have to give me something worth thinking about for more than an hour. ;)

Carrie M. said:

If choosing to drive a more fuel efficient vehicle was as simple and easy as turning off the spigot while you brush your teeth, you would have to ask, why doesn't everyone do it?

...the only reasons that have been offered were perceived status and selfish lack of concern for the future.

I think there are other reasons. And for those who have legitimate reasons for driving vehicles with a lower fuel efficiency, there are other ways they can be making a difference.

Pretty much what I've been trying to say for three pages now. So good luck with that. :)

ridemcoaster said:

I would like to see the statistic of if the US raised MPG standards how much would the cost delta really be? This may be a point thats easily thrown out. Apparently its not a big issue across waters..

It very well could be insignificant... when standards are raised, and the norm becomes high fuel efficiency in all vehicles, and the market demands less expensive options.

But it's my need to clarify that my contention is not that cost is a factor in preventing a higher standard for fuel efficiency in the US. It's that current costs are a factor in preventing some people from being willing and/or able to purchase the more fuel efficient vehicles being sold today.

Howeverthis thread in its broadest sense dealt with the automobile industry.We could throw in every other environmental effort people can take butwe would be horribly off-topic at that point. All efforts are indeedvalid outside the thread topic, but (conjunction) my rant is strictly about SUVs/Gas guzzlers and my impression of:

Fair enough. I was just following the lead offered by Jeff's analogy regarding recycling, that you fondly supported above, by offering an analogy of my own with the spigot reference. ;) I believe other ways to make a difference specific to the auto industry have been aptly covered in Gonch's posts.

I may be one of the guilty parties for turning the conversation toward "other avenues of environmental protection" when the thread started out based strictly on the automotive side - if so, it's because I strongly believe that the marketplace (at least here) *critically* undervalues environmental costs. Because the environment improves incrementally with each gallon of fossil fuels NOT burned, it seems like the government MAY have a role to play in not only creating legislation for improved fuel economy, but perhaps more importantly, creating a system of incentives and disincentives whereby most people would be financially motivated to choose the more efficient option. (Mom and dad struggling to make 40K to support themselves and their two kids are less likely to fork over the extra 5K "right now" in order to save, say, 50 bucks a month on gas over the next 5 years)...you all can do the math... ;)

BTW.. im enjoying this doubles tennis match going on right now.

I believe other ways to make a difference specific to the auto industry have been aptly covered in Gonch's posts.

Has he?? All I see is a continuous string of why SUVs shouldnt be pinpointed as causes for waste, and look elsewhere for ways (non automotive) to help the environment.

Gonch says:

Not sure I ever said that...even once. I may have said that the impact is minimial, but never that it doesn't matter.

In a previous post:

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.

That certainly sounds like it doesnt matter. But im sure I misread that.

In fact, there's only 14 2009 models that best 30mpg on average and three of them are hybrid SUVs. And if you use the tougher city rating only 9 best 30mpg...and the three hybrid SUVs are still there.

Seems to be that certain hybrid SUVs are among the best options out there for those concerned about making a difference.

Thats great.. But it still doesnt answer on of my questions:

How many people are actually driving those hybrids vs the standard guzzlers.. I applaud those that choose that hybrid route.. I will meet you 1/2 way that it is a step in right direction (better mpg, makes impact, my point stands and environment wins). Again.. From the summary of my last post, Im not comparing the hybrid SUVs as much as I am comparing the dozens upon dozens of non Hybrid SUVs (wait let me expand that to any low mpg vehicle, and by low, I mean well below world standards - there a baseline) that clog our roads, which then decision trees to the practical vs impractical.

I dunno.. You may not be sold on the fact that SUVs are more part of the oil problem than it seems, however you have yet to convince me it isnt.

...Wheels on the SUV go round and round...

I can't keep doing this point-by-point quoting nonsense. It hurts myeyes. I'll summarize with this response to all that Gonch has said:

You're not actually making any points. You say you're not rejectingfractional solutions, but you are. I'm not even sure what your point isanymore. There's nothing hypocritical about saying that you reject babysteps and me saying that hybrid SUV's are a joke. If you get 3 mpgbetter on the hybrid version, it still doesn't approach the wins fromgoing with a completely different car that does 10 better. Why are youso insistent about overlooking that?

I reject the idea that piling four people in an SUV is OK because itcarries more people, when putting four people in a more efficient caris still the better solution.

Lord Gonchar said:
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. :)

But we're not even. Per mile driven, you're still worse off. This is not a zero-sum game. It's like you tossing a soda can out the window once a week and saying it's ok because someone else does it seven days a week. That doesn't make sense. You're so hung up on the numbers that you won't account for the moral responsibility you have to the world and the people you share it with.

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 again, that's a cop out. Let me say it again... it's not a zero-sum game. This is why the concept of carbon credits are so asinine. You don't get a free pass to drive a Hummer just because you donate money to Greenpeace. You seem unwilling to respond to that point.

Doing the right thing requires adherence to a lifestyle that you try to follow as much as you can. In an extreme example, we don't decide it's OK to kill people once in awhile as long as we don't do it most of the time. On the entire scale of moral practice, and that's what this is, perhaps being environmentally conscious isn't even in the neighborhood of whether or not to murder people, but the implications are far more serious in the long run.

So let me put as simply as I can. Not driving inefficient vehicles are one of the easiest wins we have available to us. No one is suggesting it's a cure-all. In light of the climate and national security issues surrounding the consumption of oil, it would seem to me that doing whatever we can is a priority.

The optimist in me thinks that we'll look at the 2010 Prius and think it's a joke many years from now. I believe there's a day coming when we won't measure efficiency in miles per gallon, we'll do it in miles per kilowatt-hour. But in the mean time, we should be doing what we can with what we've got, as some combination of fuel efficiency, car pooling, public transportation, telecommuting, etc.

ridemcoaster said:
BTW.. im enjoying this doubles tennis match going on right now.

Well it's not really doubles since Jeff has decided he only wants to play with Gonch. :)

Has he?? All I see is a continuous string of why SUVs shouldnt be pinpointed as causes for waste, and look elsewhere for ways (non automotive) to help the environment.

Then you aren't reading all of his posts. He started off by discussing other options like commuting a lesser distance to work and carpooling with more people.

I have never read a single post, by Gonch or anyone else, that suggests that SUVs do not burn more fuel than other vehicles. Not one post.

But his very first post was a challenge to the notion that the only reasons people drive SUVs are status and disregard for the environment. And that was what I was trying to support with my posts.

Jeff says:
Doing the right thing requires adherence to a lifestyle that you try to follow as much as you can.

That's a true enough statement. And it's also true that if doing a small amount helps, then doing more of it helps even more. That's a point so self-evident it seems silly to have to spell it out.

But the argument being made, as I see it anyway, isn't about if the impact isn't big it isn't worth it. The argument is that the lifestyle you talk about can't be demonstrated simply by the car one drives.

In other words, casually pointing a finger at an SUV driver and proclaiming they are an environment killer is just as silly as pointing a finger at a Prius driver and proclaiming they are living a lifestyle that will save the environment.

You could argue that the examples Gonch provided (commuting a lesser distance and carpooling more) are better examples of actual lifestyle change.

You know, some people drive the Prius because they think the gadgets are cool. ;) (and look back at the link Brian posted as to why some folks drive the Prius... it's pretty funny.)

Even if you drive a hybrid or a 40mpg vehicle, you still have to use roads and highways. Of themselves, they are not exactly environmentally friendly to construct and maintain. They involve clearing trees, filling wetlands, changing natural drainage patterns, moving large quantities of earth, and the asphalt is fossil fuel based. Not to mention they are large heat sinks.

If you want to get technical, how large are the "carbon footprints" of the amusement/theme parks we all enjoy visiting? How many resources do we consume while adding to our coaster counts? In the scheme of saving the world, isn't the whole concept frivolous? What if some policy maker decides parks are as wasteful and unnecessary as SUVs? I'm sure there are thousands of Prius drivers who think our hobby is bad.

Jeff:
If you get 3 mpg better on the hybrid version, it still doesn't approach the wins from going with a completely different car that does 10 better. Why are you so insistent about overlooking that?

Because you keep telling me baby steps count and I'm wrong for overlooking the aggregate impact of lots of baby steps. But in that above quote you're saying baby steps aren't good enough.

Essentially what you're saying is doing better is not enough...you have to do the best. And if that's the case, then you have to do the best in all areas...you can't pick and choose. I call out anyone who drives excessively in their perfectly efficient car - changing their driving habits would be a better solution than their current one, so their baby steps aren't good enough and they could be doing better.

But we're not even. Per mile driven, you're still worse off. This is not a zero-sum game. It's like you tossing a soda can out the window once a week and saying it's ok because someone else does it seven days a week. That doesn't make sense. You're so hung up on the numbers that you won't account for the moral responsibility you have to the world and the people you share it with.

Not at all.

The number of miles driven is part of the equation. Someone can't commute 20 or 30 miles or 3 hours or whatever ridiculous distance it is from their little gated community in the suburbs in their Prius and then sneer at the SUV they pass downtown who drove just across town to get there.

That's like tossing 7 soda cans and saying it's ok because someone else is tossing a much bigger two-liter bottle. You're so hung up on the mpg issue that you won't account for the same moral responsibility that you accuse me of ignoring.

I think it's great that you drive your Toyota. Now drive it less...and with more people in it.

That's no different than you telling me, "I think it's great that you drive so little. Now drive a more efficient vehicle." and the results would be the same...we both improve our level of impact.

And to further elaborate on the concept:

And again, that's a cop out. Let me say it again... it's not a zero-sum game. This is why the concept of carbon credits are so asinine. You don't get a free pass to drive a Hummer just because you donate money to Greenpeace. You seem unwilling to respond to that point.

Ok. Flat out. Go to the link carrie posted on page 7. You can personalize the vehicle useage stats.

If I drive a Hummer 100% of the time in the city and drive around 7000 miles a year because everything is close and I walk certan places, my CO2 output is 6.6 tons per year. If you drive a Prius 25000 miles a year because you commute and do a 40/60 city/highway mix, your yearly CO2 output is 6.7 tons.

Mr. Prius driver is doing more harm than Mr. Hummer driver.

The idea of Mr. Prius preaching to Mr. Hummer is laugable. They're both doing less then the best. But at the same time they've both taken baby steps. Mr. Hummer created a more centrally located life for himself and reduced his useage while Mr. Prius bought a more efficient vehicle because of his commute and reduced his as well.

Sure, the Hummer driver could get a Prius and reduce his output, but the Prius driver could live a more localized life and reduce his just as much.

Doing the right thing requires adherence to a lifestyle that you try to follow as much as you can.

My point precisely! It's about so much more than which vehicle you drive. It's about lifestyle changes. Changes in the way we do things. Changes in the status quo.

Do you see what I'm getting at? If feels really hypocritical to tell someone who is quite possibly having less impact than you (the SUV driver) to change because the changes they've made (where, how much and how they drive) aren't the one you'd make (a more fuel efficient vehicle).

---

EDIT - carrie slipped in while I typed. But she summed it up a hell of a lot more succinctly then I:

"But the argument being made, as I see it anyway, isn't about if the impact isn't big it isn't worth it. The argument is that the lifestyle you talk about can't be demonstrated simply by the car one drives.

In other words, casually pointing a finger at an SUV driver and proclaiming they are an environment killer is just as silly as pointing a finger at a Prius driver and proclaiming they are living a lifestyle that will save the environment.

You could argue that the examples Gonch provided (commuting a lesser distance and carpooling more) are better examples of actual lifestyle change."

That's pretty much the gist of my angle. :)

No, I'm not saying that baby steps aren't good enough, I'm saying that there is something readily available that is better than a baby step, so why not take it further when you can?

You make me want to pull my hair out. You see things however you want, and I give up trying to change your mind. If you drive a Hummer ten miles a week, the human race still only got ten miles for that gallon. Why is that so hard to understand? As long as you continue to look at it on an individual basis, you won't be swayed. Look up zero-sum. This is not that.

Again, if a gallon of gas only propelled a vehicle ten miles, we lost. Not you, not me, but we.

Let go of this ridiculous notion about the cross-country Prius driver versus the Hummer driver that never goes anywhere. You're painting a silly fringe case to justify an even sillier argument. At the end of the day, we get less out of a gallon of gas in a Hummer, period. No one here is suggesting you just toss out all of the other factors such as number of passengers and distance. Let that go! But for God's sake, man, look at the obvious one!

And why do you avoid the moral, political and socioeconomic implications of the discussion?

Carrie said:

Then you aren't reading all of his posts.

Funny.. I was thinking the same thing about others and my posts..

If I drive a Hummer 100% of the time in the city and drive around 7000miles a year because everything is close and I walk certain places, myCO2 output is 6.6 tons per year. If you drive a Prius 25000 miles a year because you commute and do a 40/60 city/highway mix, your yearlyCO2 output is 6.7 tons.

By the way.. this example can just as easily be reverse and completely, if not exponentially, invalidate it, and honestly we can make examples till we are blue in face, but theres no basis to it. I kinda wish I had hard facts on what commutes people do and in that same chart what those people drive.

So.. Lets break this down for my simple understanding:

You are suggesting that its easier for someone to find a job that fits the persons talents yet pays what it takes to live a decent life. Then find a home near that job,(or vice versa.. irrelevant, similar degree of difficulty), that in big cities where said hot jobs exist which accommodates your talent, tend to cost in monthly mortgage a 1/3 to 1/2 of your monthly salary. Oh.. If your married.. Your significant other has to do the same.. Easier??

BTW, Im using DC as an example where you just dont in most cases live in the city or cant as most housing is outside it, and theres still a large part of the area where metro lines dont reach.. (yes another issue/solution - not getting into that).

But somehow just buying a practical car based on your situational needs is a less reasonable decision?

This example is becoming more and more difficult as businesses are becoming epicenters and homes are around the fringes. So do we force the govt to build on Happy Street.. Office, house, Office, House.. Come on! Im not talking about localized shopping centers.. but major businesses where you get paid a more generous salary.

Am I understanding that quoted example right? Ive re-read through several and thats the example that keeps popping up in your posts.

I think you gotta get out more and look around if you really believe that SUVs (let me start referring to them as low MPG vehicles) dont occupy the highways just as much, or worse yet the surface roads where it takes more energy to get those much larger tires turning from a dead stop.

I dunno. Im thinking after 158 posts total (of which the last 3 pages or so are mostly us), im not sure either side is going to agree 100%, which is fine.. Im just trying to understand your logic, and maybe its slightly clouded by mine .. and vice versa..

Jeff said:
You make me want to pull my hair out. You see things however you want...

Oh, come on. You know I'm thinking the same thing. :)

If you drive a Hummer ten miles a week, the human race still only got ten miles for that gallon. Why is that so hard to understand?

Even at 40mpg, using that potential inefficiently is doing as much harm as using less mpg more efficiently. It's not just about how efficiently the vehicle performs, but how efficiently you use the vehicle. Why is that so hard to understand?

If the goal was to get the best mpg then you're right, but I thought the problem was enviromental impact? And the simple undisputable fact is that mpg alone don't tell us what impact one's usage of a given vehicle has.

Look up zero-sum. This is not that.

I get it. Every little bit helps. I just don't understand why one little bit that does as much as the little bit you're rallying for or the little bit you do is worse or not as good because it's not the little bit you want me to do?

Flat out again, dude. I could reduce my useage with a more efficient vehicle. You could reduce yours by driving less and with multiple passengers. We've both reduced our use in some way, but could still do more. However, every little bit helps. But adjusting my life to use my cehicle less, I've taken a baby step that has as much impact as the baby step you've taken. It's not zero-sum. We both get ahead.

Again, if a gallon of gas only propelled a vehicle ten miles, we lost. Not you, not me, but we.

Again, if we drive further and less efficiently (one person) than necessary, we lost. No me, not you, but we.

I suggest that changes in both the vehicles we drive and the way we drive them are necessary and important. Increasing the mpg that our vehicles get is only a partial solution. There are other partial solutions that are just as good.

You say the answer is changing what people drive. I'm just saying that's a single-minded answer. We could also change how people drive and be just as effective.

Better still, do both. But given an initial step of one or the other, I think mine is a better approach.

And why do you avoid the moral, political and socioeconomic implications of the discussion?

Because, quite frankly, they don't interest me. What grabs my attention is the singluar, monotonous, uncreative drum beat of the "SUVs are bad" parade.

ridemcoaster said:
So.. Lets break this down for my simple understanding:

You are suggesting that its easier for someone to find a job that fits the persons talents yet pays what it takes to live a decent life. Then find a home near that job,(or vice versa.. irrelevant, similar degree of difficulty), that in big cities where said hot jobs exist which accomodates your talent, tend to cost in monthly mortgage a 1/3 to 1/2 of your monthly salary. Oh.. If your married.. Your significant other has to do the same.. Easier??

Nope.

I'm suggesting more public transportation be used, people carpool, walk or we start designing towns and cities different to propograte that approach. Perhaps when one moves they would consider proximity and impact much the same way you guys suggest I consider mpg in my next vehicle purchase.

But somehow just buying a practical car based on your situational needs is a less reasonable decision?

Less reasonable that using public transportation, carpooling and walking/biking/whatever?

Yes. And less effective too.

Commuting in a sedan that gets 20mpg with 5 adults in it to the city everyday is more effeicient per person than the typical solo driver simply switching to a Prius and not changing any other habit. Encouraging something as simple as carpooling saves more gas than encouraging everyone to buy new cars. Plus, there's none of the cost or impact associated with the vehicle changover - for both the manufacturer and the consumer...and the enviroment.

Which all goes back to my point.

I find it more offensive that people are unwilling to change what they do. Instead they just want to change what they do it with regardless of the impact that has. In this case, it would quite possibly be much easier and effective for us to change what we do, not the tools we use to do it.

You guys keep wonking about better fuel mileage when it still seems to me there are other ways to reduce the impact that are just as good and maybe even more effective. They're just not the changes you want to make.

Buying that 40mpg car is a nice baby step. But there's lots of other baby steps you could take too...and some of them could have even greater positive impact at less cost. It's all about getting people to change, right?

I find it more offensive that people are unwilling to change what they do.

Hallelujah! We agree on something.

Ok.. Back to my simple mind summary again:

So now im seeing you suggest we get the city/state/federal to fund better public transportation so that we can have the ability to commute from all regions of the are into work. I absolutely love and support that idea.. Much heavier price tag than just buying sensibly however.

Here in Hampton Roads, where I live, its a mesh of 7 major cities and governments. To commute using pub transportation from one end of Hampton Roads to the other, a crow-flies distance of about 40 miles till you hit water, it will literally take you about 5 hours minimum. This is fact by the way as a few people ran that test to prove how inadequate our pub transportation was.. The issue here.. Well Virginia Beach which generates the most revenue in our Hampton Roads region didnt want to spend money sending people out of their area, which I thought was reverse thinking, but whatever.. Portsmouth, a city which is one of the more poorer cities couldnt afford to assist with building as they dont generate enough revenue for capital projects, therefore forcing bigger revenue citys to put up more.. In short.. our conglomerate didnt agree with one another, therefore all proposed ideas stopped.

Norfolk (Old Dominion University) as an engineering project and proof of concept invested in light rail for their students to get around norfolk.. Dead ends at Va Beach line.. Beach didnt want to contribute.

Whats the point of this? It takes an act of congress just to get a pothole fixed in some states, but you are now saying this suggestion is easier than making a choice to drive practical vehicles based on circumstances. Cant we do both?

Granted no one method is completely "easy", but it would seem to me the path of least resistance is just being responsible citizens, and it balloons upwards from there.

Lord Gonchar said:

I find it more offensive that people are unwilling to change what they do. Instead they just want to change what they do it with regardless of the impact that has.

Well stated. I'm just going to pretend that I said that. :)