March 7, 2002

5:37 AM

Environmental Hypocrites?Jennifer Lopez: black Lincoln Navigator. Meg Ryan: black Ford Explorer. Dustin Hoffman: dark green Land Rover Range Rover…I don't begrudge these individuals their choice in automotive transportation…I just can't stomach so-called "environmentalists" who are about as green as Clifford the Big Red Dog."
posted by nobody_knose (59 comments total)

"And with gas continuing to hover around $1 a gallon..."

My heart bleeds. It costs me ~£35 a week to get to and from work (just over 80 mile journey every day), in my Vauxhall Corsa 1.5D that does about 55mpg.

Maybe they should hike fuel tax in America to British levels. That would soon sort the environment out.
posted by robzster1977 at 6:15 AM on March 7, 2002

I'd have to agree with both the posted article and robzster. As I soon plan to put down roots in Houston, I know firsthand that our environment is not getting any greener. However, although most people attribute the pollution in Houston to Bush's recent reign over the state, in fact, Houston has virtually no real mass transit system. Although commuter buses are improving, a light rail system is really what's necessary. If more people could be convinced to use mass transit, the problem of fuel efficiency and foreign oil dependence would be significantly reduced.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:32 AM on March 7, 2002

I've heard the term, "limousine liberal" before... are we now seeing the emergance of the "SUV liberal?"
posted by dansays at 6:39 AM on March 7, 2002

<devil's advocate>The article's headline, "(Wasteful) Actions Speak Louder than (Environmental) Words", is just plain wrong. Celebrities like those mentioned above can affect a lot of people with their words. Can't the positive strides made with money donated and minds changed by celebrities make up for their personal SUV use?</devil's advocate>
posted by jpoulos at 7:06 AM on March 7, 2002

I actually would love it if gas was taxed in america akin to the way we tax cigarettes (a vice tax), as a way to pressure consumers and corporations towards fuel efficiency. That, or direct regulation on consumer auto makers regarding fuel efficiency. Or, a vehicle tax, based on fuel efficiency.

The problem with these taxes is they can be a real problem for the economy, esp. short term. If they did hike gas taxes, I'd say actually give a pass to large trucks (18 wheelers) and other commercial vehicles.

Bad economic effects aside, its naive (or disingenuous) to think that consumers (even celebrities) would actually do something about this, or that corporations would do anything without consumer demand for fuel efficiency(why would they?).
posted by malphigian at 7:10 AM on March 7, 2002

Oooooooh $1.00 per gallon? That's going to hurt your wallet. That's about £0.70.... which won't even buy anyone in the UK 1 litre.

I'll bet petrol hasn't been 70p a gallon in the uk for at least 20 years.
posted by Spoon at 7:13 AM on March 7, 2002

I'm with the guy with the horns and the pointy tail here, or at least on the same page: anyone who expects most actor/celebs to abandon their central concerns about style and image to maintain intellectual consistency is expecting the unreasonable.

Actors are useful for environmental causes because their faces and voices are the currency of attention: hey, that's Clint Eastwood talking! I'll listen for a second! This is no different than Martin Sheen doing a voice-over for a car commercial. Yes, he sounds "committed" to the car. Do you really expect he drives this model?

Few of these actors qualify as real activists (some do -- Begley is an exception, and now nearly as well-known for his activism as for his acting). The culture in which they live and work demands fabulousness and up-to-the-moment stylishness as part of daily life. Add to this that they are, by and large, not a very reflective group of people. So, while it's nice that they sometimes lend their fame to a cause -- in some cases very generously -- they're not as a group likely to subordinate their lifestyle to the higher ideals of, say, Greenpeace.

In short, if we hold them to this standard, we're mistaking what we can reasonably expect of celebrities. Being a good-looking movie star doesn't make you more qualified or responsible with your political actions than any other shmuck -- despite our desires to project importance onto their opinions.
posted by BT at 7:21 AM on March 7, 2002

I am a huge fan of mass transit but unfortunately we need to change the way we build cities to make it work or we'll end up with a lot of systems like DART in Dallas. With the Los Angeles (The City of the Future!) model it's difficult to organize a logical bus or rail system because everything is decentralized. Then, in order to get people to ride them, they have to be cheaper and more convenient to ride in than a car. BART, right now, is both but if they continue to raise their fares, they will lose the latter.

An additional problem is that no government wants to subsidize public transportation. Because it charges a fare, those in charge want to see it pay for its self. I think that if we were to put as much in public funds into it as we do highways, there would be no reason to take a car because we'd have the best system in the world.
posted by spudworks at 7:25 AM on March 7, 2002

If more people could be convinced to use mass transit

"Light" rail systems are tremendously expensive to build and operate. After about 20 years, the one in Miami has never been profitable. Also, population and commercial areas shift over time, rail systems don't. Expanded bus lines are a much cheaper and more flexible method of public transportation.

I can only speak for myself, but gas would have to get pretty damn expensive for me to give up the convenience and time saved by commuting in my own vehicle.

I'm Joe Suburbanite with a 16 mile roundtrip commute - shorter than the average. Takes about 25-30 minutes each way, but I also have to pickup and drop off my son at preschool, which is near my work. My office is about a 6 block walk from Metrorail, but I would still have to drive or take a bus to get to Metrorail from my house.

By having my truck at work, I can get a lot of things done during my lunch hour that would normally be time taken out of the weekend. I'm lucky - there are many stores within walking distance of my office, but being able to drive to Home Depot to pick up 30 bags of mulch during Friday lunch hour is a huge convenience.

Granted, this all comes of suburban sprawl, but unless you have a commuting "profile" that can be adapted to public transportation without disrupting your life, it just doesn't make sense.
posted by groundhog at 7:33 AM on March 7, 2002

OK, in the first place, if we expect everyone who thinks it might be a good idea to take steps toward saving the environment to all of the sudden go out and buy a Honda Insight lest they risk being labeled a hypocrit -- well, I think that's a little unrealistic. If everybody does SOMETHING towards a greener planet, it will make a big difference. Everybody doesn't need to do EVERYTHING possible to make it so. Celebrities do something valuable by encouraging others -- I see no reason to shit on them for their efforts.

Secondly, these people probably drive pretty well-tuned and well-maintained vehicles, so even if they don't get good gas mileage, they probably don't put out all that much in the way of pollutants... relatively speaking. For example, I drive a Jeep, which is not the greenest vehicle on the planet. I had to get my emissions checked the other day, and I only scored a 2 when the law lets me go as high as 25. If people take care of their cars, it makes a big difference too... a beat up old Ford Escort billowing black smoke thru its rusted out muffler is WAY worse for the environment than a whole fleet of Land Rovers, even though it gets far better gas mileage.
posted by spilon at 7:34 AM on March 7, 2002

I actually would love it if gas was taxed in america akin to the way we tax cigarettes

I actually would not. Though I'm a huge fan of the environment and live in one of the most hip, outdoorsy towns in the U.S. (at least according to Outside magazine) I really like my cheap gas. As said about Houston there is very little mass transit in greater America, so instead people drive huge fargin' tanks that get .1 mpg... and that's their decision.

As a car company you have to make what people will buy, and if people are buying tanks, then you build tanks. You only build water-fueled cars that get 300 mpg if the technology and the market is there. There's a huge markup on the price of SUVs, and so long as people are happy car companies aren't going to let a good thing like that go to waste.

What we need here is social change. Instead of people driving huge cars because they can, they need to drive smaller cars because they should. You can come at it from two directions; by taxing the hell out of everything, fattening the government and pissing people off, or, well... what else can you do? Ban truck ads on tv? Open season on SUVs? Force people's eyelids open so they have to listen to environmentalists that don't contradict themselves?
posted by Dane at 7:48 AM on March 7, 2002

Friends, don't you realize that you only have one life, and that life is too precious to spend niggling about gas milage? It won't be the end of the world when the petroleum runs out. We'll just have to live in a world without gas. There may be some kind of crises. But there is always some kind of crisis somewhere. Millions of people die in a Bangladeshi typhoon (1977), and no one in LA bats an eyelash. No one even made a movie about it. The human race is adaptable. Relax. You sound like a bunch of Victorians maundering about their moral duty. Use gas. Have fun.
posted by Faze at 7:56 AM on March 7, 2002

Who is Clifford, the Bed Red Dog?
posted by Faze at 7:57 AM on March 7, 2002

Faze, we need that petroleum for other things, too. Like plastic.
posted by skyline at 8:08 AM on March 7, 2002

Here you go, Faze. He's, well, a big red dog, not a bed red dog. In the cartoon, he's voiced by the inimitable John Ritter.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:16 AM on March 7, 2002

I'm a tall dude. I've spent the past 15 years driving little cars like the old hatchback Escort and, currently, a Geo Prizm that gets 35+ mpg on a good day. However, I'm starting to feel too old to keep squeezing into these relatively small cars. I've had three wrecks in the past 10 years, two of which totalled my cars and the most recent of which happened because of limited sight in backing out of a parking spot surrounding by huge redneck trucks.... I'm tired of it! I've almost convinced myself to get a small SUV like a Toyota RAV or Honda CRV. Now can I please do this without feeling guilty or giving the wrong first impression to people I meet? 'Nuff said.
posted by Ben Grimm at 8:21 AM on March 7, 2002

Wait,

So clifford is not supportive of environmental causes? Oh, you were making a..oh, ok.
posted by glenwood at 8:30 AM on March 7, 2002

Here comes my flame...

The only excuse for any sort of SUV is some serious snow driving. SUV's are stupid, useless, wastes of gas. A mommy driving her kids to soccer practice simply does not need a Suburban! It's so typical of Americans to say "I'm getting it because I WANT IT!" and screw the environment that the whole world is effected by.

I say make gas $5/gallon, THEN we'll see how many "Soccer moms" and "yuppie dads" are driving around SUV's! SUV's are simply a status symbol, and the people who drive them are selfish and just don't care about the world or anyone else in it. They just feel they "deserve" it. Like our oh-so-wise VP said, "It's the American Way" to drive big, hulking, gas guzzling, environmentally disgusting SUV's. Blah.
posted by aacheson at 8:30 AM on March 7, 2002

from the article:
'my lifestyle is as much a tribute to fundamental logic as it is to saving the planet.'
by george i think he's got it!
if plastic (and fossil fuels) were priced according to their sustainability they would be used with the respect that they deserve.
posted by asok at 8:37 AM on March 7, 2002

well, glenwood, if you really want to go there, here's what Clifford says on his website: "One important concept to introduce is how to be friendly to the environment. Talk about the importance of recycling paper, plastic, and glass. Create separate bins for each of these products and encourage the child to follow the 3 Rs: Reduce, Re-Use, and Recycle!"

See, he's a big green dog after all.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:44 AM on March 7, 2002

are we now seeing the emergance of the "SUV liberal?"

have you noticed how limos have been replaced by black SUV's in transporting celebs and the like?
posted by brucec at 9:01 AM on March 7, 2002

Who cares if people burn up all the petroleum in their SUVs? It's not doing anyone any good just sitting there in the ground, and we're not going to get anything better until all the oil is gone. So, everyone might as well buy a Hummer or a Suburban and help usher in the age of fuel cells, or whatever's next.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:05 AM on March 7, 2002

mr_crash_davis you are so right. We've got to face it, the next thing isn't going to happen until it HAS to happen. And it's not going to happen in our generation anyway, so let's have fun. (By the way, I LOVE John Ritter, and am glad he's got this Big Red Dog gig. He's been tremendously underutilized throughout his career, and he's really the king of American light comedy. He's what Edward Norton could be if Norton didn't take himself so seriously.)
posted by Faze at 9:12 AM on March 7, 2002

It's not a matter of convincing cosumers to do less driving . Becuase right now, the way America is setup, less driving means we'd have to do less living. You'd be cutting our choices about homes, schools, jobs, real estate, recreation, communication, assembly.

You'd have to change the way America is set up. You'd have to build lots of new tracks, have affordable housing and great school systems in America's cities. You'd have to tell businesses to relocate near mass transit centers, which would ruin the tax base of towns -- and thus the school sytems -- of towns who weren't lucky enough to get in on the train route. It goes without saying that you'd need a more powerful Federal government to get a someting like this done.
posted by brucec at 9:19 AM on March 7, 2002

Don't be dissin' Clifford, man.
posted by GernBlandston at 9:21 AM on March 7, 2002

I'd have to agree with those who say that one of the main problems with America is that we've never really bought into the idea of mass transit. As bad as the situation is in major cities, it's far worse just about anyplace else: if you live in a smaller town or city, it's either drive or walk.

Worse yet, if you live in a place like Minnesota (as I do), bad-weather transit always has to factor into your decisions. SUVs and 4-wheel-drive trucks aren't luxuries around here; they're all but essential in the winter months.

I'm holding out hope for hybrid gas-electric cars, but electric cars are far from ideal: they suck down electricity at an incredible rate, and much electricity is generated by coal-fired plants. You're still jetting petroleum smoke into the air one way or the other.
posted by mrmanley at 9:28 AM on March 7, 2002

Hey, the SUV thread again. It's been, what, ten days?

*checking watch*

I make no excuses for what I drive (an Expedition) or how I choose to spend my money, apart from a couple I've made on Metafilter in a moment of temporary weakness. I took a nap and felt better, though. It's always good for a chuckle to read how I should be behaving.

Light rail mass transit is a fine idea in theory, but in the suburbs and the spread-out neighborhoods that constitute ninety-odd percent of America, it just won't fly. Expanded bus system sounds like a good idea, but I keep reading about mass transit systems that struggle to stay afloat. That pesky market forces thing.

I personally would find it more refreshing if the celebrities in question would stand right up and unapologetically say "Hell yes, I drive an SUV."

All in all, an interesting link, and I agree with a good bit of it.
posted by ebarker at 9:34 AM on March 7, 2002

A mommy driving her kids to soccer practice simply does not need a Suburban!

She does if safety is her main concern.

I have three kids and our choice of a car last fall was either an SUV or minivan. We bought a Chevy Suburban because it ranked at the top of Consumer Reports safety categories among all autos and ranked higher than minivans. In terms of reported injuries, the Suburban ranked at the top of all autos while the minivans we looked at typically ranked above-average.

Yesterday, when a landscaping truck ran a red light and came within five feet of hitting my car as I was driving my son to school, I was glad to be in a Suburban.

The choice of an auto is only one factor in how much your driving effects the environment. I'll bet some of the most virulent anti-SUV people are commuting long distances to work in urban areas, while I'm working from home in a relatively small town and don't do a lot of driving. I probably poked a bigger hole in the ozone commuting to work three hours a day in a Ford LTD in Dallas than I do driving an SUV on local errands less than five hours a week.

But hey, don't let me stop anyone from oversimplifying the issue because their choice of a vehicle reinforces their personal wonderfulness.
posted by rcade at 9:41 AM on March 7, 2002

I'll bet some of the most virulent anti-SUV people are commuting long distances to work in urban areas, while I'm working from home in a relatively small town and don't do a lot of driving.

The most virulent anti-SUV people who do long commutes (at least this virulent anti-SUV person who does a long commute) do so on a train, or they never would have set themselves up for that commute to begin with. If all you're doing is just poking around town, what do you need a car for at all? And don't start with the safety thing - yeah you're safer, but what about the people on the other side of your bumper? What about the people who can't see around your tank?
posted by badstone at 9:51 AM on March 7, 2002

I've almost convinced myself to get a small SUV like a Toyota RAV or Honda CRV. Now can I please do this without feeling guilty or giving the wrong first impression to people I meet?

Ben, there's a huge difference between the vehicles you mention and something like a Navigator or Suburban. People that judge someone by the kind of vehicle they drive are idiots.

If you're really concerned about image, by a pickup truck. Cheaper than a comparable SUV with a fraction of the recrimination.
posted by groundhog at 9:54 AM on March 7, 2002

"The most virulent anti-SUV people who do long commutes (at least this virulent anti-SUV person who does a long commute) do so on a train, or they never would have set themselves up for that commute to begin with."

When the difference is between $80-100,000 for a home with a long commute and $220,000 for a home with short commute, its kind of hard to say that a person sets themselves up. This is the reality in the North Jersey/ New York area.
posted by brucec at 9:56 AM on March 7, 2002

I was thinking about "That pesky market forces thing" just the other day and realized that while I know that most mass transit systems are subsidized about 50%, I don't know how much highways and gasoline are subsidized. I have a feeling its much more. If any one has any numbers on this, please share.
posted by ajayb at 10:02 AM on March 7, 2002

Light rail mass transit is a fine idea in theory, but in the suburbs and the spread-out neighborhoods that constitute ninety-odd percent of America, it just won't fly. Expanded bus system sounds like a good idea, but I keep reading about mass transit systems that struggle to stay afloat. That pesky market forces thing.

One of the problems that makes mass transit less desirable from a market point of view is that driving a car is heavily subsidized through increased retail prices and property taxes. In addition, many of the costs of commuting by car are deferred until later. For example, just to pick on Chicago, a monthly unlimited pass costs $75 a month. This is less than the regular monthly costs of fuel and insurance (conservatively estimated at $40 a month and $35 a month) and this is before we even factor in parking, maintenance, and the fiscal costs of car ownership/rental.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:06 AM on March 7, 2002

If all you're doing is just poking around town, what do you need a car for at all?

Where do you think I live -- Mayberry? If you're one of the miniscule number of Americans who doesn't own a car and does all travel by mass transit, I hereby cede the higher ground completely to you. You've earned it.

For me, though, as a lifelong resident of suburbs in some shitty mass transit cities in the South, I've never had the option not to own a car.

And don't start with the safety thing - yeah you're safer, but what about the people on the other side of your bumper? What about the people who can't see around your tank?

I drive safely and haven't had a speeding ticket or moving violation of any kind in 16 years. Beyond that, what kind of concessions to the safety of others should I make? I'm not going to put my family in a smaller car simply because it might make someone else safer in an accident.

There are thousands of SUVs, trucks, and large commercial vehicles on the road, many of which are driven by dumbasses and drunks. Choosing an SUV for safety reasons is a concession to that reality.
posted by rcade at 10:14 AM on March 7, 2002

Of course, folks, it's not all mutually exclusive. One could use mass transit and a SUV to get around, just depending on convenience. In my opinion, a lot of it depends on the design of the mass transit system. The ones in South Florida and LA stink to high heaven and are basically impractical for everyday use. Blame your city planners, or in the case of LA - rich beach dwellers who NIMBYed (Not In My BackYard) the train system out of usefulness.

BTW, according to Bill Maher, he drives a hybrid car so that seems to make him one of the celebs who "walks the walk".
posted by owillis at 10:20 AM on March 7, 2002

People here aren't really saying you should drive less, because I admit that public transportation stinks (Luckly, I can take BART easily to/from work every day, but I know that's not possible for many people. ) But why do you have to drive a big, huge, gas guzzling car?

There are a lot of station wagons out there that are very very safe. In fact, the VW stationwagon and the new Saturn station wagon were rated highest for safety this year. A suburban and many SUV's aren't that safe anyway...remember the small rollover problem?

You're much safer in a Volvo stationwagon than a SUV. And if you drive a long way to work, you should get a smaller car. It's your responsibility to the world and future generations.
posted by aacheson at 10:25 AM on March 7, 2002

Why do so few people carpool? I could see the point of driving a Suburban (or at least, hate it a bit less) if people actually used them to cart around lots of people. But as I wait at the bus stop each morning, I see vehicle after vehicle with only one driver. It's incredibly frustrating, because in an urban area, a car should be an appreciated luxury, and used efficiently. It seems that very few people see it that way.
posted by acornface at 10:29 AM on March 7, 2002

In fact, the VW stationwagon and the new Saturn station wagon were rated highest for safety this year. A suburban and many SUV's aren't that safe anyway...remember the small rollover problem?

Looking just at 2001 models, the only station wagon I have found in Consumer Reports with a safety record regarding injuries comparable to a 2001 Suburban is the SAAB 9-5. Most wagons -- including Volkswagen's -- ranked at average or above-average on safety, below the 2001 Suburban.
posted by rcade at 10:43 AM on March 7, 2002

ajayb -- that depends on what the definition of "is" is. Just kidding. It depends on what the definition of "subsidy" is. Roads are really expensive. Building gigantic 12 lane highways is really expensive. Are these costs subsidies to auto drivers? Depends on who's arguing. The auto people will say that roads are necessary infrastructure, and the are no more a subsidy than sidewalks or sewers. Greens would say that while some roads are necessary infrastructure, the overbuilding of roads is a subsidy and a waste.

I agree that "the pesky market forces thing" is not a fair challenge to public transp. The government is so heavily involved in the public and private transportation infrastructures that any claim to pure "market forces" is BS.
posted by Mid at 10:48 AM on March 7, 2002

I live out in the country, and the nearest town, population 20,000, is 20 miles away. They have a subsidised bus system with such a low ridership it has been proven they could give their ridership free taxi rides at less expense. But still, their little busses drive around with one or two passengers, belching out filthy diesel exhaust. This is too complex a problem for easy answers, mainly because, especially out west, there is a car culture. The automobile is much more than transportation, it's a free country, and lets not forget that supply and demand thing. They'll let us know if they start running low on SUVs, then those who want can drive six ton Unimog SUVs.
posted by Mack Twain at 10:55 AM on March 7, 2002

Thanks aacheson. I have never understood why certain folks I know who live in a year-round sunny climate traded in a Volvo wagon for an Expedition for the sole purpose of toting a 13-year-old and an 11-year-old around. They vacation abroad and don't need an SUV to get to skiing, camping, or hiking areas or anything like that.

I guess I was glad I was in said Expedition when said friend drove it straight into a curb at 20mph and all we felt was a little bump. Would have torn the bottom off of my car had I done that...
posted by sbgrove at 10:57 AM on March 7, 2002

I hope everyone who advocates taxing gas to European price levels realizes that such an action would cause a civil rebellion. The entire citizenry--yes, with a few exceptions--would simply descend on Washington (or the appropriate statehouse), roust out everybody who voted for the tax, burn them at the stake, then go home. We Americans don't get the social services these taxes pay for in Europe, therefore, we refuse to pay socialist-level taxes. Reference the public popularity of the Bush Tax Cut.

The lack of public transport is also not just a factor of city planning or budget neglect. These are actually effects themselves of the true cause: Americans loathe public transport. As someone raised as a California suburbanite, I know my experience is on the extreme side, but it seems such a view is nearly universal. "The shame train" and "the public limo" are necessary evils for the poor, those whose cars are in the shop, and latchkey kids. Getting anywhere takes 10 times as long and crime is rampant. I'm sure there are people who are not in this situation and such a view is also founded on things such as urban (suburban?) legend, but it stands as the reason public transport gets no funding and is sparsely used.

As to the fuel efficiency, I am a happy owner of an SUV who is planning on going greener with my next vehicle. Since I'm 6-4 and would like to not drive with my knees next to my ears, I plan on buying another SUV, only this one will be hybrid. I also plan on putting a massive sticker on the tailgate that says, "Hey greenie weenies: Eat me! It gets 70 mpg!" :)
posted by eszetela at 11:11 AM on March 7, 2002

Eszetela, You don't have to be from LA to hate public transportation. I may have said this before, but I lived in New York City for 20 years, and took public transportation every day of my life (including Saturdays and Sundays), and felt very correct about it. But let me tell you, now that I have my own car -- wow! This is livun'! Cars are the greatest! You can sit in one and zoom along and listen to music and dig the sights and think your own thoughts or listen to a book on tape... This is the acme of civilization, of individual fulfillment, of human culture and fine arts. When I read these posters simpering about how backward we are for not having widespread light rail systems, I can't help believing that what they really want is an end to Western civilization, its comforts, and respect for individual happiness. We are living in a golden age of cheap gas, great cars (and SUVs), CDs, books on tape. Live in it. Love it. Drive!
posted by Faze at 12:32 PM on March 7, 2002

Faze, do you not live near or commute to a large city anymore?

When I first got my car, I drove it to work. After a week of having to leave the house at 6:30 am in order to get to work by 8 (for an 18 mile one way commute), of having to deal with horrible weather, of having to worry about the idiot in the lane next to mine trying to cut me off, of flipping through 10 radio stations before realizing that they were all playing the same thing, and of having my foot cramp from riding the brake for an hour and a half, I decided to hop on the nearest commuter train. Now I leave home at 7:20 and am in to work before 8, having taken a nap or read the front section of the paper.
That sounded like a commercial didn't it?
posted by ajayb at 12:47 PM on March 7, 2002

A minor point of record: I'm not from LA. Why do I specify, I donno. It just seems LA is its own universe.
Anyway, both Faze and ajayb have excellent points. The tough thing is, the same thing doesn't work for everybody. Why can't we just all get to work the best way we personally see fit and call it good without having to bash what somebody else chooses?
I'm sure there are people who ride the train/bus/whatever often YET own an SUV or other car for trips that aren't along the train route. Should such a person yell at themselves? Maybe they could put a snarky sticker on their own car then chase after themselves with a baseball bat...
posted by eszetela at 1:19 PM on March 7, 2002

Should such a person yell at themselves?

Flashback: Me and my younger cousin, me being a bastard - "stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself, why do you keep hitting yourself?"

Good times.
posted by owillis at 1:42 PM on March 7, 2002

In terms of reported injuries, the Suburban ranked at the top of all autos while the minivans we looked at typically ranked above-average.

Sure it did rcade, because the only cars that get hit are econoboxes that you don't see because you and all the other soccer moms driving those monstrosities can't see over the steering wheel of your tank, and are too busy chatting on your cell phone to notice in the first place.
posted by themikeb at 1:51 PM on March 7, 2002

I hope everyone who advocates taxing gas to European price levels realizes that such an action would cause a civil rebellion.

It would also destroy the national economy in a single stroke. Most goods in the United States are transported by truck, and truckers work on a very slim profit margin. Last year, when gas was edging towards $2/gallon in a lot of places (due to market forces, not socialist taxes), many truckers came perilously close to bankruptcy. If Congress suddenly added on $4/gallon in "envirotaxes," our transportation system would collapse the next day. It would make the economic shutdown caused by 9/11 look like a walk in the park. (No, the truckers wouldn't simply quadruple their rates the next morning, with the companies paying for the deliveries simply passing the added cost on to the consumer. Anyone that thinks that does not understand the confluence of economics and socialization.) Things would simply stop moving. Instant depression.

The United States is a big country. European countries are not.
posted by aaron at 1:53 PM on March 7, 2002

I make no excuses for what I drive (an Expedition) or how I choose to spend my money, apart from a couple I've made on Metafilter in a moment of temporary weakness.

The point is not that SUVs are bad and scary, it's that calling yourself an environmentalist and then buying a car that gets 13mpg is hypocritical. I don't like SUVs and I would never buy one, but the author is not condemning people for driving them, he's condemning them for being two-faced about it. If you own an Expedition and are unabashedly proud of that fact, good on you, so long as you don't harbor any illusions that you aren't contributing to the pollution problems and oil crises we're in the midst of.
posted by Hildago at 1:54 PM on March 7, 2002

We are living in a golden age of cheap gas, great cars (and SUVs), CDs, books on tape. Live in it. Love it. Drive!

Pave the Earth! Oh yeah!
posted by Dean King at 2:55 PM on March 7, 2002

In short, if we hold them to this standard, we're mistaking what we can reasonably expect of celebrities.

I hold celebrities to the same standard I hold everyone else-that if they're going to get didactic with me, they better walk it like they talk it, otherwise I can't take them seriously. This of course begs the question of why we give someone like Meg Ryan's opinion the enviornment any more weight than yours or mine. I mean, we don't ask Jeremy Rifkin for wisdom on method acting, do we?
Obviously, it's nice when celebrities lend their prestige and visibilty to worthy causes and they have as much right to do so as anyone. However, just because someone's mug has been on the cover of Vanity Fair dosen't make them any more knowledgeable than anyone else.
posted by jonmc at 3:07 PM on March 7, 2002

Taxes: there's no reason why diesel (used by trucks) and gasoline (used by cars) (Yeah, I know, VW sells diesel cars) need to be taxed at the same levels. In fact, they're not, which is why diesel is cheaper (at least partly).

Mileage and market share: SUVs and minivans are treated, legislatively, as "trucks", so they're not under the same, strict, environmental regulations that "cars" fall under. This is why the auto-makers love them: they're cheaper to build, because they have less fuel-efficiency technology in them, and the mark-up is higher.
posted by djfiander at 3:11 PM on March 7, 2002

Well I guess the solution is pretty easy:

just tax the most fuel consuming cars/truck more. Leave
the truckers out of the tax because it'd probably hurt economy in the short term, and plan long term tax saving for fuel-efficient trucks.

Like if you own a SUV , given that you're polluting more then other cars, you must pay a pollution tax proportional to the polluting gases produced at an average speed. That's so fair nobody can reasonably complain that who's polluting more should pay more.

Then if you really want to do a "politically correct" law, just move all the funds raised by the new tax into bonuses for owners of the least polluting cars, or something else that reduces pollution more.

I dunno if this law exists already and if it's applied, or if it's having any effect.
posted by elpapacito at 4:19 PM on March 7, 2002

Sure it did rcade, because the only cars that get hit are econoboxes that you don't see because you and all the other soccer moms driving those monstrosities can't see over the steering wheel of your tank, and are too busy chatting on your cell phone to notice in the first place.

Thanks, Mike. I knew if I posted anything about my SUV and the information that I used to make the purchase, it would be an excuse for a sneering no-life to make me the root of all vehicular evil. Now I'm to blame for distracted cell phone-using drivers, because as we all know SUV drivers are the only people who do that.

Earlier, we had a discussion about why political incorrectness is a successful way to market SUVs.

People like Mike are a big reason; the same reason a lot of efforts to promote worthwhile environmental, social, and political causes fall on deaf ears. It's tiresome to be hectored by a poseur with a sense of superiority that appears to be entirely independent of any factual knowledge on a subject.

Any time you want to bring an actual fact to the discussion, Mike, I look forward to it. I'm not entirely sure I made the right decision to buy the Suburban instead of a minivan, but it seemed like the best decision when safety is my main purchasing consideration.

Otherwise, tell us about some of your own purchasing and lifestyle decisions so we can use them as a springboard for personal insult. The SUV intifada is getting a little old.
posted by rcade at 5:01 PM on March 7, 2002

Not that I like any of his movie roles or anything else about him, but I do like Woody Harrelson's idea of transportation.
posted by Lynsey at 7:50 PM on March 7, 2002

SUVs and minivans are treated, legislatively, as "trucks", so they're not under the same, strict, environmental regulations that "cars" fall under.

Actually, it's SUVs and light trucks (pickups, mostly) that are treated as trucks. Probably because (car-based SUVs excluded) they ARE trucks.
posted by groundhog at 6:02 AM on March 8, 2002

aaron makes a good point: the US is a big country. European-level gas prices would kill a lot of workers, and not just truckers. The distance to the nearest really large city (Detroit or Chicago type) might be the same distance as to drive from one end of England to the other... poor college students who have a twenty-minute drive to get ANYWHERE are going to be hurt worse than an SUV-driving yuppie, because if you can afford the SUV, you can afford $5 for gas. Many people (driving more efficient cars) won't be able to.
posted by dagnyscott at 6:20 AM on March 8, 2002

rcade, sometimes this issue brings out people's emotions, it was improper for me to make generalizations, and I apologize.
I should have rebutted your safety argument with logic, rather than generalization.
First, safety ratings are based on class. Your Suburban was compared with other cars its size. So if it got 5 stars, it got 5 in relation to its class members.
All car classes are put through the same tests, either by the NHTSA, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, or by Consumer Reports.
In almost all cases, the vehicles are moved at the same speed down the same track, or the same mass is directed at the vehicle.
Would you not feel that given all these equivalents, that a Toyota Avalon (IIHS Best pick rating, 29mpg) or a BMW 3 Series(IIHS Best Pick, 27mpg) is as good at keeping your family safe? Not to mention a whole lot cheaper to operate.
Not only that, but SUV's are inherently more difficult to drive than passenger cars. They handle different, and being driven like a passenger car, along with their rollover vulnerability would make them more suseptible to crashes. Don't you think the ability to stay out of a crash is as much of a factor in the overall safety rating as its ability to survive one?
What it really comes down to is the "arms-race" mentality. But in this case, I hope you might consider that bigger isn't necessarily better.
posted by themikeb at 1:43 PM on March 8, 2002

First, safety ratings are based on class. Your Suburban was compared with other cars its size. So if it got 5 stars, it got 5 in relation to its class members.

Thanks for the apology -- I should've toned down my response in a few places also.

Consumer Reports looks at injury data and rates cars two ways -- with vehicles in the same class, and on the whole. The 2001 Suburban has a top rating in both.

I'll look at the Avalon and BMW 3 just to see how they would've suited our needs. With a family of five, and all three boys likely to be tall, we need a big vehicle. (One of the downsides of the Suburban, ironically enough, is a lack of interior space.)
posted by rcade at 10:26 AM on March 9, 2002