I'm an enviromentalist! Yes, that is my Suburban.
November 1, 2004 12:43 PM   Subscribe

Is it possible to drive a big gas-hog SUV and still be a good environmentalist?
posted by anonymous to Society & Culture (48 answers total)
 
No. If you aren't doing everything you possibly can to reduce your ecological footprint, you're not a good environmentalist.
posted by cmonkey at 12:45 PM on November 1, 2004


There are plenty of people who say you can't be a "good environmentalist" until you're dead, because only then do you become a net benefit to the environment. And there are others who say the only good environmentalist is a dead environmentalist for different reasons. ;)

Really, you can only compare your footprint relative to other drivers. And it happens that how much you drive can be much bigger factor than what kind of fuel economy your vehicle gets. If you live a couple miles from work, you probably use less gas in an average work week than the guy who lives 25 miles from work and drives a Civic, even if you drive an Expedition.
posted by kindall at 12:48 PM on November 1, 2004


I love that this is anonymous! The guilt must be straining.

I think it's impossible to own a SUV and be a good motorist, but then again I live in Texas. (Austin)
posted by Peter H at 12:49 PM on November 1, 2004


It depends on what you use your SUV for, I suppose. If you use your giant SUV for carpooling at full capacity, thus taking 5-6 other cars off the road, it probably does have a small environmental footprint than those individual cars. Though, even there, you could do the same thing in a mini-van and reduce your impact further.
posted by jacquilynne at 12:55 PM on November 1, 2004


If you bring about net-positive for the environment, you could be considered a good environmentalist. Suppose you drive an SUV but convince 10 other people to drive hybrids instead of SUVs. Why make it all-or-nothing?
posted by callmejay at 12:56 PM on November 1, 2004


Private autos are not really that big a factor in greenhouse gas emissions, compared with agriculture and industry anyway. So whether you drive a 12MPG Excursion or a 48MPG Prius isn't going to make a huge difference in the end. I'd say that if you are vegan, vote right, recycle everything, conserve water and energy at home, etc etc etc, then you have probably balanced out your SUV in the final analysis. One head of beef requires something over 300 gallons of fuel to produce and bring to your table, after all, so there are lots of things that Prius-drivers are doing wrong, too (namely, eating meat). But yes, it is a huge strike against you to use 4x the gas you need to get around, especially given the deplorable reasons most people own SUVs: status, appearance, illusion of control and safety... With what's happening to gas prices these days, you're feeling the pain you deserve, too.
posted by scarabic at 12:58 PM on November 1, 2004


Sure! Suppose you drive a SUV to navigate the backroads of a 10,000 acre land trust you're caring for. You're just going to need to do a bit of math. Is the (environmental, political) cost of the car out weighed by your other actions? Are your other actions dependent on the beast? Then yep.
posted by daver at 1:01 PM on November 1, 2004


btw: source
posted by scarabic at 1:02 PM on November 1, 2004


If you're like, a forest ranger in Montana in the winter, I might could grant you a little slack.
posted by padraigin at 1:08 PM on November 1, 2004


If you have a real need for an SUV and otherwise live in an environmentally sound manner then you're still a good environmentalist. An ordinary SUV isn't really much different than a mini-van, the mileage might be a bit worse (though there are 4 wheel drive mini-vans as well). If you're an SUV driver who spends his weekends cleaning up rivers than I'd think that the environmental benefit of detrashing the river would outweigh the detriment of driving an SUV. Of course some folks on either side are religious about it.

There are a lot of people who drive small economical vehicles that spit out 4 bags of trash per week...
posted by substrate at 1:08 PM on November 1, 2004


Some folks have a good excuse for driving SUVs--folks who regularly need to traverse large chunks of unpaved terrain while hauling a lot of people. Otherwise, driving an SUV is generally inconsistent with environmentalism (not to mention friendly motoring).

I can imagine some "what ifs" that make it OK--what if it's a hand-me-down vehicle that would otherwise be scrapped and you'd be buying a new vehicle--in that case, the environmental load of building a new car probably outweighs the load of keeping this one on the road. What if it's a baby SUV that gets pretty good mileage? That sort of thing.

If you need a lot of enclosed space, minivans are more economical. If you need the ability to drive off-road, there are actually only a few SUVs or pickups that are really well-suited to the task. If you want AWD, there are a lot of cars that have it (including wagons) that are safer for general driving.
posted by adamrice at 1:09 PM on November 1, 2004


I don't know much about what engines you can get in US SUVs, but if they come in diesel (which would seem sensible for a large vehicle?) you could run on bio-diesel and be totally carbon neutral - in that respect even more eco-friendly than a Prius. If you're more worried about particulate emissions something like LPG might be another option worth considering.

I'd google some links, but not knowing any particularly good sites I'm sure you folks can manage just as well...
posted by prentiz at 1:19 PM on November 1, 2004


what padraign said. unless you live in the mountains (where it might be the proverbial necessary evil), owning a SUV makes you by definition not concerned with the environment
posted by matteo at 1:20 PM on November 1, 2004


not that that's anything wrong with that
posted by matteo at 1:20 PM on November 1, 2004


Do what's in your heart.

Seriously the only way you could be a *good* environmentalist would be to drive the most fuel efficient vehicle out there. Everything else is just going away from the good, and into the bad. I think how you drive a car is more of an impact. You might find yourself not jack-rabbit starting as much in a huge SUV and more fuel conscious.

I think the biggest factor is how far away you are from your work. Spending 40 minutes on the highway is not as good as 10 minutes going 35 MPH... no matter what vehicle you have.
posted by geoff. at 1:34 PM on November 1, 2004


If you're asking the question anonymously, and you're not contextualizing your situation with any "which I need for X" examples, then I think you already know the answer to the question, and are going to do your best ignore it anyway.
posted by mkultra at 1:36 PM on November 1, 2004


Phrasing the question this way makes it a matter of absolutes, rather than a question of relatives. If this is the way you see environmentalism, then I'd suggest framing the question more bluntly: are you inflicting harm when you don't actually need to?

I mean, if you're going to make it a question of absolute Good vs. Not Good, you may as well be more upfront about it and frame the question in terms of harm & benefits (selfish and otherwise).

...after all, it's perfectly possible to be a "better" environmentalist than most people and still drive an SUV. But you wouldn't be Good in the absolute sense because you'd still be inflicting harm without need. Whether or not that bothers you isn't something we can determine.

And if you ARE concerned about relative goodness rather than absolute goodness, then you need to give us a point of comparison in order to establish relative valuation.

On preview: I think mkultra is probably right.
posted by aramaic at 1:38 PM on November 1, 2004


What adamrice said. Unless there are significant mitigating factors, then no.

f you bring about net-positive for the environment, you could be considered a good environmentalist. Suppose you drive an SUV but convince 10 other people to drive hybrids instead of SUVs. Why make it all-or-nothing?

First, you'd be a major hypocrite. More imporantly, though: being a good environmentalist should certainly include bringing about net positives for the environment. Bringing about net positives for the environment, though, does not automatically make you a good environmentalist -- especially if you're driving around in a gas-hog SUV because it looks sporty.
posted by rafter at 1:43 PM on November 1, 2004


heh. I believe you can be a good environmentalist and drive an SUV responsibly. How do I know? (drumroll....)

Because I own one.

It's one of the funny little secrets about MetaFilter, that amid all the SUV bashing here, I actually drive a 1994 Isuzu Trooper, and have ever since I got rid of my CRX back in early 2000.

So here's the thing, my truck gets about 18mpg, but I hardly ever drive it (in the past two years I've averaged only 5k miles per year). I usually drive around with my wife in our 40+mpg diesel jetta. When I do drive, it's rarely alone, and it is often into the mountains where the truck sees its fair share of snow, mud, and dirt. It's not a luxury vehicle, as it's all business inside. It has actual locking hubs and I have to stop it and back up to put it in four wheel drive.

I do still believe the Hummer H2 is about the most obnoxious and useless vehicle on the road (it lacks power, weighs too much, and has none of the capabilities of the H1), but you can own a gas guzzling SUV and only use it for trips with lots of folks, or out on trips where you really need four wheel drive. I'm driving my SUV so little that I convinced I'm using it responsibly.

I'm in the market for a new car, and again looking at SUVs, but smaller this time around and with better mileage. So far the only things that seem to fit the bill are the upcoming hybrid honda CRV, the hybrid Ford Escape, and the Honda Element. All of them still over 4wd and roomy insides, but get 25-30mpg.

I also believe one can own guns and use them responsibly, even though I'd never own one myself.
posted by mathowie at 1:52 PM on November 1, 2004 [1 favorite]


I also want to add that this thread points to the problems with many lefty issues. Stop trying to be self-righteous, stop trying to one-up each other in your self-righteousness, and accept those that want to do better.

Ever talked to a totally over the top vegetarian when you still ate meat? Did it make you want to stop eating meat or eat more meat to spite the person.

If someone drives a gas guzzling SUV, or eats a ton of red meat, or wears leather, and you don't do any of those things... when you encounter someone like that that wants to change or behave more responsibly don't deride them for not going 110% with the program. I've seen this happen time and time again on discussion lists for topics such as bicycle commuting and vegetarianism, where one person asks how they can cut down on something bad and gets innudated with comments about how they shouldn't even do it in the first place, much less cut down on whatever they are doing. It never ends well.

There's an old saying that the enemy of perfect is pretty good. If someone wants to try being good and they're not quite perfect, that's still better for us all, and not something you should fault someone for.
posted by mathowie at 1:59 PM on November 1, 2004


Thanks for the lesson, dad.
posted by jpoulos at 2:04 PM on November 1, 2004


Perfectly spoken, mathowie. Thank you.

Or, in the words of one of my all-time favorite Dead Kennedys songs:

Ever notice hard line radicals can go on star trips too,
Where no one's pure & right except themselves?
"I'm cleansed of the system" ('cept when my amp needs electric power)
Or, "The Party Line says 'No, Feminists can't wear fishnets.'"

That sort of attitude is easily found when peopl

You wanna help stop war? Well, we reject your application,
You crack too many jokes & you eat meat.
What better way to turn people off than to twist ideas for change,
Into one more church that forgets we're all human beings.

posted by jammer at 2:22 PM on November 1, 2004


No. If you aren't doing everything you possibly can to reduce your ecological footprint, you're not a good environmentalist.
posted by cmonkey at 12:45 PM PST on November 1


This is difficult, in that one flight from JFK to Europe inevitably will use more fuel than driving around all year in an SUV.
posted by four panels at 2:22 PM on November 1, 2004


Er, bugger. That's what happens when you preview, edit, unedit, and post without previewing again. Sigh. Ignore the middle non-verse.

What I was saying is that that kind of attitude is commonly found when people define themselves by how much "better" they are than others. It doesn't matter whether it's a sport, a hobby, or a political cause. All that sort of elitism does is drive potential converts away. This may be good, if you're better at a competetive sport, but if it's something like environmentalism, which is good for us all, its absolutely the wrong attitude to take.
posted by jammer at 2:24 PM on November 1, 2004


actually, owning any car probably makes you a bad environmentalist. but it's not very practical, unless you're an urbanite, to do such a thing.
posted by crunchland at 2:51 PM on November 1, 2004


Ever talked to a totally over the top vegetarian when you still ate meat? Did it make you want to stop eating meat or eat more meat to spite the person.

While there are a lot of people out there who rabidly hand out guilt-trips over eating meat, it's also true that plenty of folks are automatically defensive about their meat eating anytime the subject comes up at all. I do see a couple of people who answered "no" unequivocally, here, but I don't see any rabid judgmental harpies whose lecturing will actually encourage anyone reading this thread to buy an SUV.

Chill, mathowie.
posted by scarabic at 2:52 PM on November 1, 2004


Um, what does it matter of you're a "good envinronmentalist" by what we say? Moreso than most labels, that is far and away a socially-constructed concept of fuzzy concept. Would someone please define what exactly it means to be a good envinronmentalist and how to live it out. It confuses me. What matters is you do what you can within your own means to not destroy the envinronment. Does that make you a good one? Or does it matter as long as you're doing what you can.
posted by jmd82 at 3:03 PM on November 1, 2004


you can use this quiz to assess which part of your lifestyle is doing the most damage ecologically, which helps make decisions about this kind of thing.

to see what to change, either run the test (only a few pages and quite simple) then "back-button" in your browser to alter values and click through again. or, alternatively, play with the calculator thing via the "take action" link (after the quiz finishes).

in my case, i don't own a car at all. i purposefully choose where i live and what i do to avoid it (have done so for years - hate the damn things). however, my ecological footprint is dominated by air travel. if someone owned an suv and never flew in a plane, they could be "greener" than me (depending on how much they used it).
posted by andrew cooke at 3:10 PM on November 1, 2004


I don't see any rabid judgmental harpies whose lecturing will actually encourage anyone reading this thread to buy an SUV

My comments were directed at everyone that said "No" up until my comment that is the first to say "Yes." I equate a dozen people saying that it's not possible to drive an SUV and be environmentally responsible with the situations I pointed out.

It's possible to own a gun responsibly. It's possible to own a pitbull responsibly. It's possible to own an SUV and drive it responsibly. It's possible to vote republican and be a good person I can have a conversation with. Shit, it's even possible to smoke cigarettes responsibly.

No one should say an absolute "No" to a question like the one poised here. They don't know the backstory on the anonymous poster. Perhaps they have a family of 6 or more that don't fit in regular cars. Perhaps they live in the mountains of Canada. Perhaps they only use it for vacations with groups of people.

I'm here to say that it is conceivable that an SUV might be the right vehicle for certain situations. To state that it is never, ever, a good idea to use one based on the environmental impact regardless of the situation is a bad position to take, and one that isn't going to win any converts.
posted by mathowie at 3:11 PM on November 1, 2004


Would someone please define what exactly it means to be a good envinronmentalist and how to live it out

a good starting point is the question "if everyone was like me, could we survive?". for people reading this, the answer is probably no, which in itself may not be "bad", depending on your political views. however this leads to the idea that you can estimate just how much you "consume" (in terms of resources) relative to others. then being "greener" means consuming less.

maybe it's not as clear a definition as you'd like - it's not giving you a measure of "green" to 2 decimal places - but it's a good enough guide for making general decisions on how to live your life. take the test in the link above and see how it works.

maybe i should give you the benefit of the doubt, but i'm worried you're edging towards either "if i can't define it precisely then it doesn't matter" or "there are people worse than me, so i'm ok". i don't think either argument holds - the broad picture is good enough for making decisions and impact is accumulative (everyone adds up, even the greenest of us).

(on preview - and perhaps continuing to tilt at windmills - while matt is right, his is another example of the type of argument that people use to salve their conscience. i was in the states last week and was amazed at the number of these things. it's hard to believe they are all being used responsibly. if you own an suv it's likely you don't really need to, and would be greener not doing so. matt's argument is that this only applies "on average" and not to every owner, not that "suvs are ok". if you want evidence of how unnecessary these things are, go to a developing country. you will see the most beaten up, ancient, pedestrian of vehicles doing the most amazing things in the most extreme places).

(and, as i said before, i'm throwing stones from a glass house, given the amount of air travel i do).
posted by andrew cooke at 3:27 PM on November 1, 2004


sorry, i got sidetracked - "matts argument" is more along the lines of "be reasonable if you want to persuade", which i agree with totally.
posted by andrew cooke at 3:29 PM on November 1, 2004


My comments were directed at everyone that said "No"

Well, several people said "maybe, under certain circumstances," which is what you seemed to be saying yourself, so I still don't see the need to characterize this thread as the shrill leftists burning their friends at the stake. Anyway, whether owning an SUV is an unforgiveable stain upon one's identity, low-mileage gasoline vehicles are less enviromentally sound than carbon-neutral, high-efficiency ones. It's pretty simple in principle. We get into trouble with this question because it asks us to make an all-or-nothing judgement about whether SUV drivers can still get into heaven, and there are many variables in that equation.

Here are some possible definitions of "good environmentalist," in decreasing order of earth-nazism. Given most people's complete lack of awareness or effort in this dimension, any of these works for me:

1) Being wholly aware of one's impact on the environment.

2) Factoring environmental impact into one's decisions in some measure and balancing it alongside economy, convenience, fasion, etc.

3) Having a smaller lifetime footprint on the environment than one's previous generation.

4) Refraining from any practices that would be environmentally unsustainable for the entire population to engage in at once, assuming we want the Earth to be sustainable for human life in perpetuity.

5) Refraining from any practices that significantly impact other species unless absolutely necessary for individual survival.

6) Same as #5, but add in political activism and prioritization of the environment in one's voting and purchasing decisions. Demanding same from everyone you know, including your kids.

Far from villifying anyone for what they have in the garage, I'd simply suggest trying to find yourself in the above list, and thinking about what you could do to move up one place.
posted by scarabic at 3:31 PM on November 1, 2004


To be clear, Matt, I think you could still qualify for any of 1-3, possibly 4, if you own an SUV. It depends on lots of things.
posted by scarabic at 3:36 PM on November 1, 2004


Far from villifying anyone for what they have in the garage, I'd simply suggest trying to find yourself in the above list, and thinking about what you could do to move up one place.

That's actually what I was trying to say from the get-go, that we don't necessarily need to think in the mindset of SUV vs. Never, ever owning or using one, and more along the lines of how to be a more responsible user of whatever you drive. Thanks for making it in a much better way.
posted by mathowie at 3:41 PM on November 1, 2004


"matts argument" is more along the lines of "be reasonable if you want to persuade", which i agree with totally.

On one side I agree with this, but on the other, you can also argue that some people use the irritant argument as an excuse to blame the consequences of their behaviour on someone else.

I find the flying argument a difficult one, I've flown a number of times in the last year or two, which on the ecological footprint assessments is pretty damaging. However, my travel is mostly to attend conferences geared to finding ways to increase the fraction of renewable energy used in different nations. Do the ends justify the means?
posted by biffa at 3:49 PM on November 1, 2004


And I guess I shouldn't be defending what other people say. There is actually a range of stuff in here, including the "fuck you for even asking" POV, which, as you say, is righteous as hell but not helping anyone.
posted by scarabic at 3:49 PM on November 1, 2004


Some numbers to help the debate: About 2/3 of the total anthropogenic carbon dioxide comes from fossil fuel combustion. Using 2002 numbers, roughly 40% of emissions come from the transportation sector. So, cars (and ships and planes) contribute roughly 25% of the total man-made surplus. (sources: here and here). So cars ain't nothing.

More: an SUV (say a Ford Explorer at 14 l/100km) will typically produce twice the carbon dioxide that a small car will (Honda Civic at 7.5 l/100km).

Cars also account for about 50% of smog emissions: NOX, particulates (PM10s) and ozone. Here, it doesn't matter as much what you drive. Emission standards are the same for big and little cars. Both are about the same assuming you maintain them. The rule of thumb is that 10% of the cars on the road make 90% of the smog. That's the motivation for the emissions testing programs in Canada---to get that dirty 10% off the road.
posted by bonehead at 4:31 PM on November 1, 2004


Despite what Matt and others are saying, the fact remains that if you are an environmentalist, the impact you have on the environment matters to you. So, you would probably not buy an SUV if you thought that it was going to damage the environment in any unnecessary way.

You can't even get into these calculations of whether it's OK to buy an SUV because other things you do, like recycling and conserving water, balance it out. That is not the way (I assume) a genuine environmentalist would think.

It's like saying you love your wife, but asking if it's OK to cheat on her once because you've been faithful for 10 years already. If the thought even crosses your mind in the first place, well...

Look, an environmentalist would not think, "am I still an environmentalist if I buy an SUV?" Only someone who wanted to buy an SUV and felt guilty about it would ask that.

If you want to buy a vehicle that you understand does more damage to the environment than it absolutely needs to, and you're looking for an argument to assuage your guilt, then the question was already answered before you even asked the question. This may sound like I'm riding you, but honestly I don't care. I am not, myself, much of an environmentalist. If you want the SUV, though, just buy it, and stop wasting your time trying to have it both ways. Accept that the environment is less important to you than other factors in your decision to purchase an automobile. It's not that hard.
posted by Hildago at 5:23 PM on November 1, 2004


The point, Hildago, is that we're all somewhere in the grey as far as "good environmentalist" goes. I think kindall nailed the absolutist definition way earlier, and it's something none of us can attain. But as several folks have attempted to point out, the world does not necessarily live or die by your choice of car. So, while it is a factor, it's not the end-all. As you rightly point out, it's the thought that counts. But you could take that principle to extreme levels and find yourself living on gruel in a tent somewhere and still flagellating yourself every time you fart a handfull of greenhouse gases. Where's the "realistic" line between good and bad? Good question, but it's probably not all about what you drive. Some excellent points have been made here about flying, how much you drive, etc.
posted by scarabic at 5:36 PM on November 1, 2004


I think that last comment from me was rambling, strident, and confusing. Let me try again, more succinctly.

An environmentalist will always take the well-being of the planet into consideration, no matter what action he is performing, because of genuine, deep-seated interest. If buying an SUV as opposed to another vehicle is a crucial part of a larger plan you have to help the planet, then absolutely, you can still be an environmentalist while driving one. Otherwise, no.
posted by Hildago at 5:42 PM on November 1, 2004


If you drive an SUV for a good reason (you've got three enormous dogs that don't fit in a car; you're a custom carpenter who needs to bring handpainted bookcases to clients; you've got six kids; you live on an unpaved dirt road at the top of a hill in snow country; etc.) and you've carefully weighed all the costs/benefits, including the environmental costs/benefits, then of course.

If you drive an SUV because you think it's cool, even though you live in Los Angeles and never have more than one passenger or anything bigger than an overnight bag in your vehicle, then no.

And what everyone said about not trying to be perfect, and not being self-righteous about whatever degree of perfection you have attained.

Jain holy men (and women, I suppose, but I've never encountered one) wear cloth masks so they don't accidentally breathe in a bug, and they sweep the ground before them with a ceremonial broom so they don't accidentally step on a bug. It goes without saying that they are vegans who try to avoid eating any food that was cultivated or transported with any non-human labor (i.e., no wheat from a field plowed by a water buffalo, etc.)

No matter what you do, you will never be as pure as these people.
posted by Sidhedevil at 6:42 PM on November 1, 2004


If you live in the US and you are a consumer, you cannot possibly be a good environmentalist by the same standard which would condemn an SUV relative to most other vehicles. An American's environmental footprint is vast—the computer you are using to read this message consumed enormous resources in its manufacture and produced a great deal of toxic waste (and consumes quite of bit of energy).

Furthermore, as scarabic points out, the difference between the typical SUV and other cars relative to not driving at all or driving an extraordinarily fuel-efficient vehicle is not that great. If this matters to you so much to condemn SUVs, you shouldn't be driving a car in the first place.

The anti-SUV sentiment is way out of control and irrational. Are they marginally worse for the environment? Yes. Do they collectively contribute in any substantial way to the harm to the environment relative to all the other accroutements of advanced industiralized life, particularly American? No, not at all.

My complaint is different that matthowie's. Forget about whether one's actions and words are "persuasive" to other or not. Why don't we pay attention to the whole point of the exercise, which is, you know, about trying not to damage the environment? Too many take moral/ethical/political positions as mostly symbolic acts, as acts of self-identification.

If you want to be a good environmentalist, do a whole lifestyle assessment and change how you live. Or, you can feel virtuous because you don't own an SUV like those evil bastards. Your choice.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:19 PM on November 1, 2004


The guys at Car Talk have put some informed thought into this. Keep in mind that many SUVs are built on a truck body, and are classed as trucks for safety purposes. Handling in SUVs often sucks. People who drive pickup trucks 30+ miles each way to work in an office are using as much or more fuel as SUV drivers. disclaimer - I drive a Toyota RAV 4 SUVini.
posted by theora55 at 7:47 PM on November 1, 2004


The Jain's Death by Patrick Farley at e-sheep.com

Thank you squirrel
posted by scarabic at 8:02 PM on November 1, 2004


Yes. I believe it was Ford who just did a test, and if you drive 10 of their latest SUVs to the point the engines explode (IIRC, according to Ford, 300,000 km), it causes no more pollution than burning 1 cord of tree (128 cu ft). Driving from Toronto to Vancouver would, just barely, output enough soot to cover the walls of a small bedroom.

They're still overkill for the road, and their weight damages pavement far quicker than is necessary.
posted by shepd at 11:15 AM on November 2, 2004


If you have to ask this question anonymously, then just get a Prius. Seriously. You'll be happier, and you won't have to wonder whether you should be feeling guilty.
posted by grateful at 11:39 AM on November 2, 2004


Yes. I believe it was Ford who just did a test, and if you drive 10 of their latest SUVs to the point the engines explode (IIRC, according to Ford, 300,000 km), it causes no more pollution than burning 1 cord of tree (128 cu ft). Driving from Toronto to Vancouver would, just barely, output enough soot to cover the walls of a small bedroom.

Except that the tree would be carbon neutral while an SUV getting 20 mpg would be producing around 0.6 pounds of CO2 every kilometre, so about 180,000 pounds over its lifetime.
posted by biffa at 7:12 AM on November 3, 2004


They don't know the backstory on the anonymous poster. Perhaps they have a family of 6 or more that don't fit in regular cars. Perhaps they live in the mountains of Canada. Perhaps they only use it for vacations with groups of people.

If you drive an SUV for a good reason (you've got three enormous dogs that don't fit in a car; you're a custom carpenter who needs to bring handpainted bookcases to clients; you've got six kids; you live on an unpaved dirt road at the top of a hill in snow country; etc.)

Except that the problem is that these aren't good reasons to drive an SUV. If you have children to move, minivans are more fuel efficient, and, as far as I have seen, seat more people. If you have to carry things, again, a minivan would be a better option.

If you need to drive in the Canadian mountains, there are still other options - I have a friend who has driven from Connecticut to Alaska at least four times (of necessity), and more times LA to Alaska, along the lovely Alaskan Highway with its frequent diversions to unpaved roads, and did so in a 1988 Toyota station wagon that got 35 miles/gallon. It wasn't pretty, but it did carry everything he owned through the mountains. When travelling in rural B.C., I met people who owned trucks, but never an SUV, and most vehicles were still regular cars. I was told that the high carrying on a truck frame helped with rocks flying up from unpaved roads, but that even all wheel drive wasn't necessary unless you were hauling serious loads up serious hills.

Are there things an SUV can do that a minivan cannot? Is it really that important to have all wheel drive? The only situation I can conceive of where an SUV would be required would be to haul people/things up a very steep mountain, in a situation worse than the diversions from the Alaskan highway.
posted by jb at 3:25 AM on November 5, 2004


« Older Free & easy partition manager for OS X?   |   Arabic - why Q instead of K Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.