Do you own a SUV?

sneaky_pete · Sep 17, 2005

( With tongue firmly planted in cheek, my suggestion is that the government mandate that no one can live more than 8 miles from their workplace. Then, we could all drive really big SUVs and conserve our fossil fuels at the same time. Maybe I'll take a poll of my own. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif )

Statistics show that most accidents happen within 25 miles of home, so I moved! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

daedong · Sep 17, 2005

tree hugging zealots

Bob your comments are a little confrontational particularly when there concerns are for the planet in which YOU live.

Bob_Skurka · Sep 17, 2005

( tree hugging zealots

Bob your comments are a little confrontational particularly when there concerns are for the planet in which YOU live. )

Vin, I'm a guy who does not litter, I use energy saving compact flourescent lights, I have high tech window film on all 28 windows of the west wall of my house to conserve energy, I use a set-back thermostat and have good insulation in my home. I also don't drive gas hogs just for the heck of it, but I don't drive micro-cars either due to several reasons outlined in a prior post.

But what I am not is a hypocrite like so many of the so-called & self proclaimed enviornmentalists who preach one thing and act another way.

So many of these folks want to do thing like ban beef productions but they wear their Prada leather shoes. So many of them want to ban deer hunting but are willing to let the deer over populate and starve, and during the process they destroy the ecosystem and desimate rare plant populations and alter the poplulations of many other animals. So many of these folks want to ban SUVs but really what they should do is concentrate on fuel economy overall because I would argue that a luxury SUV like the VW Touareg V6TDI that gets 38mpg, can tow 7700# while burning easier to refine diesel is a heck of a lot better for the planet that YOU AND I live on than about 80% of all cars traveling the highways and biways of the USA today.

But rather than focus on the REAL issues, hypocritical tree hugging morons would rather focus on "sound bites" and they would rather treat honest folks as villians for the sake of publicity. So am I confrontational from time to time? Sure I am. But more likely I am just pointing out that many things are not what they really seem and I am more than willing to take a hard stand and defend truth, even when it is easier to cower in the corner while intentional disinformation is spread by people with a dishonest adjenda.

beenthere · Sep 17, 2005

'64 Rambler Classic wagon (great car 160K miles), '69 Ambassador wagon (138K miles) with rear seats facing to middle, '76 Mercury Marquis wagon (119K miles) with rear seat facing rear.
After that, I ran with three vehicles, as we had new drivers in the family of 6.

RedRocker · Sep 17, 2005

What Bob said!! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

daedong · Sep 17, 2005

Bob I am neither a tree hugger nor unreasonably wasteful in my view. I am pleased that you make an effort in trying to conserve fuel. But what does concern me is this ongoing blind thought by many that so long as there is oil out there we just simply use it. The damage that is occurring to our planet is of grave concern yet we still continue to deny it by doing far to little. In Australia we have the highest levels of skin cancer in the world due to depletion of the ozone layer. Oceans are warming around the globe and due to this we are seeing more and more extremes of weather. Only this week studies of hurricanes and their intensities revealed an increase in number and showed they were getting bigger. (If you want more on this I will find it later, must go) The list goes on and on supported by evidence. This is a global issue not just one of Europe or the USA so lets not be selfish by stating what you or I do in this regard but what society in general should be doing about it.

Bob_Skurka · Sep 17, 2005

Vin, on ALL that you said, I think that you and I are in agreement.

But what bothers me is when some Hollywood type shows up driving his hybrid Prius and spouts that my vehicles need to be banned as gas hogs, but then drives to the airport to hop a private charter jet which will use more fuel in a few hours than a typical driver burns in a year, and that jet is hauling a handful of celebrity jet setters to a party where they gloat about how they are helping the enviornment. Gag me. So I will gladly confront every one of those folks.

And on a local level I love the country club set that drives around in their M-B S class cars, hops a limo to the airport, and then tells me that I am using my land wrong or that my SUV is inefficient! They pour TONS of chemicals on their lawns and triple that amount on the golf courses and they tell me, an organic gardner, that I am abusing land with my gentleman's farm. Oh, and did I ever mention we had a townhouse on the golf course of the most exclusive club in this area, and that we were members of the club for several years after moving out to the country? So I know what I'm talking about when I refuse to take crap from those people because I was one of them!

Personally I really wish we would embrace all sorts of energy saving things, but I generally find that the lower the income level the LESS people care. That may not be statistically accurate, but it sure is my observation. The problem is that many of the higher income people who care are absolutely clueless with regard to factual information.

I am no better than anyone else, but I do not waste.

Dargo · Sep 17, 2005

[No message]

daedong · Sep 17, 2005

. Bob your comments are a little confrontational particularly when there concerns are for the planet in which YOU live
you cannot paint people into a stereotype as easily as you may think. 

That was exactly my point in the first post

 but then drives to the airport to hop a private charter jet which will use more fuel in a few hours than a typical driver burns in a year, 
A very valid point and it should be addressed

 Anyway, after much research, the undeniable conclusion is that our earth has had numerous cycles of global warming and ice ages ever since it has formed 

There is no one that would deny this fact. However that is no agreement in the debate.
Fact: the current global warming today is a direct consequence of human practice; it is happening more rapidly than at any other geological time.
We are in this together and it will be too late if we don’t act soon, Its not an issue we should be arguing about but addressing in united way. This is beyond all individuals with out solid leadership from governments.

daedong · Sep 17, 2005

I've also personally planted over 10,000 trees in the last 11 years. How many have you planted?

More than double that if it is relevant to you, plus i have take leadership roles in native vegetation research over the past 15 years. I have a Diploma in horticulture that is specific in native revegetation.

YanmarFever · Sep 17, 2005

Gosh I didnt think the ART BELL show was brodcasted in Australia too. /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif Its amazing what people will fall for !

daedong · Sep 18, 2005

I don’t have a clue what you are talking about but I get the impression by your comments they are uneducated

Wiens · Sep 18, 2005

When I was in grade school in the 1970's we were told the coming ICE AGE would kill humans off. What changed? We were also told in the late 1990's that the "government" had done away with business cycles, only up not down.

Seems to me the world revolves on cycles. I wish I was able to create a hurricane, a tsunami, a tornado, a flood and a fire.

Thank goodness for oil. It is fuel for the engine of our economy.

Kevin

PS. No SUV, just a 1966 Chevy PU, JD 730 Diesel and two Toyotas.

ejtaylor822 · Sep 18, 2005

What RedRocker said!! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I 100% agree with Bob. I also know there are some true environmentalist (not tree hugging hippies – there is a difference) that indeed practice what they preach. I respect and admire them and their determination and passion. They can tell you clearly and concisely why they feel the way they do, provide convincing argument (without reciting Al Gore sound bytes over and over) and demonstrate ways in which they “do their part”. It's the ones that drive around in the smoke belching cars telling me to save mother earth by killing my SUV; those I have no use for.

Already taken heat (flames) for the last post I made on this. I will say it again, I drive what I drive for multiple reasons. I make no apologies (and BTW can easily afford the payments and keeping gas in them - no worries here). When you start making the payments and putting gas in my TWO SUVs I will be happy to listen. Otherwise, you have no business telling me what I should or should not drive.

MikePA · Sep 18, 2005

Fact: the current global warming today is a direct consequence of human practice; it is happening more rapidly than at any other geological time. 
There are scientists who do not agree this is a 'fact'. Hence the debate.

Cityboyfarmer · Sep 18, 2005

( When I was in grade school in the 1970's we were told the coming ICE AGE would kill humans off. What changed? We were also told in the late 1990's that the "government" had done away with business cycles, only up not down.

Seems to me the world revolves on cycles. )

The Earth does work in cycles: spring, summer, fall and winter. We have droughts and floods, blizzards and heat waves. Always have, always will. Economics will always work in cycles; there will always be booms, busts and corrections.

Note that the vast majority of studies predicting ice ages and global warming are government funded. If no impending crisis is found, the funding stops. So these government funded “scientists” have every incentive to find a crisis of some sort, or some reason that will call for additional study, hence additional funding.

There are true environmentalists, and there are those who claim to be environmentalists, but actually have an anti-capitalist political agenda and use the environmental movement as a conduit for this agenda. These are the people that Bob is referring to. I don’t know anyone who actually desires to pollute the air and water, so the environmental movement is the perfect place for those with an anti-capitalist agenda to get their message out to the general public. The “true” environmentalists need to purge these anti-capitalists from their ranks, because the solutions to our environmental and energy usage issues rest with the high-tech private sector of our economy, not with government mandated match-box cars.

daedong · Sep 18, 2005

Facts

Almost all scientists agree that increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere created as humans burn fossil fuel is warming the planet.

It is by far a minority of scientists that don’t agree with global warming.

I will not talk about this subject again on TBN

MikePA · Sep 18, 2005

We disagree and stating that people who don't agree with you have their head in the sand doesn't help because (1) It's not true and (2) It's insulting.

Wiens · Sep 18, 2005

( Facts

Almost all scientists agree that increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere created as humans burn fossil fuel is warming the planet.

It is by far a minority of scientists that don’t agree with global warming.

I will not talk about this subject again on TBN
)

I'm sorry to hear that daedong! I enjoy your posts!

If global warming is a FACT wouldn't ALL scientists AGREE!?!?!

If tobacco causes cancer which kills people why hasn't tobacco been outlawed? It kills more people than global warming.

How many "studies" have been proven false in the last two decades? First eggs were bad then good; wine was bad then good; oat bran was bad then good; vioxx was good then bad; prosac was good then bad, etc and etc. Everything in moderation......

Some of the best evironmentalists are the family farmer whether in Kansas, the US or the world. They protect the "earth" both today as well as for the future generations.

Call me a cynic! I also agree 100% with Bob Surka's statement.

RoyJackson · Sep 18, 2005

"Poll takers can selectively choose people by location, socio-economic background, ethnic origin, etc. to get the results they want to support their cause."

Yes, they can and do...

That's an unfortunate perversion of polling and statistics.