[Vwdiesel] Fw: SUV Bashing

[LBaird119 at aol.com]

In a message dated 11/26/2002 4:50:57 PM Pacific Standard Time,
scott3491 at insightbb.com writes:

> > Why Oil Sheiks Love A Good Hummer

  Not EVEN going to go there!  ;-)

>  > Once again, America is a nation divided.

   So when haven't we?
>  >
>  >  I'm talking about a contentious
>  > clash that is just beginning to rage. Call it the SUV war.

  Gee, and I always thought it was about small car drivers that hated
the big, view blocking, Latte sipping, cell phone talking SUV drivers in
their SUV's?

>  > Dealers are having a hard
>  > time keeping up with the demand for the Hummer H2, GM's new
>  > $50,000 barely domesticated spin-off of the Gulf War darling,

  Barely domesticated?  Has she ever seen how cushy those things
look inside?  They make my Rabbit look like a race car for comfort!

>  > which struggles to cover 10 miles for every gallon of gas it
>  > burns.

  Gas???  I thought they quit building gas ones before they built the 6.5?
That'd be about 15 years old or so to find a gas one!

>  > There seems to be no shortage of Americans who think that
>  > consuming 25 percent of the world's oil just isn't enough.

  Of course this is all due to the motoring public, not the major
transportation
arterials like planes, trucks and trains.  Then there's the whole synthetic
fabric industry.  I wonder if she swears off nylon pantyhose and satin under
things as her part to help stave off the use of crude?

>  > How nice it must feel for SUV
>  > owners, knowing that their swaggering imprudence is helping the
>  > world's anti-democratic oil sheiks sleep just a little better at
>  > night.

  I wonder what the stats really are if SUV owners suddenly used half as
much fuel by driving a VW instead (gas, they're not smart or good looking
enough to drive a diesel)  ;-)  I'll bet it's far less than 1% of our
imported
oil.

Call this camp the Bigger Is Better crowd. Their motto:
>  > "Burn, baby, burn...30 percent more carbon monoxide and
>  > hydrocarbons and 75 percent more nitrogen oxides than passenger
>  > cars."

  Again, with a diesel???  How do you get CO of any amount out of a diesel?
  <sigh>  We do put out more NOx but not THAT much is it?


 How about this for a bumper sticker: "Honk if you hate the
>  > Ozone layer!"

  'Scuse me but WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH
CONSUMED OIL???  Sheesh!  Stop the sun from shining.  THAT will
harm the ozone layer!
>  >
>  > Lining up on the other side of the SUV DMZ are a disparate
>  > collection of groups and individuals whose aim is to win the
>  > hearts and minds -- and change the driving habits -- of the
>  > American public.

  So she's saying the majority of the people in this country just
aren't as capable individuals as the SUV drivers?  What a
compliment to those she seems to support!
>  >
>  > These include the Evangelical Environmental Network, which is
>  > promoting greater fuel-efficiency through a provocative TV ad
>  > campaign that asks: "What would Jesus drive?"

  That's just lame.  He'd need something like an extended van to
fit all the apostles in for a road trip.  They make as bad of mileage
or worse and wouldn't be near as fun to drive!

Hint: I don't think
>  > the answer is a Hummer. (Turning water into oil wasn't really his
>  > thing.) This comes at the same time that Americans for Fuel
>  > Efficient Cars, a group I co-founded with film producer Lawrence
>  > Bender, environmental activist Laurie David, and movie and TV
>  > agent Ari Emanuel, is producing ads parodying the
>  > drugs-equal-terror ads the administration is running. In this
>  > case, we're linking driving SUVs to our national security. When
>  > Hollywood progressives and the "WWJD?" crowd independently hit on
>  > the same idea, you know that something is up.

  Two lames make a smart???  No wonder their "movement" can't get
anywhere.  It's headed by an uninformed journalist and a bunch of
Hollywood crowd!

 With luck, getting behind the wheel of a loaded
>  > gas-guzzler is about to undergo the same transformation.

  So driving something that protects it's occupants in the event of a
crash is as irresponsible as driving drunk???  I think most of us agree
that it's more the people that DRIVE SUV's that are the road hazards
more than it's the SUV itself.  Other than the darn things are darn hard
to see around over and through!

 In the last week alone there has been an
>  > explosion in the amount of positive coverage given to the
>  > anti-SUV movement, including segments on all the networks'
>  > nightly news shows.

  Of course there has!  It's a free choice issue.  Just like telling a blonde
joke, or hiring whomever you please for a job.  They do all they can to
put a stop to those too.


>  > And in Washington, after steadfastly opposing any raise in fuel
>  > efficiency standards, the Bush administration let it be known
>  > last week that it is considering a proposal to increase the
>  > standard for light trucks and SUVs by 1.5 miles per gallon by
>  > 2007.

  This is a bad thing?
>  >
>  > While Team Bush hailed the proposed boost as a major victory in
>  > the battle for energy independence, Sen. John Kerry, who along
>  > with Sen. John McCain last spring proposed raising the SUV
>  > standard by 50 percent, called the 7 percent increase "window
>  > dressing." Others labeled it "political theater" and "almost an
>  > insult in its modesty.

  a 50% increase in mileage?  We do better than a lot of the Detroit
engineers and even given 4 more years to do it, I don't think many
of us could achieve this goal and still move with any tolerable rate
of acceleration!

> > A thousand dittos.

  She's a Rush listener???

>  >
>  > It does seem woefully inadequate -- especially when you consider
>  > how many loopholes have already been driven through by light
>  > trucks and SUVs, which are currently allowed to average 7 miles
>  > per gallon less than regular cars.

  Being a truck is a loophole?  Closing the loophole will penalize legitimate
trucks.  Calling a passenger vehicle a passenger vehicle would be closer
to it.

And the ultimate absurdity is
>  > that if an SUV is massive enough, it is entirely exempt from
>  > federal fuel economy standards. That's right, build one with a
>  > gross vehicle weight of over 8,500 pounds -- like the Ford
>  > Excursion or the new Hummer -- and the leviathan's lousy gas
>  > mileage doesn't even have to be reported to the government.

  Like there are THOUSANDS upon thousands of these on the roads
anyway.  Sort of like complaining about the mileage a Ferrari makes.
>  >
>  > Chew on that one and see if it doesn't rev your engine:
>  > automakers are rewarded for being particularly inefficient.
>  > There's the Bush Free Market for you.

  Since when did Bush write the CAFE laws???  Her buddy Jimmy Carter
is, I believe the one that started all this.  ;-)
>  >
>  > Even the muckety-mucks in Detroit are starting to get the
>  > message. Ford, for instance,  has
>  > pledged to boost the overall fuel efficiency of its SUVs by 25
>  > percent over the next three years, and plans to introduce a
>  > hybrid gas-electric model that will get around 40 mpg.

  Again, this is bad???

>  >  Take, for example, this "faux" socially-conscious reminder
>  > offered in the new Hummer brochure: "With the power to cross any
>  > terrain comes the responsibility to protect that terrain and its
>  > potentially fragile ecosystems."

  I'm sure that's because of some lawyer that threatened a lawsuit for some
silly thing.  She probably knows the lawyer too.

>  >  It's in all of our interests to let them
>  > know that a 1.5 mpg improvement is not enough.

  So don't buy one then!  I'd say but a VW diesel but I've covered the
reasons why not.  :)

The consequences
>  > of our addiction to foreign oil are no longer an abstraction.

  So is it different than the catastrophes we've been told will happen,
and haven't, for the last 30 years?

>  > ------
>  > If you have questions or comments, please contact me at
>  > arianna at ariannaonline.com.

  I wonder if I should?  ;-)