Since this is the general discussion forum, I think this is an appropriate place for this topic. Those of you who have seen the SUV's-fund-terrorism ads, what is your opinion, I'm curious as to the general sentiments on this board on environmental issues. My present opinion on this particular ad campaign in question is this:

As soon as those who bash SUV's give their cars to charity and start walking to work, I'll begin to respect their opinions about the need to get rid of SUV's to protect the environment. I still may not agree with them at that point, but at least I will respect where they are coming from.

The question of whether it is "better" to drive a vehicle that is classified as an "SUV" or a vehicle that is classified as a "ULEV" (Ultra Low Emission Vehicle) is one of degree. Both use gasoline (some diesel) and both cause some amount of pollution and BOTH contribute to the success of the petroleum industry to some extent. Fuel economy and pollution are only two of many factors that people should be free to weigh when they choose a vehicle.

There's a legal principal called "proximate cause" which, applied here, means that even if a thing (SUV driving) can be linked to a particular result (funding for terrorism), the link is so tenuous and distant that it is deemed to not exist at all. That's how I see the link between SUV-driving and terrorism. The opinion columnist who came up with the idea for the SUV's-are-evil-because-they-fund-terrorists ad campaign is simply exploiting a sore spot in the American psyche in order to push public perception to support an extremist-environmentalist agenda. It's the equivalent of "kick 'em when they're down." (I'm referring to the SUV/Terrorist tactic that the ad employs, not necessarity the merits of the argument against SUV's.) Americans are sensitive to anything relating to terrorism and to imply that every American who drives an SUV supports terrorism is blatent exploitation of that sensitivity and does little to help.

Some here have suggested that if all "big" cars like SUV's were eliminated it wouldn't be so unsafe to drive a "small" more-fuel-efficient and less-polluting car (based on the bigger-car-usually-wins phenomenon). That's about as stupid as suggesting that if all "evil" guns were eliminated it wouldn't be so unsafe to walk the streets without one.

I would venture to guess, and I'd be willing to bet that irresponsible driving accounts for more traffic-related fatalities than the relative size of the vehicles involved. I would also venture to guess that SUV's account for a very small percentage of the world's total pollututant emissions and energy (and $$$) would be better spent elsewhere.

I heard this on the Sean Hannity radio show yesterday.
What a friggin joke.
The woman who started this crap is some French rich woman who happens to take free rides to france in her friends' private jets (she says she doesn't own one herself, but obviously she is too important to book a seat on a regular airline).
One of the supporters is Norman Lear, who had a parking garage built on his land that can hold between 21-30 cars, has offices, a gym, and roof top tennis courts, and blocks the view of the sky that his neighbors USED to have. Pluse he "only" keeps half of it lit because the neighbors also complained about th light pollution.
What a bunch of firggin' a-holes....

The dork is Arianna Huffington. She is Greek. Her claim to fame is being married to a bun beagle...

[url]http://www.ariannaonline.com/[/url]

With that "supporting terror by buying gas" logic, you must include all that use gasoline, or buy any products in which petrolium is used.

I think there is [i]some[/i] truth to this logic, just as I think about the "Drugs support terror" logic....

As I said earlier today, this dependance of [i]them[/i] for oil is gonna bite us in the ass sonner or later.  

What really burns my as is that the technology already exists for more fuel effeciant engines, and also electric motors.

I know a dude that works for a company that has built electric UPS Trucks (brown) and HMMWV also.  Only a "lawnmower" sized engine for charging.

Its out there, and I guess it will take a major fallin out with mideast and "big oil" for this technology to become mainstream.

 

Well, MOST of our foreign oil does not come from the Arab countries, but from Venezuela.  But all energy prices (as are prices of all goods) are affected by world wide economic forces of supply and demand.

But those anti-SUV'ers are just as guilty every time they put plastic wrap on their food, buy food transported by 18-wheeler, buy any synthetic fabrics, buy natural fiber clothes fertilized by chemicals made with petroleum... ahh, the list goes on.  So, the SUV driver is no more guilty than the mini-car driver.

But also, what makes the driver of the SUV any more "guilty" than the Soccer Mom with a van?

What about when Greenpeace protested oil rigs by driving around them with RUBBER RAFTS with OUTBOARD MOTORS?

Well, I am preaching to the choir, here.  

How about a new commercial?

How about one that blames anti-gun politicians for the crime increase their laws bring about?  

How about blaming anti-gunners for genocide?  Are they not following the edicts of Adolf Hitler?

Wait..

The grass is green, the sky is blue... the grass is green, the sky is blue... Ooooohm.