Should SUV's be banned?

[mtrycraft]

I think raising gas prices is punishment enough.

That punishes everyone though

[mtrycraft]

As much as I loathe and laugh at SUVs, whether as a driving enthusiast or as someone who has to deal with driving around them on the road, I think it's ridiculous to suggest banning them outright.

However, I will add that I think they should either be subject to the same safety, emission, and fuel economy regulations as passenger vehicles, .

I agree with this fully That would be only fair. But, money talks.

And now you hear that the oil reseves may not be accurate but inflated

Stand by guys and gals.

[Chris]

Again, we live in a country where our forefathers fought so that you have the freedom to own (or drive) whatever your heart desires, yet you criticize people for owning something they don't "need"? How about all those people who buy the 4-door trucks or the super high-end luxury cars? Why not just ban every car that isn't a hybrid? Nobody "needs" a car that can't get less than 40 mpg... they can get to point B using a small hybrid econobox. Since when did we start forcing people to buy only what they "need"? I personally have no desire to own an SUV myself, as I feel trucks are more useful. But being a homeowner, I can easily appreciate the versatility an SUV offers - especially when our family begins to grow.

Why are SUV owners the target of all of this instead of the factories/industries who pollute? I'll tell you why - everyone knows how much gas mileage an SUV gets - its easy info to find. Nobody will put the time and effort into learning how much a local factory pollutes. Why do you think factories move out of the US? Cheap labor is only half of it - it's because the pollution laws are much less strict everywhere else... let's force all US-based corps who move out of the US to still abide by the same pollution laws no matter where they move to. Imagine how much longer we could make the world last then.

[JSE]

To Wooch and others who dislike SUVs due to poor performace and handling. Not everyone wants a race car. I have owned 2 Toyota Turbo Supras and 2 Corvettes and I now own a Tahoe. I could never go back unless it's for second vehicle. Sure the Tahoe does not perform like the Supra or Vette but it's extremely comfy and believe it or not rides very well and despite what others have said, is safe and can be used for just about anything. I like to camp, mountain bike, fish and I can throw a ton of photo equipement in the back. What better vehicle could I have? Plus, I live in Houston which has horrible traffic. I could not take advantage of a vehicles performance on Houston roadways 99% of the time. I don't care what people say, I would also like to take my chances in an accident with my Tahoe over an Accord any day. I bet I will win! That sounds harsh, but it's reality.

JSE

[okiemax]

Again, we live in a country where our forefathers fought so that you have the freedom to own (or drive) whatever your heart desires, yet you criticize people for owning something they don't "need"? How about all those people who buy the 4-door trucks or the super high-end luxury cars? Why not just ban every car that isn't a hybrid? Nobody "needs" a car that can't get less than 40 mpg... they can get to point B using a small hybrid econobox. Since when did we start forcing people to buy only what they "need"? I personally have no desire to own an SUV myself, as I feel trucks are more useful. But being a homeowner, I can easily appreciate the versatility an SUV offers - especially when our family begins to grow.

Why are SUV owners the target of all of this instead of the factories/industries who pollute? I'll tell you why - everyone knows how much gas mileage an SUV gets - its easy info to find. Nobody will put the time and effort into learning how much a local factory pollutes. Why do you think factories move out of the US? Cheap labor is only half of it - it's because the pollution laws are much less strict everywhere else... let's force all US-based corps who move out of the US to still abide by the same pollution laws no matter where they move to. Imagine how much longer we could make the world last then.

What a person does can have an adverse effect on other people. Many activities that may be pleasurable to some people are illegal because these activities harm other people. Smoking in public places is a good example. The harm that can be done by a motor vehicle is related to its size. Although large vehicles mean more fuel consumption, more pollution, and more danger for drivers of smaller vehicles, trucks and buses used in economic activities provide benefits to society that outweigh theses costs. Does the pleasure that people get from owning large SUV's outweigh the costs to people who don't own them?

SUV's probably would not be an issue with me if their number was relatively small. RV's are much larger than SUV's, but I don't see enough of these homes-on-wheels to get upset about them. I shudder to think about a surge in the popularity of RV's. If this "bigger is better" thinking goes any further, I may in self-defense have to replace my economy car with an eighteen-wheeler(those big Kenworths are cool). Yep, it will be all about me and what I want, and to hell with everyone else! Chris, do you think our our forefathers would approve of this change in my philosphy about freedom of choice?

[Bryan]

SUVs are not a problem yet there is where the focus lies. That MPG sticker posted on most, if not every, new vehicles is prior to a/c. Turn it on to cool down and see what your MPG is afterwards.

If I could afford one I would have a motorcycle in addition to my truck. I don't need both but the bike could get me around town much more economically. I even used to be able to carry around a bag of groceries when needed. My needs and wants have changed. The truck is more in line with what I need and want. Its purpose is to haul things, anything from furniture to a boat in a few years. It is a vehicle bought for the long haul whereas the bike could be for everyday use.

People buy vehicles for different reasons. You may only see the family of four driving around in a SUV but you don't know they use it for towing, camping, hunting, etc. You can buy whatever vehicle you wish, be it a Lexus or monster truck (5 gallons per mile, BTW).

You need transportation, be it public or private. You decide what transportation you can afford and what you want to drive. It could be a bicycle or Jeep. You know what you need it for and what you want it to be able to do. If you can afford it and are capable of driving it then buy whatever it is you would like to, even if it is that 18 wheel Kensworth.

[Woochifer]

To Wooch and others who dislike SUVs due to poor performace and handling. Not everyone wants a race car. I have owned 2 Toyota Turbo Supras and 2 Corvettes and I now own a Tahoe. I could never go back unless it's for second vehicle. Sure the Tahoe does not perform like the Supra or Vette but it's extremely comfy and believe it or not rides very well and despite what others have said, is safe and can be used for just about anything. I like to camp, mountain bike, fish and I can throw a ton of photo equipement in the back. What better vehicle could I have? Plus, I live in Houston which has horrible traffic. I could not take advantage of a vehicles performance on Houston roadways 99% of the time. I don't care what people say, I would also like to take my chances in an accident with my Tahoe over an Accord any day. I bet I will win! That sounds harsh, but it's reality.

JSE

I'm not asking for a race car, I'm just looking for something that can perform ON PAR with an AVERAGE sedan, and most SUVs out there can't even meet that minimal criteria. Sure, a lot of them have big enough engines to match the 0-60 times, but in terms of roadholding, emergency avoidance, safety features, and braking, almost all SUVs on the road are inferior to even middle-of-the-pack sedans.

Sure, your Tahoe has enough heft to mow over another vehicle if that's a goal (sorry, but in a collision EVERYBODY loses, so your gloating about winning in a collision is hardly worth cheering about), but the majority of collisions are not the bumper to bumper variety. In a rollover, a side impact, or solo accident, SUVs are more dangerous than a passenger car. And with their compromised handling and braking, it's more difficult to avoid an accident in the first place when driving one of those. THAT's reality.

On one of those winding mountain roads, give me anything but an SUV and I'll feel a lot safer. Been there, done that, never again. Unless you're talking about traveling on dirt roads or needing lots of towing capacity, I don't see any benefit to an SUV for camping either. If I need an SUV for traveling on dirt roads, Avis will still take my money and at the end of the trip I don't have to lug that thing back home with me.

[Woochifer]

SUVs are not a problem yet there is where the focus lies. That MPG sticker posted on most, if not every, new vehicles is prior to a/c. Turn it on to cool down and see what your MPG is afterwards.

For an average car, the AC's supposed to lower the MPG by about 10 percent, but it affects all vehicles equally, so a SUV with lower mileage will still have lower mileage whether the AC's on or off.

On those mileage ratings, I have no clue about the EPA's current procedures, but I know that years ago the mileage was calculated using a dynamometer. Problem with that procedure is that it did not factor in the aerodynamics, and the fact is that the more aerodynamic a car's body shape, the less power is needed to maintain highway speeds. And in general, SUVs have much higher drag coefficients than passenger cars or even most minivans.

You know what you need it for and what you want it to be able to do. If you can afford it and are capable of driving it then buy whatever it is you would like to, even if it is that 18 wheel Kensworth.

If this "bigger is better" thinking goes any further, I may in self-defense have to replace my economy car with an eighteen-wheeler(those big Kenworths are cool).

Funny that both of you would mention Kenworth!






The Grand Dominator

The site is supposed to be satirical, but why would I not be surprised if someone actually created a behemoth like this? Anyway, the site is linked below. Check out the list of options. Pretty hilarious (I especially like the heliport and boat rack options).

http://poseur.4x4.org/futuresuv.html

[Woochifer]

Again, we live in a country where our forefathers fought so that you have the freedom to own (or drive) whatever your heart desires, yet you criticize people for owning something they don't "need"? How about all those people who buy the 4-door trucks or the super high-end luxury cars? Why not just ban every car that isn't a hybrid?

The benefits of hybrid technology have only scratched the surface so far. I can't remember if it was GM or Chrysler, but one of those companies has now licensed Toyota's hybrid design. And Honda's now working on a next generation hybrid sports car that will generate almost 400 horsepower AND get over 30 MPG on the highway.

Why are SUV owners the target of all of this instead of the factories/industries who pollute? I'll tell you why - everyone knows how much gas mileage an SUV gets - its easy info to find. Nobody will put the time and effort into learning how much a local factory pollutes. Why do you think factories move out of the US? Cheap labor is only half of it - it's because the pollution laws are much less strict everywhere else... let's force all US-based corps who move out of the US to still abide by the same pollution laws no matter where they move to. Imagine how much longer we could make the world last then.

Believe me, the air pollution control districts in California work the industry angle every bit as intensively as the various vehicle emission programs. They've put a LOT of time and effort into studying the impacts of fixed point-source pollution sources (and I've participated in a few of them), and the mandated emission reductions on industry have been every bit as punative as anything that's been done with auto emissions. In the studies I've done, these types of emission regulations are very low on the list of things that drive industry overseas.

SUVs are singled out because they are used like passenger vehicles, yet regulated as trucks when it comes to mileage and emissions. The truck standards work on the premise that trucks are needed for commerce and having a lowered standard for trucks is a way of keeping business costs down. They were not drafted as a permit for one family to generate more pollution than another, nor as an avenue by which auto makers can pad their profits by withholding their best engine control technologies from SUVs.

Passenger cars that meet California's strictest PZEV emission standards actually clean the air during unhealthful smog conditions (because the tail emissions are actually cleaner than the air that the engine pulls in during smoggy conditions) and are better for the environment than even electric vehicles if you account for point source pollution by power generating plants. Thus far, not a single SUV meets the PZEV standards, while a growing list of passenger cars meet them, including the BMW 3 series, VW Jetta, Ford Focus, Mazda 3, Toyota Camry, and Honda Accord. IMO, when it comes to SUVs, either regulate them as passenger vehicles or give passenger vehicles the same exemptions that SUVs get.

http://www.latimes.com/classified/au...,1649115.story

[okiemax]

For an average car, the AC's supposed to lower the MPG by about 10 percent, but it affects all vehicles equally, so a SUV with lower mileage will still have lower mileage whether the AC's on or off.

On those mileage ratings, I have no clue about the EPA's current procedures, but I know that years ago the mileage was calculated using a dynamometer. Problem with that procedure is that it did not factor in the aerodynamics, and the fact is that the more aerodynamic a car's body shape, the less power is needed to maintain highway speeds. And in general, SUVs have much higher drag coefficients than passenger cars or even most minivans.





Funny that both of you would mention Kenworth!






The Grand Dominator

The site is supposed to be satirical, but why would I not be surprised if someone actually created a behemoth like this? Anyway, the site is linked below. Check out the list of options. Pretty hilarious (I especially like the heliport and boat rack options).

http://poseur.4x4.org/futuresuv.html

I wouldn't be so sure that PACCAR Corporate Headquartes isn't giving thought to producing these monster SUVs . If not, some outfit that does custom work probably is considering it. Buy one and see owners of those piss-ant Hummers turn green with envy.

However, as much as I want one of these ultimate SUVs, I must be practical and stick with a tractor that can pull a trailer in case I need to help friends move or haul anything big. The Peterbilt shown on the following link is just what I need:

http://www.peterbilt.com/index_home.asp

Ain't she a beauty!

[RGA]

Cool - maybe we can get the Queen Mary and put wheels on it - Or the Exon Valdez and drive it down the road - kind of like James Bond with automatic oil slicks.

I find it amusing for the State that supposedly cares about fuel emissions has Mr. Hummer himself Ahnold running the State. Sometimes I'm glad I'm in Canada.

[JSE]

I'm not asking for a race car, I'm just looking for something that can perform ON PAR with an AVERAGE sedan, and most SUVs out there can't even meet that minimal criteria. Sure, a lot of them have big enough engines to match the 0-60 times, but in terms of roadholding, emergency avoidance, safety features, and braking, almost all SUVs on the road are inferior to even middle-of-the-pack sedans.

Sure, your Tahoe has enough heft to mow over another vehicle if that's a goal (sorry, but in a collision EVERYBODY loses, so your gloating about winning in a collision is hardly worth cheering about), but the majority of collisions are not the bumper to bumper variety. In a rollover, a side impact, or solo accident, SUVs are more dangerous than a passenger car. And with their compromised handling and braking, it's more difficult to avoid an accident in the first place when driving one of those. THAT's reality.

On one of those winding mountain roads, give me anything but an SUV and I'll feel a lot safer. Been there, done that, never again. Unless you're talking about traveling on dirt roads or needing lots of towing capacity, I don't see any benefit to an SUV for camping either. If I need an SUV for traveling on dirt roads, Avis will still take my money and at the end of the trip I don't have to lug that thing back home with me.

I'm not gloating about a winning a collision, I'm just saying that I would rather be safer. And, you are incorrect when you say the majority of accidents are not of the Bumper-to-Bumper variety. The fact is, this is the most frequent type of accident. Side impacts are right behind. Roll overs and solo accidents are far behind. I know this. I investigate fraud for an ins. company and I see stats on this all the time. I can also tell you this, SUVS are safer in rollovers. I see them all the time in my work and I can honestly say that people fair much better inside an SUV in a rollover than in sedans or other traditional car designs. Side impacts? They are seem to fair better in this type of accident as well. People sit higher up and usually avoid the direct impact to their body from the other vehicle's bumper. This of course is assuming the other vehicle is not another SUV, Pickup or large truck. In general, SUVs, Pickups, etc, tend to have much less damage when in an accident. Of course you can always take the other side and say because of SUVs, other smaller vehicles receive more damage in general.

In my experience, I can tell you this. SUVs are not the problem some people make them out to be. A bigger problem is people being to distracted while they are driving. If people would stop talking on their cell phones, watching the navigation systems, fooling with the radio, eating and drinking while in their vehicles, we would have far far less accidents. When I used to work "normal" auto accidents I can say that at least 80% of the accidents involved some kind of driver inattention.

Banning cell phone use in vehicles would go much farther in terms of saving lives than banning SUVs.

JSE

[JSE]

Sometimes I'm glad I'm in Canada.

So are we!

JSE

[Swerd]

I agree, it’s wrong to try to ban SUVs outright. But, like Woochifer pointed out, the same safety, emmission and fuel economy regulations that apply to passenger vehicles should also apply to SUVs and other light trucks.

In addition, I would add that the federal government should not subsidize the purchase of SUVs. In the past year or so, anyone owning their own business could deduct the purchase cost of an SUV, up to $100,000, from their income for tax purposes. Until the recent upswing in fuel prices, this change in the tax law has driven the high sales of high-priced SUVs. Prior to 2002, this tax deduction was limited to farm owners who purchased farm equiptment that cost up to $25,000. SUVs, as a light truck, were included as eligible vehicles.

It is difficult to understand how the current admistration decided that this new tax policy was in the best interest of the nation. It has allowed thousands of lawyers, accountants, real estate agents, doctors, etc. (none of whom are farmers) to buy these light trucks with a glandular problem at taxpayers expense.

[Woochifer]

I find it amusing for the State that supposedly cares about fuel emissions has Mr. Hummer himself Ahnold running the State. Sometimes I'm glad I'm in Canada.

California's had the strictest emission standards in the world since well before the Gropinator set foot on U.S. soil. Be glad you're in Canada, but your cars still spew more pollutants into the atmosphere than what gets sold in California.

[Woochifer]

I'm not gloating about a winning a collision, I'm just saying that I would rather be safer. And, you are incorrect when you say the majority of accidents are not of the Bumper-to-Bumper variety. The fact is, this is the most frequent type of accident. Side impacts are right behind. Roll overs and solo accidents are far behind. I know this. I investigate fraud for an ins. company and I see stats on this all the time. I can also tell you this, SUVS are safer in rollovers. I see them all the time in my work and I can honestly say that people fair much better inside an SUV in a rollover than in sedans or other traditional car designs. Side impacts? They are seem to fair better in this type of accident as well. People sit higher up and usually avoid the direct impact to their body from the other vehicle's bumper. This of course is assuming the other vehicle is not another SUV, Pickup or large truck. In general, SUVs, Pickups, etc, tend to have much less damage when in an accident. Of course you can always take the other side and say because of SUVs, other smaller vehicles receive more damage in general.

Bumper to bumper collisions are the most frequent type of accident, but not the majority. In a side impact, at least a passenger vehicle has mandated side impact protection beams in the door. SUVs aren't required to install them, and judging by the weight of the doors for the various SUVs I've ridden in and driven, I doubt they're there.

Also, SUVs are multiple times more likely to get into a rollover in the first place, and the mortality rate in a rollover is higher than a frontal or side collision. How they fare in rollovers is something I don't info on, but a friend of mine who used to work as an engineer at Nissan told me that the safety cage designs that are standard practice with passenger cars are far stronger and safer than what's typically designed into a truck or SUV. Also, the chassis certification requirements for passenger cars are stricter than for light trucks.

And with the rigid frame construction used on truck-based SUVs, much more of that blunt force gets transferred directly into the passenger cabin. Transferring that collision force away from the passenger cabin is whole reason why engineers started designing crumple zones and unit body construction into passenger cars over 30 years ago. And even with that rigid frame, the bumpers on those SUV will take on far more damage in a low speed impact than a passenger car will.

If maximum cargo hauling capacity does not need to be a design goal for a vehicle (and I doubt too many SUV owners will ever need something that can handle a three-ton+ load), then why saddle it down with all the weight, directional stability, and safety compromises that go along with that kind of design? Leaf spring suspensions and rigid axles date all the way back to the horse carriage era, I would expect a car to at least have technology that's more in line with the 20th century. Personally, I would rather drive a car that gives me more of a fighting chance at avoiding an accident in the first place or can give me those extra feet of reduced braking distance.

In my experience, I can tell you this. SUVs are not the problem some people make them out to be. A bigger problem is people being to distracted while they are driving. If people would stop talking on their cell phones, watching the navigation systems, fooling with the radio, eating and drinking while in their vehicles, we would have far far less accidents. When I used to work "normal" auto accidents I can say that at least 80% of the accidents involved some kind of driver inattention.

Banning cell phone use in vehicles would go much farther in terms of saving lives than banning SUVs. JSE

I'll agree with you on this point. The whole move towards in-dash navigation systems, DVD surround systems, internet connectivity, power ports for laptop computers, on top of the preexisting radio, make-up, dashboard dining, and cellphone distractions, scares me a lot more than any SUV ever will.

My problem with SUVs is that I simply can't stand how they drive. I mean, a station wagon gives me far better handling, visibility, and road feel than any SUV I've ever tried out. And I avoid them on the roads as well, since I can't see potential hazards as well whenever I'm around them, and I know from almost daily experience that they can't see me all that well either.

I've never said anything about banning SUVs, and would oppose any efforts to do so. If people want to put up with something that undriveable IMO on a daily basis, then they have my blessing. My main point has been to put them on an equal plane with passenger cars, since the rationale for regulating them as trucks has pretty much turned into a joke. Whether that means lowering passenger car standards or raising those for SUVs or eliminating them altogether, so be it.

[mtrycraft]

Now to rezone the residential place for commercial parging And a new garage Wonder how a sub, many subs, would work in that

[mtrycraft]

- Or the Exon Valdez and drive it down the road - .

No, no, not that. Too oily But it sure has a large fuel tank

[Chris]

I guess I don't disagree that SUVs could be held to the same emissions standards as passenger cars, in fact, that should really be looked into. Whether you like it or not though, some people have a use for them. If you own a home, have a family, have stuff to haul around/tow, or all of the above, you know what I mean. One could argue that a truck makes more sense, but a truck doesn't always do it all. This day and age, it's all about finding the vehicle that will do it all - that's why SUVs sell so well. Sure many people who don't need them buy them, but the same could be said of trucks. So what are the options? Lower their emissions or make people fill out applications to make sure they actually need them? Forcing the same standards as passenger cars sounds more realistic - but even that sounds like a stretch.

Again, I personally would rather have a truck, but my mother-in-law's Durango has come in handy everytime we needed it (long trips, home depot, camping, home depot, dump runs, home depot, etc). A truck would have only worked out in half of the cases we used the SUV.

Although large vehicles mean more fuel consumption, more pollution, and more danger for drivers of smaller vehicles, trucks and buses used in economic activities provide benefits to society that outweigh these costs. Does the pleasure that people get from owning large SUV's outweigh the costs to people who don't own them?

Well, that's assuming everyone who owns an SUV doesn't need one. How do you separate the people who use them to their full potential (carpooling, hauling, towing, etc) from those who could get by just as well with a passenger vehicle? You can't group everyone together - so then what? Start suing people individually for damages? I think people have good intentions and even some good points here, but many of the arguments just don't hold water. Fighting to ban public smoking is one thing, but trying to ban SUVs because they might "have an adverse affect on others"? Please. Why don't we just skip to the root of the problem and see about getting "stupidity" and "inconsideration of others" banned too?

[jeskibuff]

Why don't we just skip to the root of the problem and see about getting "stupidity" and "inconsideration of others" banned too?

Actually, that's the best idea I've heard today!

[okiemax]

I guess I don't disagree that SUVs could be held to the same emissions standards as passenger cars, in fact, that should really be looked into. Whether you like it or not though, some people have a use for them. If you own a home, have a family, have stuff to haul around/tow, or all of the above, you know what I mean. One could argue that a truck makes more sense, but a truck doesn't always do it all. This day and age, it's all about finding the vehicle that will do it all - that's why SUVs sell so well. Sure many people who don't need them buy them, but the same could be said of trucks. So what are the options? Lower their emissions or make people fill out applications to make sure they actually need them? Forcing the same standards as passenger cars sounds more realistic - but even that sounds like a stretch.

Again, I personally would rather have a truck, but my mother-in-law's Durango has come in handy everytime we needed it (long trips, home depot, camping, home depot, dump runs, home depot, etc). A truck would have only worked out in half of the cases we used the SUV.


Well, that's assuming everyone who owns an SUV doesn't need one. How do you separate the people who use them to their full potential (carpooling, hauling, towing, etc) from those who could get by just as well with a passenger vehicle? You can't group everyone together - so then what? Start suing people individually for damages? I think people have good intentions and even some good points here, but many of the arguments just don't hold water. Fighting to ban public smoking is one thing, but trying to ban SUVs because they might "have an adverse affect on others"? Please. Why don't we just skip to the root of the problem and see about getting "stupidity" and "inconsideration of others" banned too?

Would you agree that driver's who don't need large vehicles should not be encouraged to buy them? If you do agree, do you know we have no Federal Government policy to discourage the use of unnecessarily large vehicles? In fact, Federal policy does just the opposite. See Swerd's post on the income tax deduction for SUV purchases up to $100,000, allowed to doctors, lawyers, and other self-employed workers.

[JSE]

discourage the use of unnecessarily large vehicles?

Who determines what is a "unnecessarily large vehicle"? So, we should just ban or discourage vehicles that are "unnecessarily large" for the particular person buying it? I have an idea, let's just create another department within goverment who will go around interviewing each person who wants to buy a SUV to see if they really need it. I can see it now, "I'm sorry Mr. JSE, you don't need the Chevy Tahoe, you really need the Toyota Matrix. Granted, your knees will be jammed into the dash at all times, your head will be crushed into the roof and you will feel like your being crammed into a jar but hey, that's what we feel you need."

While we're at it, let's cut horsepower down in all vehicles as well. Does anyone really need 300 HP? Does anyone really need a car that can do 0-60mph in under 5 seconds. Oh, and what about the street racers. They convert primarily foreign cars into street racing KILLING MACHINES! Let's just be safe and ban cars made by Honda, Toyota, Mitts, Nissan, etc.

I hate to be harsh or rude, but GET OVER IT! Drive your small a$$ car and deal with it. It ain't gonna change! SUVs are never going to be banned. They may be held to the same rules in the furture but then it will be my choice if I want one.

JSE

[gonefishin]

okiemax, what's the maximum square footage that you feel should be allowed to a family of three? How about a family of four? or a single person living alone (perhaps it would be best if we had government "recommended" living laws) Maybe only allow those with heart conditions to own and run air conditioning in hot climates. Or better yet...require them to move to a cooler climate. If they choose not to move to a cooler climate (because of their heart conditions) then their government funded health insurance would be denied.


What size home do you feel is in excess of living comfortably?

It's easy enough to discuss the ramifications of owning/building/maintaining a large home. So what size is too big? Let's think about the trees used to produce the lumber...the toxins used to make and clean the various chemicals used to make the building materials...the coal or nuclear power used to produce the electricity for the materials to be built to build the house of excess...and the power used to heat/cool the "too large home"...the oils used to make the building materials...the oils burnt up while workers at each individual factory use while driving to and from their jobs...to make the materials. The homes that they live in. Not to mention that union laborers are usually paid better than non union workers...so it's very possible that the workers at the factories, where your getting your building supplies from, are also living in excess.

What size house do you own?

Do you own a furnace or air conditioner? Do you use them?

Do you own a second home?


Do you keep your house clean?

What do you clean it with?

How many (and what type) of vehicles do you own?


Do you use fertilizers on your lawn shrubs or garden?

What crops do you plant in your garden?

How far do you drive to work?


How many miles do you put on your vehicles (all) each year?

(I'd be willing to bet that your burning more fuel per year than my family (full size truck and mini-van). We actually moved close to where we work. Would you suggest that a family moves closer to their employment to save on the amount of fuel used per year? )

(when talking about fuel usage) Isn't that what it really comes down... not so much how much fuel a vehicle uses...but how much fuel the owner requires that vehicle to use per year)

[kenk]

Just let the gas $ goes up to about $4.00 a gallon by adding more taxes, then there will be less SUV! Plus it will solve our deficit problem in no time

[JSE]

Just let the gas $ goes up to about $4.00 a gallon by adding more taxes, then there will be less SUV! Plus it will solve our deficit problem in no time

Maybe it's just the end of the day and my mind in fried but, Huh? Are you talking about the tax breaks being done away with? Please clarify how this will help the deficit if other than SUV tax reform.

JSE