So Can We Have Our SUVs Back Now?
When President George W. Bush criticized “opening up the Alaskan wilderness to oil drilling” during his 2003 State of the Union address, I knew the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) had made serious inroads into our culture. And as he downplayed drilling, emphasized conservation, and announced he had set aside $1.2 billion for the development of hydrogen fuel cell technology, I knew he had either purposefully or inadvertently fallen in lockstep with those who were pressuring the American people to trade in their big SUVs for little cars that ran on something other than fossil fuels.
In other words, Bush, a former resident of Midland, Texas (a.k.a. Oil Town U.S.A.), was telling Americans he had taken the bait and swallowed the eco-myth that life on our planet was endangered by the use of oil and oil byproducts. And although Bush never went full-blown greenie on us, these kinds of comments emboldened groups like the Sierra Club and Earth on Empty, who in turn upped the ante in their war on SUVS.
It was the Sierra Club that shamed Ford Motor Company into ending the production of its biggest SUV, the Excursion, by labeling it “the Valdez” during Bush’s presidency. And it was Earth on Empty that sent group members out to ticket SUV drivers for “[failing] to pay attention to [their] behavior” (i.e., for burning too much gasoline).
Of course, President Obama has not only picked up where Bush left off, but has pushed, as mainstream, limitations on greenhouse gases that Bush would have rejected as extreme. Obama hinted at this push during the 2008 presidential campaign when he said, “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times.” And he continues down this path today, although it’s widely known that crucial data supporting the theory of AGW is missing and that some of the data that remains is inaccurate.
His intentions were especially clear during last year’s “cash for clunkers” program. Following an all-out media blitz designed to convince the nation to swap their gas-guzzlers for newer, more fuel-efficient vehicles, the option of getting the gas-guzzler back was taken away by a government mandate that all trade-in vehicles be destroyed. Therefore, if someone traded in their Ford Explorer for a foreign hybrid or a Smart Car, and then grew tired of being crammed into the little vehicle, trading back for the Explorer wasn’t even a possibility.
Personally, being in the UK which is not SUV territory, I would be content if we could have decent light bulbs again.
Can we also have our good old incandescent light bulbs?
Sadly, President Bush signed a law banning the bulb and replacing them with the hideous CFL’s. Contrary to the propaganda, compact fluorescents are expensive, only efficient when you leave them on for prolonged periods (switching on and off shortens the life span significantly), spew out toxic mercury if broken and emit the worst quality light.
By the way, the driving force behind this were the enviro-wackos aided and abetted by Phillips, who not uncoincidentally are the chief manufacturers of CFL’s.
We still have a few years (I think) before the law goes into effect so it’s time to repeal that one too.
Except that the O Regime hasn’t opened anything, and won’t.
If you examine the dirty details of yesterday’s announcement from the “Untruthful One” what shows up is a move to restrict far more drilling than to allow it. It also shovels a bureaucratic and regulatory burden on the allowed tiny hole, that it will be virtually impossible to put more than sensors in the water for years.
The entire announcement was a sham. It was basically a drilling ban, with the words “Drilling Allowed” pasted on the top of the document.
Barry is trying to save his Virginia win with a sop to the blue regions of the Commonwealth (more bureaucrats to employ to manage the EPA monitoring of the tiny number of rigs that will eventually be allowed….after wading through court challenges, environmental impact statements, monitoring regulations, equipment inspections… ad nauseum.
Like everything else with The Bamster… it is a lie.
Joe Wilson was so right.
Regards,
The Mighty Fahvaag
Of course the answer to Hawkins’ question is no. The left never gives back what they’ve taken. It’s all part of their belief that they know what’s best for us.
Ha! No way are they going to budge on the SUV issue (except for SUVs built by the Government Motor Company, GMC). And even GMC’s SUVs will be phased out. Their plan is to force us to look and act like Europeans, even though that means losing our freedom.
I have no plans to give my SUV up, but I know Obama has plans to price me out of if via fuel costs. He is a anti-liberty to the core. And because of this his talk about drilling offshore doesn’t sound like something we can trust. We already know he wants us all driving electric cars.
It’s nice to live in Montana, where I am absolutely guilt-free over owning an SUV. We did downsize from an Expedition to an Explorer, though. Is that green enough?
We have two options available to us: we can lie down and meekly submit to the radical environmentalists and their brainwashed enablers in Washington or we can vote them out of office in favor of someone who has a firm grip on reality and will begin to reverse the trend of ever-expanding control over us.
I’m in favor of the latter option.
Just think, we could drive the vehicles we want, use the lighting we wish, enjoy cheaper energy prices and greatly reduce the power of governmental busybodies. We could be free of restrictive policies based on a now-proven hoax. We could restore common sense to Washington. We could take a concrete step towards true deficit reduction by defunding the EPA and returning that responsibility to the states where it belongs. We could stop being our own worst enemy when it comes to competing in the global economy due to the overweening and unecessary regulations that our leaders have imposed on us.
It’s our choice.
Cars that are not fuel efficient should be discouraged on the simple basis that it sends money to middle-eastern dysfunctional states, some of which is used to fund terrorism against us.
The less oil we need, the less money goes over there. Until we have an independent energy source, we need to purchase more responsibly.
Keeping my 9 year old Suburban but never buying another GM vehicle.
I suggest that every time you break a CFL bulb you seal up the pieces and send it to a Democratic congressman. If we all do this, they may get the message.
#7 Dana, there is one more significant step you can take. I found a ‘HYBRID’ sticker on the internet and affixed it to my 2006 Explorer and I feel so much better.
I have no plans to give up my truck, nor my SUV! My family;s safety is worth way to much!
This is just a weak ploy by B.O. to try and make a few folks happy. A distraction because her thinks America is to stupid to think for our self (sadly he is right for the most part, hence the fact he is POTUS)
Unless we continue to point out every lie and every farce this will continue. Don’t play his shell game!!
It is web sites like this, and many others that give us a common voice. I am in the process of creating a site now to funnel all the true conservative news and views from sites like this and many others. If you are interested you can follow us on facebook here http://bit.ly/cyutWE (not trying for a shameless plug)
@Texan, I agree, I will never buy another car unless it is a Ford. Just because they rolled up their sleeves and solved their problems with hard work!
After a lifetime of driving “sensible” cars, just yesterday I bought myself a huge, gorgeous, hulkin’ Ford F150 pick-up truck with a big, vrrooomy Triton V8 engine. Guzzle THAT, greenies.
And I’m the girly girl in the family. Can’t wait to see what my manly husband buys.
The more gas we use, the more money goes to the Middle East… what part of that is good?
#11 selwap
Too funny! Wish I still had the Expedition to stick THAT on.
We got a great deal on the Explorer in 2008 when gas was at an all-time high. We were going to downsize anyway since the eldest kid is going to off to college and I’m a born and raised Ford owner, so there was never a question about what brand the vehicle would be (also, I buy all the cars, since my husband hates to haggle).
I’m happy I put my faith in the right company.
Great minds think alike, Dana. I bought the 2006 Explorer in September 2008 and they were just about giving them away.
I find it disturbing that the traded in cars had to have their engines destroyed. What a waste. However, car companies are making less SUV models people people are buying less. I think that is a trend that is not going to change. Do people remember the 4 dollar plus/per gallon during the last year of Bush. I think people know that gas prices will be high and dont want cars that use as much fuel. The market is speaking.
Great piece. Fortunately, I never gave up my SUV. So they don’t have to give it back.
To “The Tao” – Your point, though well taken, seems a bit off base. Why should U.S. consumers punish themselves simply because our government is too far left to be energy independent? I believe the wisest course is not to give up our SUVs, but to continue driving them and to simultaneously demand that our government “drill here, drill now.”
I could never give up the SUVs, because the snow storms here are terrifying.
If the global warming CAN be accelerated, I can give up the SUVs.
Who can afford an SUV anymore? $40,000 to purchase and maybe 15 mpg with gas at $3? Count me out.
When you see the price gas is going to be you will not want your SUVs back.
One of the drivers behind the AGW scare was the way we have been misled over oil reserves. There is nowhere near as much left in the midde east as was claimed ergo all the sudden interest in drilling around The Falkland Islands.
The trick (that word again) that was being attempted was to fool us into cutting our usage to “save the planet” so the authorities would not have to admit the Arabs had us over a barrel
Depressing
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/depressing.html
……….it seemed as if we had the warmists on the run.
……..a more realistic appraisal might suggest that we have not even dented the underlying agenda.
Miliband is paving the way to get the Kyoto treaty protocols back on track for agreement in Mexico later this year, as part of an international treaty. And he wants to pull in developing countries into the treaty maw, with them offering some “commitments” of their own – more cosmetic than real – in order to cement in the developed (or “Annex 1″) countries into the deal.
This move comes alongside a meeting between Gordon Brown and “billionaire financier” George Soros, Obama’s economic adviser Larry Summers, economist Lord Nicholas Stern and other finance ministers. In parallel, they were working on stitching up the financial package which is so central to the real agenda.
Their headline goal is to raise $30bn (£20bn) a year immediately and $100bn a year by 2020, ostensibly “to enable developing countries to adapt to climate change.”
Whatever mechanisms are eventually agreed, however, of one thing there can be absolute certainty. Very little of the money allocated to this cause will ever reach its stated destination. As with the current aid programme, most of it will be soaked up by banks, finance houses, investors and brokers, in fees and commissions. Huge amounts will line the pockets of governments in the recipient countries, and NGOs will grow fat and rich.
Britain brandishes olive branch to restart global climate change talks
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/31/ed-miliband-restart-climate-change-talks
Well, you must have been the last to get the word amigo. The cash for clunkers was never about pinko save the environment. It was about saving people some money (mostly smoke screen) and boost car sales and production and profit. Big Auto Dems and Repubs wanted it and big oil had no opinion, hence, gave the thumbs up to their lackies in congress to vote yes on something, for a change. Even the loonies and the t-partiers could find no reason to dislike the clunky program. The economic collapse and wars of 03-07 had little to do with auto sales but did have alot to do with mid east oil, greed, banks and wars. However, nice attempt at your explanations. Good Luck.
#9 The Tao — Cars that are not fuel efficient should be discouraged on the simple basis that it sends money to middle-eastern dysfunctional states, some of which is used to fund terrorism against us.
Great idea. We’ll do hybrids or full electrics, meaning we can send money to other dysfunctional states like Bolivia or Angola or China where the raw materials needed to make the electric motors and batteries come from.
I just figured out who “Poor Citizen” is. He’s the guy at the Waffle Shop who spouts off, uninvited, to anyone with the bad luck to be sitting in the place at an ungodly hour.
Between bites of waffle or sausage, he rambles on semi-coherently with his grab-bag cafeteria-style mashup of neo-leftie the-world-owes-me gobbledygook. Harmless, really, and not unfriendly, but annoying. I wish he’d move down the street to the All-Night Bakery or something.
i have three giant breed dogs. how am i supposed to cram them into a small vehicle? or am i supposed to give up my dogs to satisfy the environmental fascists?
my 10 year old mercedes V8 SUV gets 14-15MPG. but i drive as little as possible—less than 5000 miles a year. so i use about 350 gallons of gas a year.
compare that to a prius owner who drives 15,000 miles a year but gets 40MPG.
comes out about the same, doesn’t it?
24. Or we can build reprocessing plants and get the raw materials from our tens of thousands of tons of used nuclear fuel. Reprocessing 2500 tons of used fuel annually would give us an output of rare earths rivaling China, ~30% of the world’s rhodium production, a few tons of technicium (slightly radioactive, but makes an excellent alloy with steel), and numerous other valuable elements.
You can’t have your SUVs back because no one took them from you in the first place. But whether you believe in global warming or not, your fat SUV causes more old fashioned pollution, road damage and congestion than a sensible smaller car.
“Morrisminor” – the problem with your reasoning is the use of the word “sensible,” because that word has a variable meaning: it means different things to different people. What are the odds that a “sensible” vehicle means the same thing to Barack Obama and Rush Limbaugh? Or Al Gore and George W. Bush? The consumer has every right to purchase the vehicle he or she can afford to maintain and operate. It’s not about what is and isn’t sensible, it’s about what the consumer wants and can support.
#??? mythbuster — Or we can build reprocessing plants and get the raw materials from our tens of thousands of tons of used nuclear fuel.
True, and not a bad idea, but we still have to have lithium and neodynium. And besides you know you and I are on the same page on this anyway.
However, the thrust of my reply was to the notion of sending money to places that don’t like us. It doesn’t matter what we want to build, we don’t have the natural resources needed for a big effort in energy technology. They have to come from somewhere, and it’s unfortunate that “somewhere” invariably has a 75% chance of being a third world hell-hole or other political nightmare. We’re going to have to send money to places we don’t want to do business with regardless, so the entire “places that don’t like us” argument is simply a canard.
BackwardsBoy: I think your post name speaks for itself. Should we get rid of the laws that reduced acid rain too? Lets get rid of mercury caps for coal plants, I hear it makes fish taste better. Pollution travels in the air and water, it does not stay in one place. How do you keep the pollution from one state from rolling into the next, turning our country into one giant mess? That is why we have a federal administration that keeps the entire country in check. If you have a better solution please share because if it were left to the individual states we would have an uninhabitable country. Look up tragidy of the commons.
Sort of funny…Government Motors took over CAMI—a GM/Suzuki venture—just as CAMI recalled all shifts and GM begins to produce the Equinox/Terain at the idle Oshawa works as well. The bottom line is that they are having difficulty building Quinox/Terain fast enough. The market has spoken.