Can Anybody Tell Me How SUV's are a Danger to the Environment?
- Thread starter 1X83Z
- 42 comments
- 1,315 views
- 9,899
Air Pollution, Noise Pollution, Use Too Much Fossil Fuel
Air pollution? Name me an SUV (for sale currently) that's not at least a low-emission vehicle.
Noise pollution? Since when is that an environmental problem? Even if it was, most SUV's are more quiet than loud modified Hondas and Vipers.
Uses too much fossil fuel? So what? The fossil fuel comes from uninhabitable deserts in the MidEast, for one. Also, there's more cars (that use more fossil fuel) on the road than SUV's and trucks combined, and, on a personal note, your Viper gets worse gas mileage than any SUV for sale now.
Noise pollution? Since when is that an environmental problem? Even if it was, most SUV's are more quiet than loud modified Hondas and Vipers.
Uses too much fossil fuel? So what? The fossil fuel comes from uninhabitable deserts in the MidEast, for one. Also, there's more cars (that use more fossil fuel) on the road than SUV's and trucks combined, and, on a personal note, your Viper gets worse gas mileage than any SUV for sale now.
- 9,899
*EDITED* by me cause I wrote something bad about M5 and he's not worth the trouble
- 9,899
thats great, the fall under the regulations, but thats not what you asked, you wanted to know how they are a enviromental threat and THEY DO POLLUTE, thats how
Why are you bringing my Viper into this? I never said that SUV's are the only ones making noise pollution so chill out. And ANY kind of pollution be it noise or air is bad for the environment, and thats again what you were asking us to post.
Again attacking me and my car, why, I dunno (maybe your just jealous and petty).
This isnt about me and my car so throw your personal **** out the window, for the last time I will say that YOU asked us how a SUV pollutes the environment and using up a lot of fuel is another way.Chill Out Spazz, I didnt do anything but reply to your thread
- 9,899
im not even gonna bother reading your reply to this M5 cause its worthless to me cause all i ever did was answer your stupid question in the first place, so say what you want to make yourself feel better and smarter, than have a nice cry and get over it
No, not the regulations. 'Low-emission vehicle' is a classification based on the amount of emissions coming out of the car. SUV's and cars are about the same as far as actually pollution/emission, so this argument is null.
I said 'a danger to the environment.'
Again attacking me and my car, why, I dunno (maybe your just jealous and petty).
Apparently you believe you're the only person with a Viper. It isn't personal, so don't flatter yourself, and I do not like the Dodge Viper. I'm also not jealous of anything that a person did not buy with his own hard work, under any circumstances.
You say that SUV's use up a lot of fuel. Well, yes, some do. A danger to the environment? Well, it's the SUV owner who's buying the gasoline. Why should car drivers complain if an SUV driver wants to spend his or her money for gasoline? Invalid argument.
Chill Out Spazz, I didnt do anything but reply to your thread
I merely refuted your arguments, but for some reason you got angry and resorted to stupid personal insults. Not that I care. Just trying to correct incorrect arguments, that's all.
Originally posted by Rumple Foreskin
im not even gonna bother reading your reply to this M5 cause its worthless to me cause all i ever did was answer your stupid question in the first place, so say what you want to make yourself feel better and smarter, than have a nice cry and get over it
I have no idea why you reacted the way you reacted. You need to try and stop taking everything as personally as you've just done, and reply to my arguments rather than to your judgements on my character.
- 9,899
No its not null, low emissions are STILL emissions, so therefore they are dangerous to the environment
Noise pollution is a danger cause it affects animals and humans very much. No animals are gonna live next to a highway where there is tons of noise, they dont like the noise and it drives them backoff there land and further into forests. Noise pollution is also destroying peoples ears. I read some stuff about how peoples hearing ability is going down and deafness is on the rise because of everyday noise pollution. Yes SUV's are not the only ones making noise pollution, but this thread isnt about every car, you wanted to know specifically about SUV's.
Not invalid, you wanted to know how SUV's pollute and they pollute by using alot of Fossil Fuels, i dont see how thatis invalid
I didnt resort to personal insults cause you mademe mad, YOU made this personal when you said " On A Personal note you drive a Viper" then started attacking me
- 9,899
Originally posted by M5Power
I have no idea why you reacted the way you reacted. You need to try and stop taking everything as personally as you've just done, and reply to my arguments rather than to your judgements on my character.
LOL, see, your so full of it
YOU attacked me personally first by saying stuff about me and my Viper, stop talking out your ass man
Fair point, except that cars emit more toxins simply because there are more cars on the road.
Also a fair point, but there's always question about how much truth that has to it - animals hearing cars rushing by are going to be affected, but to what environmental degree? And are trees or grass? The people who were damaging SUV's in Richmond probably own cars themselves, and of course cars have noise as well, so to blame SUV's only for it is absurd.
Because the SUV owner is the one buying the gas. If he wants to spend his money to feed his huge, 9 MPG SUV, why shouldn't he be allowed to?
When?
Originally posted by Rumple Foreskin
YOU attacked me personally first by saying stuff about me and my Viper, stop talking out your ass man
Personalising it about your car makes it easier to relate to, obviously. I didn't know you'd get so totally defensive, but I guess that's the way you are. When did I say anything about you?
- 9,899
Fair point, except that cars emit more toxins simply because there are more cars on the road.
But what i am saying is that this thread isnt about other cars, you wanted to talk only bout SUV's so I am
If your effecting animals then you are effecting the environment, maybe 1 tree doesnt get affected, but what about that bird that used to live in that tree
He should be allowed to, thats not my arguement. i am saying by burning that fossil fuel he makes pollution
- 6,977
- old-guy64
Ok, neutral corners guys.
The reason that SOME folks feel that SUVs are a "danger to the environment" is because of the idiots that actually take them off-road and get off the beaten track and crush foliage and scare the animals, and occasionally cause fires by not being careful with their hot exhaust pipes.
Some Off-roaders are not nice to the environment. They are the danger to the environment.
Most SUVs never turn a wheel in dirt. They are only dangerous due to the cell-phone talking, oblivious to the rest of the world, driver that is blocking my view of the traffic ahead.
The reason that SOME folks feel that SUVs are a "danger to the environment" is because of the idiots that actually take them off-road and get off the beaten track and crush foliage and scare the animals, and occasionally cause fires by not being careful with their hot exhaust pipes.
Some Off-roaders are not nice to the environment. They are the danger to the environment.
Most SUVs never turn a wheel in dirt. They are only dangerous due to the cell-phone talking, oblivious to the rest of the world, driver that is blocking my view of the traffic ahead.
- 9,899
I'm chilled now Gil, I never really was worked up , just having a bit of a quarell
Originally posted by Rumple Foreskin
I understand, but to pin the blame entirely on SUV's for a joint problem isn't fair to SUV drivers.
Yeah, but that's getting too exact. Noise pollution comes from all over - perhaps SUV drivers should rebel against car drivers, or we should all rebel against airplanes and airports, the real transportation noisemaker.
He should be allowed to, thats not my arguement. i am saying by burning that fossil fuel he makes pollution
Well, of course he does, but so do drivers of any motor vehicle, including gas-powered R/C cars and scooters. The thing is that SUV's are usually classified as 'low emission vehicles' (LEVs) along with most cars and trucks, and some SUV's (I think the CR-V might be) are even classified as 'Ultra Low Emission Vehicles' (ULEVs) so the danger to the environment by burning the gas is minimal and matched by other motorists driving 'standard cars.'
- 9,899
I know that SUV's are not soley responsible for any 1 of the things being discussed. All I did was merely point out ways that they actually do affect the environment. I am not blaming any 1 thing on SUV's, but this thread is just about them so I gave specific examples of how they contribute to the problem.
Yeah, but more and more SUV's are being built in a way that they can't be taken off-road. Some people don't understand that in general, station wagons aren't produced anymore and if people want a rear area, they have to buy an SUV whether they like it or not. People just get scared by the ground clearance and feel threatened, in my "opinion."
Sage
Staff Emeritus
- 12,533
- United States
- GTP_Sage
IMO, SUV's aren't a danger to the environment because of emissions, etc... it's already been said many times that their standards are close enough to cars to make a negible difference.
However, my main argument against them is their MPG... or lack thereof. SUVs are big machines, and big machines equals greater gas consumption. To put it in simple words, they're inefficient compared to their car counterparts... most of the larger station wagons have similiar amounts of storage, and they get much more miles per gallon... our Outback gets about 26 mpg, and its butt holds plenty more than we need, and my mom is notorious for being everything anywhere she goes.
Also, they're a hazhard (sp?) to smaller cars. It's a given fact that the higher a vehicle is off of the ground, the more damage it can create to a smaller vehicle, plus, since they have a much greater mass, that means even more damage to the other car. That's all pure, undeniable physics.
However, my main argument against them is their MPG... or lack thereof. SUVs are big machines, and big machines equals greater gas consumption. To put it in simple words, they're inefficient compared to their car counterparts... most of the larger station wagons have similiar amounts of storage, and they get much more miles per gallon... our Outback gets about 26 mpg, and its butt holds plenty more than we need, and my mom is notorious for being everything anywhere she goes.
Also, they're a hazhard (sp?) to smaller cars. It's a given fact that the higher a vehicle is off of the ground, the more damage it can create to a smaller vehicle, plus, since they have a much greater mass, that means even more damage to the other car. That's all pure, undeniable physics.
Having read through the tripe that is the first half of this thread, I have only this to say: THHHPPPPHTBT!! [Ack! Thhbbt!]
SUVs are a trend. Fortunately, trends are ephemeral. Unfortunately, "large cars" are a cyclical trend. Same thing happened 25 years ago, until Darth Nader shook his fist and wagged his finger and made congress give in, creating new legislation on emissions, pollution, car size & safety.... [See: http://www.votenader.org/auto.html]
Nader was a whack job. Touched in the head. But a whacko with a conscience. See, he gave a damn about the potential damage human existence can do to its environment. As has been already said, large vehicles require large engines; large engines require large amounts of fuel; mass consumption of fuel creates spoiled deserts, greed, CO, CO2, benzene, toluene, formaldehyde, methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) [See: http://www.aqmd.gov/news1/In_car_facts.htm], soot, acid rain, and contributes greatly to various wars and skirmishes.
Per mile traveled, an SUV consumes far more fuel and creates far more pollution than your average grocery-getting econobox. This wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that more SUVs are replacing those econoboxes...and all they're doing is getting groceries. Of course, SUVs are not polluting at a 2:1 ratio (or anything near it) compared to cars. It's more like 1.4:1, but that's still pretty bad. Expect to see another round of anti-pollution, anti-everything-fun legislation, followed by another set of "Dark Ages" for American car companies while they try and figure it all out again. [For a hint on how things affected them and how long it took, look at the specs of the Mustang from 1972 to 1992.] The Japanese seemed to manage quite well last time, and I imagine they'll do well again. European car makers should do well, too; far better than last time.
Buying SUVs is done under the pretense of safety. Similar logic is used by the NRA, where if everyone has a gun, we'd all be safe. [Believe me; me & my temper are the last duo you'd want sharing space with a ballistic weapon, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.] This logic is flawed in the automotive industry: SUVs are trucks. Trucks are tall. Too tall, in fact, to properly match bumpers with even a large luxury sedan. It also rides over the door crash beams. This is where the term "incompatible" comes in. Basically, SUVs are potential (if accidental and totally passive) hazard in an accident with anything other than an SUV. "So why doesn't everyone else buy a SUV?" Erm, why doesn't everyone else buy a gun? [Or maybe it's just not our style.] Granted, we're comparing apples to oranges, but at least they're both fruits.
SUVs can not only be a danger to other drivers, but to the driver of the SUV himself. [Here's where "rollover" comes in.] Trucks are still tall. While the entire vehicle is scaled up in comparison to a car, it's not totally in proportion. The road clearance is higher, as is the roof compared to the floorpan. This makes for a top-heavy vehicle. At low speeds, modern SUVs drive and feel like a car, but this is misleading. At highway speeds (anything over 40 MPH), physics don't kick in, they never left, and high-speed sharp turns mean this thing ain't going 'round nicely.
BTW: "AWD" does not mean "I can drive on any god damned surface however I god damned please". Ice is ice, and unless you have studded tires, drive like you actually give a hoot. Moron.
I am not condemning SUVs. It's certainly not an emissions issue (not with the way I drive my WRX). SUVs have their place. Just not in suburbia. You need space? Buy a nice E-Class wagon. You need to carry 7 kids? Get a Grand Caravan. Want better all-weather traction? Look up Audi, Subaru, Volvo, Mercedes, BMW, or any number of AWD sedan manufacturers. And if you're wearing really short shorts and absolutely need that SUV to fill the void between your legs, get something that won't kill someone: BMW X5 (lack of rollover), Volvo XC90 (total compatibility), or just move to Canada.
SUVs are a trend. Fortunately, trends are ephemeral. Unfortunately, "large cars" are a cyclical trend. Same thing happened 25 years ago, until Darth Nader shook his fist and wagged his finger and made congress give in, creating new legislation on emissions, pollution, car size & safety.... [See: http://www.votenader.org/auto.html]
Nader was a whack job. Touched in the head. But a whacko with a conscience. See, he gave a damn about the potential damage human existence can do to its environment. As has been already said, large vehicles require large engines; large engines require large amounts of fuel; mass consumption of fuel creates spoiled deserts, greed, CO, CO2, benzene, toluene, formaldehyde, methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) [See: http://www.aqmd.gov/news1/In_car_facts.htm], soot, acid rain, and contributes greatly to various wars and skirmishes.
Per mile traveled, an SUV consumes far more fuel and creates far more pollution than your average grocery-getting econobox. This wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that more SUVs are replacing those econoboxes...and all they're doing is getting groceries. Of course, SUVs are not polluting at a 2:1 ratio (or anything near it) compared to cars. It's more like 1.4:1, but that's still pretty bad. Expect to see another round of anti-pollution, anti-everything-fun legislation, followed by another set of "Dark Ages" for American car companies while they try and figure it all out again. [For a hint on how things affected them and how long it took, look at the specs of the Mustang from 1972 to 1992.] The Japanese seemed to manage quite well last time, and I imagine they'll do well again. European car makers should do well, too; far better than last time.
Buying SUVs is done under the pretense of safety. Similar logic is used by the NRA, where if everyone has a gun, we'd all be safe. [Believe me; me & my temper are the last duo you'd want sharing space with a ballistic weapon, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.] This logic is flawed in the automotive industry: SUVs are trucks. Trucks are tall. Too tall, in fact, to properly match bumpers with even a large luxury sedan. It also rides over the door crash beams. This is where the term "incompatible" comes in. Basically, SUVs are potential (if accidental and totally passive) hazard in an accident with anything other than an SUV. "So why doesn't everyone else buy a SUV?" Erm, why doesn't everyone else buy a gun? [Or maybe it's just not our style.] Granted, we're comparing apples to oranges, but at least they're both fruits.
SUVs can not only be a danger to other drivers, but to the driver of the SUV himself. [Here's where "rollover" comes in.] Trucks are still tall. While the entire vehicle is scaled up in comparison to a car, it's not totally in proportion. The road clearance is higher, as is the roof compared to the floorpan. This makes for a top-heavy vehicle. At low speeds, modern SUVs drive and feel like a car, but this is misleading. At highway speeds (anything over 40 MPH), physics don't kick in, they never left, and high-speed sharp turns mean this thing ain't going 'round nicely.
BTW: "AWD" does not mean "I can drive on any god damned surface however I god damned please". Ice is ice, and unless you have studded tires, drive like you actually give a hoot. Moron.
I am not condemning SUVs. It's certainly not an emissions issue (not with the way I drive my WRX). SUVs have their place. Just not in suburbia. You need space? Buy a nice E-Class wagon. You need to carry 7 kids? Get a Grand Caravan. Want better all-weather traction? Look up Audi, Subaru, Volvo, Mercedes, BMW, or any number of AWD sedan manufacturers. And if you're wearing really short shorts and absolutely need that SUV to fill the void between your legs, get something that won't kill someone: BMW X5 (lack of rollover), Volvo XC90 (total compatibility), or just move to Canada.
- 197
Here are my thoughts. If I hurt your feelings, I'm sorry but you'll get over it.
If SUV's create too much air and noise pollution, then so do most other cars.
Too much noise pollution!! Gimme a break!!! SUV's aren't any louder than cars.
SUV's too big!! People who call the Ford Excursion politcally incorrect because it's too big, are pretty stupid in my opinion. If the Excursion is too big (wich it's not) then so is the Suburban. I mean, look at buses for example. They're quite a bit bigger than any SUV. Sure, they need to hold a lot of people, and so do you if you have a big family. And what if you want to go off-road every once in a while or you need to pull a trailer for your business.
Please, no one flame me. I'm just voicing my opinion like the rest of you.
If SUV's create too much air and noise pollution, then so do most other cars.
Too much noise pollution!! Gimme a break!!! SUV's aren't any louder than cars.
SUV's too big!! People who call the Ford Excursion politcally incorrect because it's too big, are pretty stupid in my opinion. If the Excursion is too big (wich it's not) then so is the Suburban. I mean, look at buses for example. They're quite a bit bigger than any SUV. Sure, they need to hold a lot of people, and so do you if you have a big family. And what if you want to go off-road every once in a while or you need to pull a trailer for your business.
Please, no one flame me. I'm just voicing my opinion like the rest of you.
- 1,695
If you dont understand why something that is BIGGER needs more energy to move and is generally bigger and more expensive then I give up. They are also worse in accidents because they can't stop, swerve out of the way, or even accelerate out of the way as easily as a car. Plus if they hit you they will do WAY more damage than being hit by a car.
I am totally Anti-SUV because they defy all logic in every way that could be conceived.
I am totally Anti-SUV because they defy all logic in every way that could be conceived.
Similar threads
