Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Exactly. There are many localized pollution situations across the planet that can be remedied quite quickly. Acid Rain in the Adirondacks was just such a situation a while back and is now come back as a bad nightmare for the Northwestern United States and Canada via China's coal emissions. All this is readily identifiable and CAN be (Mother Earth Time) quickly controlled. Even without control, Mother Nature quickly cleans and by quickly I mean YOU will be dead and long gone before you see her housekeeping efforts.
I have now concluded for myself that anthropogenic global warming is the biggest Wild West Medicine Show ever concocted and Dr. Feelgood, after all the fan-fare and curative powers of the kyoto elixer are celebrated and sold, will quietly leave town in the wee hours of the morning with a tidy little profit.
Just one volcano.. Just one. Doesn't even have to be that big... Screw up your food supply (and air) for decades but what will really suck - it'll leave a ton of soot on your SUV.... DARN!!!!!
Well, there is only one "right way" to conserve and be less of a polluter - and that's to do things which reduce your own personal fossil fuel burning and reduce your automobile exhaust pollution.
I don't think we should "go crazy" with no regard to the economics involved either. But research and money should be used to see what we reasonably do as a country, and as individuals also, to lessen the negative environmental impacts of our own consumption.
However, there are those in Government, Religion and would-be manipulators who seem hell-bent on forcing us into "their" solutions. Reasons tend to be the same old ones; money and/or power. I personally do not believe that mankind is the major Climate Change driver; it's part of the natural cycle of this ball of rock and the star we revolve around. However, reducing our use of all our resources seems like a sound plan for each and every one of us and I'm doing what I reasonably can. Of course, what I consider reasonable may be wildly at odds with others' perception of that word's meaning. That's life; I've learned to live with it. I do take exception, though, to the doomsayers who insist that theirs is the only truth and to gainsay it makes me some sort of eco-terrorist. The more they proclaim "We right, You wrong" the more the debate becomes polarised and the less tolerant folk become...............understandably.
India and China not buying into anything that dents their economies ? Good heavens, what a surprise. U.K. bought into Kyoto, USA Didn't but I don't see the U.K. doing a whole lot more than America to reduce CO2 usage as a result, other than raise taxes of course, (and that money goes where ? Civil Servants' pensions ? War ? No idea. Certainly not sound environmental projects). To me, the result of signing or not appears to be about the same and our politicians wonder why we treat them with such cynicism.
Could ramble on forever but I'd only further reinforce my GOM status, (Grumpy Old Man).
Let each do what he feels able, providing he is not positively harming someone else. (Oh dear, that looks like a whole new can of garden wriggly things).
Trying to keep this real easy - if I use less gas than you am i green?
Also if saving the "earf" is your priority why did you not buy the highest MPG car you could find? There are hybrid that get better MPG
We have averaged 5189 miles per year on our Lexus LS400 at about 19 MPG, for over 18 years. Where do we fit into the Global Warming cult? When I sold my Suburban I had nearly 7000 miles per year on it. I wonder how these people with 30k miles per year can sleep at night knowing they are raising the ocean level at such an alarming rate?
I'll use my personal situation as an example of how one person can do their share of green living.
Recycle like a madman.
Keep your A/C in your home at 83 in the summer and at 69 in the winter.
Drive a fuel-efficient vehicle, or as a good substitute a PZEV rated car.
Don't waste fuel on short trips - ride a bike or walk.
Care about reducing your own waste in all areas where you consume, and think about when you are being wasteful and consider ways to cut the waste.
Always have conservation at the front of your mind, not tucked in behind all the day's troubles.
Never allow your car to idle for more than a minute.
Take a city bus every now and then for your commute just to save even more fuel.
Carpool when you can. Almost all major city has car pool programs which allow you to find a partner who leaves from where you leave at the time you leave and returns home the time you return home.
Use "car-share" programs in big cities and ditch your own personal vehicle if you live very close to work. For any long trips, rent a small car.
Let your kids take the bus to school instead of driving them yourself. It's good for them socially and it conserves fuel.
Be the facist in your family who tries to keep everyone focused on conservation.
Those are just some of the things I do.
Good luck.
P.S. My first hybrid was a Civic Hybrid manual shift that was getting 48.1 MPG for the 28,000 miles I owned it. I bought a Camry Hybrid mostly on a whim and am now getting 35.1 in my this car for the 26,500 miles I have driven it so far. It's virtually as clean as the HCH was, since it's AT-PZEV, and I have averaged about the same miles per year. My kids needed a little more wiggle room in back, as they are growing up. I'm waiting for the diesel hybrid sedan which gets 70+ MPG or a Volt or something cleaner than the TCH before I change cars again.
Gary, I do hope you weren't talking about me.
I agree with your conservation ideas. If you ride a bike or the Segway to work how in the world did you put that many miles on the Camry Hybrid? I have 3 vehicles that I have put less than 8k miles total in that same time frame. I would not have put that many except for our trip per day the last 5 months moving 15 miles away. I believe that is in less than one year. How do you justify that many miles driving?
I disagree with putting your children on a school bus. I know here they are all still very dirty diesels and a big daily charge to ride them. Most parents deliver and PU at my grandson's school. Makes for a mess in the parking area. With all the wackos and wierdos allowed on the street it is the only safe way to protect your children.
You forgot the most important thing in conservation. Growing your own fruit and vegetables. I know it can be done year round in your area as well as mine. That saves on the environment, acts as a carbon sink and you eat a lot healthier. We have very little to recycle as we do not drink soda or anything that comes in cans. About once a year I get a case of water from Costco and use the plastic bottles till they wear out filled from our own filtered water. We also have cloth bags for grocery shopping. About once a year we drop off whatever plastic bags that have accumulated at Von's. I do have a stash of empty wine bottles that I would like to build with some day.
PS
I would never talk about you behind your back my friend :shades:
Why did you buy a Camry instead of the Prius. Was it because they are just too ugly? We are talking 227 gallons of gas wasted in the Camry over driving a Prius.
I go to Texas twice a year and those trips are about 2500 each. I have made four of those trips since I bought the car, so there is 10K of the miles. I also had a 1500 mile trip to San Francisco and a couple of long weekenders in AZ which totaled 600 miles. So take all that out and the average is about 685 miles a month in the 21 months I have owned the car, with almost none of that being my commute miles, since I rarely if ever take the TCH to work. I take the bus to work on most days when I cannot take the Segway or the bike.
Right now the TCH gets about 110 miles a week on it with my Mom (she is living with us until June of this year) taking my daughter to school and back. The rest of the miles are just driving around Phoenix to various family entertainment events on weekends.
Gary says, "I disagree with putting your children on a school bus.
My son gets on the bus 75 feet from my front door, and my Mom watches him get on the bus. Ours is almost the last stop, and he gets to school 20 minutes later. His school district has a no-nonsense policy on the bus riders, so they kids behave. He is not in contact with the public at all during the whole trip.
Gary says, "You forgot the most important thing in conservation. Growing your own fruit and vegetables."
Well, living in the city, that's not really much of an option for me. I have one little 10' by 5' strip of hard clay ground in my backyard which I could use to grow something if I dug out about the top 18" and replaced it with growable soil. I have thought about tomatoes out there and might do that someday.
Gary says, "Why did you buy a Camry instead of the Prius. Was it because they are just too ugly? We are talking 227 gallons of gas wasted in the Camry over driving a Prius."
I did not really even seriously consider the Prius. I had already owned a "high-mileage" Hybrid and wanted to try something a little bigger and more stable. The TCH was new and I got it for a good price ($26K). I certainly could have gotten the job done with a Prius. Probably from a conservation standpoint the TCH was not the best option, but it was a hybrid and AT-PZEV.
The EPA specifications for diesel test fuel require sulfur content of between 7 and 15 ppm. The ULSD spec is 15 ppm, thus the test fuel is indeed the same as ULSD requirement.
So the current EPA tests ARE using ULSD fuel.
How about that?
Once again, a seriously flawed analogy. Smoking provides no utility. A larger, more powerful vehicle does.
larsb: Accordingly and hopefully, in the future, people who don't know how to purchase a more efficient, lower polluting vehicle will be instructed on how to do it and maybe regulated into doing so by the guvmint forcing automakers to make cars more efficient and cleaner.
Cars are already very clean, so that is a red herring.
"Efficiency" means different things to different people.
For me, an efficient car is one that can travel safely at 80+ mph while providing the room, comfort and noise/vibration/harshness suppression that will make the trip enjoyable.
Fuel efficiency is important - I don't want to get 12 mpg on the highway - but I'm not sacrificing those attributes to get 40 mpg. Your views may vary. That does not make those views correct.
larsb: This might sound bad, and I'm sure I'll take grief about saying it, but it's nonetheless true - I can't help it - facts are facts: Too many people are too stupid to find out about what's good for them, and it's the job of the people who are not too stupid to pass the message on to them.
When I find people who are better informed on the subject matter at hand I do listen to them...but first, they must prove that they are better informed on the subject matter at hand.
That doesn't make me stupid, although, having worked in the public policy and government arena, I do note that when someone calls someone else "stupid," that is usually a codeword for, "Has the gall to disagree with me on the subject matter at hand."
Generally, calling people "stupid" does not make them more likely to listen to your message, whether on this board, or in real life.
larsb: It's nothing new, folks !! Y'all are acting like no one ever tried to give people good advice before !!
There is a huge difference between giving someone advice and asking government to shove it down their throats via regulations and statutes. When people resist your advice for perfectly logical reasons, you advocate the second course of action - hence, the resistance to what you are saying.
I have 3 little plastic bags a week all sorted.
Keep your A/C in your home at 83 in the summer and at 69 in the winter.
I have an AC in the wall that is never used. My heat is set for 65F in winter. My electric bill is $25/month in the summer; and $35 in the winter which includes my heat. This does not include hot-water which is in the rent.
Drive a fuel-efficient vehicle, or as a good substitute a PZEV rated car.
My commute is Never allow your car to idle for more than a minute.
In northern climates you need to warmup the engine and get heat to defrost the windows. That takes 5-10/min each morning.
Take a city bus every now and then for your commute just to save even more fuel.
No city bus available. I will not bike or walk if it is below 40F, icy, or chance of thunderstorms and rain.
Let your kids take the bus to school instead of driving them yourself. It's good for them socially and it conserves fuel.
The single worst thing you can do that creates waste and use of resources is - have kids. Which of course goes back to the paradox that the only way for us not to change the environment is not exist.
But don't worry, I'm not going to get all upset with you for not being green - having kids. I don't have trouble sleeping at night like you must, knowing that you're creating a need for a dirty diesel school-bus.
-Rocky
Time flies around here. I was thinking you only had the TCH for a year. That is not too bad for nearly two years. My apology for any disparaging remarks. I would take the TCH over the Prius any day. Unless I had an all city 30 mile commute. :sick:
Get a couple big clay pots. Not Mexican. Ones with glazing on the inside. Then plant some cherry tomato plants. You will have fresh tomatoes year round. And they are especially good for men.
He may be gone from here but not forgotten. I am waiting for you to see through his GW schemes.
-Rocky
Dubya and Cheney, would disagree with you !!! There pay checks from Halliburton, Blackwater, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Big Oil/Gas, Bin Laden Family, will be in the mail February 2009.
-Rocky
Let's see, take a stiff wooden politician and let him put on slide shows. Next thing you know he's got a Nobel, an Emmy and an Oscar. There may be hope for me yet. :P
In auto-related global warming news, "electric car company Fisker Automotive Inc. has received more than $10 million from Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. Fisker unveiled its first car, the Fisker Karma, at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit. The four-door plug-in hybrid premium sports sedan will have a starting price of $80,000. Initial deliveries of the Karma will commence in the 4th quarter of 2009 with annual production projected to reach 15,000 cars." link
Oh yeah, Al is a partner in Kleiner Perkins.
I think the Karma is more practical than the Tesla. I would not park it in my garage plugged in. I don't like being woke up by a fire alarm. Trying to rush Li-Ion into production will not make the technology safe.
PS
I thought those 1970s conferences were on Global Cooling pushed by that wannabe scientist Carl Sagan.
The price is a bit rich for my blood anyway at $80 grand.
I think this is registration WSJ link, but it talks about toxic battery production in China - cadmium batteries. "This year, the European Union is banning the sale of nearly all cadmium batteries.The near-disappearance of the American cadmium-battery industry can be understood from a visit to an overgrown field in Cold Spring, N.Y. Here, the Marathon Battery factory churned out nickel-cadmium batteries for the U.S. military for three decades. After the plant was shuttered in 1979, the cadmium-laden ground became one of the nation's highest-profile superfund sites, sparking a $130 million clean-up and a class-action lawsuit by nearby residents that was settled for millions of dollars in 1998."
Have to wonder how toxic the production of lithium batteries is.
I think it is bad enough that they will not be built in the USA. Same goes for the current NiMH batteries. Add to that the mercury in the new mandated CFL light bulbs and I would say that China's future is secured. It will be the pollution disposal site for the USA. I say if it cannot be manufactured here under out EPA regulations, it should not be allowed into the country.
Tell me do folks glow in the dark up near all those nuclear test sites? :sick:
later
caaz
Your views are way off base.
The warming is proven. The trend is proven.
The CAUSE is the only question. Natural? Man-Enhanced?
On the real topic; I also thought we were in a cooling phase and overdue an Ice Age. Please guys, stop talking about Global Warming. It's dead. It's called Climate Change now - and that can cover just anything they want it to........and more properly Anthropogenic Climate Change so that it can be attributed solely to mankind's activities. Smart huh ? Who they ? The tax collectors and control freaks; i.e. 99.9% of the world's governments.
When are we going to take back our control of Government - you know; of the people, for the people, by the people. Whatever happened to that idea, I wonder.
Oooops. Sorry, wrong Forum.
Still can't get over that Karma grille, though. :lemon:
But who's to say that since we are in an era when CO2 increases are higher than they have EVER BEEN in history, that this will not affect world climates?
We don't have anything to compare today to in regard to CO2 proliferation.
And I could care less about the political implications of global warming. I just care about the science and the affect on the planet we are in charge of stewarding.
"The data indicates that between 45 - 34 million years ago the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was up to five times greater than today, with a sharp decrease and then stabilization to near modern day levels between 34 - 25 million years ago."
http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2005/06/23/deep_sea_algae_connect_ancient_cl- - - - imate_carbon_dioxide_and_vegetation.html
I just care about the science ...
If you cared about science, you'd get your facts straight; and not listen to someone who picks and chooses pieces of data to support their predetermined, biased position.
...planet we are in charge of stewarding.
Not to get religious here, but where do you get that "we are in charge" idea from? I'd say with our limited technological and intellectual ability, and relatively little power relative to Nature, we're just along for the ride on this planet. We can't control the weather, change the rotation or orbit of the planet, protect ourselves from asteroids, stop volcanoes/earthquakes, or continental plate movement, or control solar activity, so i don't know how we could be stewards of the planet. Preposterous!
Just to have a "mad 5-minutes"; are you sure we're supposed to be stewarding the planet ? How do we know that's not the insects' role ? They've been around a lot longer than us poor Johnny-come-lately's and will probably (?) be around after the next iteration of primates have replaced us. Maybe I'm just reading too much Dawkins, eh. Just a thought.
Keep smiling; at least that's still free and isn't known to release CO2.
I just think it's ridiculous to say, "Oh, well, Little Old Man could NEVER POSSIBLY impact this huge planet not matter WHAT we do. Waste all you want, pollute all you want, be damned the consequences !!!" Which to me sounds like what some of the GW deniers are trumpeting.
We are stewards of this planet in the regard that we are in charge of taking care of it for the sake of our own comfort and making it a livable place. Why do we have water treatment plants? Why do we have landfills? Why do we have re-forestation programs and clean water programs and water conservation programs? Why do we have recycling programs? Superfund cleanup programs? Garbage collection? Burn bans? The EPA? Regulations regarding fishing and hunting? Endangered species lists?
All those and thousands of more programs like that in this country and around the world are to make sure that we keep the planet livable and make sure we don't kill ourselves with our own excrement and pollution.
Anyone who thinks the planet would be livable for all the people on the planet now and those to come in the next 50-75 years, in the current comfort and relative safety and freedom from disease which we enjoy in any civilized society on this planet, WITHOUT programs like those I mentioned above, well, you are just not informed enough or are too young to have thought it out properly.
So i'm for making it as pleasant of an experience as possible. i will try not to waste valuable resources and take care of the environment as much as possible. But i will not lose sleep over it either, since it is out of our hands..I agree with Alltorque...We have much more important current issues to deal with. i.e. The political agenda, crime, pornography, the evil corrupt media , wars etc. etc.
I'd rather spend my time working on these areas of urgent need.
I'd rather spend time raising my family with values, integrity, honor....things which for the most part have been devalued and forgotten in our society.... Lol i didn't think i was that serious of a person to say all that....but its true.... Now lets get back to our forums and having friendly, fun arguments re; automobiles........lol
later
Caaz
Kernick - ditto.
Gagrice and Larsb - always good to read your posts.
Some voices of reason, (amongst many).
Now how could I answer that? But in the case of mentioning the highest CO2 levels EVER, I do know you are either 1) being TOLD a partial-truth as the real truth is the last approx. 800,000 years - which is a small amount of time in the history of the Earth, 2) reading an article incorrectly, or the author is misleading you by not mentioning the past beyond 800,000 years, or 3) you are simply posting these things and thinking no one is going to challenge the credibility of what you post.
So after seeing my link, and I'm sure we could find many others going back over the many, many millions of years, do your think your statement was wrong? Do you then see why we don't believe what you post? and feel your misinformed? and thus reaching wrong conclusions based on incorrect and incomplete data and facts?
taking care of it for the sake of our own comfort and making it a livable place.
Yes I agree with that - we do it for mankind, to make the planet a better place for mankind. We do not do environmental projects for the good of the Earth or nature. We do them for ourselves.
would be livable for all the people on the planet now and those to come in the next 50-75 years,
But why are you only concerned with such a short-time frame? If you're truly thinking of the future, you need to look forward hundreds and thousands of years. And if you do so you see that conservation of fossil fuels, say a great 25% reduction, does not make much difference. If the world has 200 years of fossil fuels, conservation means that we would then have 250 years by saving 25%. That is hardly a solution, and you come to the same point where all the CO2 is released from that fuel. The only difference is that it is a little slower.
To use an analogy like you like to use - it is like a smoker who smokes slower vs. a smoker who "drags" on the cigarette and makes it burn faster. The cigarette is burnt and the smoke is in the air. Unless we get a different energy source than fossil fuels they all get burnt, we can change the end date a little bit 1 way or the other and that's it!
Carbon dioxide levels are now 27 percent higher than at any point in the last 650,000 years, accodring to research into Antarctic ice cores published in November 2005 in Science.
Analysis of carbon dioxide in the ancient Antarctic ice showed that at no point in the past 650,000 years did levels approach today's carbon dioxide concentrations of around 380 parts per million (ppm).
Since 2000, CO2 emissions worldwide -- as measured by hundreds of sensors in dozens of countries -- have accelerated, growing at three times the rate observed during the 1990s, an international research team led by the Global Carbon Project reported in May in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Geochemists Chart
Carbon-Dioxide Levels
At 650,000-Year High
December 14, 2007
More than two miles above the Pacific surf, at the summit of the world's largest volcano, the evidence of human influence on global warming is in the air.
For a half century, sensors atop Mauna Loa on the island of Hawaii have captured the world-wide signature of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, due largely to burning coal, oil and natural gas. The carbon dioxide traps heat. For 50 years, these CO2 readings, known as the Keeling Curve, have been climbing steadily, setting and then breaking a new record every 12 months or so
Global concentrations of CO2 in 2006, not surprisingly then, reached the highest level since the record-keeping began in 1958, the World Meteorological Organization recently announced in its annual greenhouse-gas bulletin. Based on samples from 40 countries, the level of carbon dioxide in the air reached 381.2 parts per million, up fractionally from 2005 -- concentrations not seen in 650,000 years, scientists said.
So, if you believe that CO2 levels affect the weather, then we are indeed at a point where CO2 levels are at a very high threshold and rising.
Maybe CO2 has no effect on global weather. The scientific jury is divided on that issue right now.
In the interest of balance (Gary) here is this report:
400+ Prominent scientists debunk Global Warming in Senate report Dec 20 2007
I appreciate the report from 400 real scientists. I believe a few those went to Bali to try and hammer a little reason into the heads of state that were already brainwashed by Gore's movie and those reports that were doctored by politicians.
No it wasn't. It was several good examples of how government agencies are doing GOOD for all of us. Look at that list and see if you think we would be better off if no one was managing those projects.
If no one was collecting garbage, or managing water resources, or worrying about clean air.
Those things being "gone" would not be a good thing. Government is not "all evil all the time."
No it really isn't when you're talking about the history of the Earth. Iy is about 1/6000th. Or if you just want to consider life on Earth it is about 1/1500th.
lars: then we are indeed at a point where CO2 levels are at a very high threshold and rising.
Yes they are rising; but when you say very high I disagree. You think it is very high because of what you are comparing it to. I just posted an article that said the Earth's atmosphere was 5X higher in CO2. I saw a Science or Discovery Channel show a few months ago, where they described how the atmosphere was once so rich in oxygen that when lightning struck the air literally ignited in fireballs. We are far from being in either extreme.
And there is nothing we're going to do about the burning of fossil fuels, until we get some other energy source. Do you think it makes much difference if we conserve and make 200 years of fossil fuel last 250 years? No.
The hope for the future either lies in a major, major breakthrough in capturing solar energy, using geothermal, a revolutionary physics breakthrough, or nuclear fusion. The hope for the future has to be something new. Just like our ancestors had to find some alternative to using whale oil before the whales ran out.
In my neck of the woods I run the heat Mid- Nov to Mid late march, no need for climate control in the summer.
Also recycle as much as I can.
Take a vanpool to work 4 of the 5 days.
Wife drives less than 5 miles each way,
Grandma looks after our son during the day and walks the two blocks to our home.
So given all that if we choose an SUV as one of two cars I think we are doing pretty good.
In all seriousness though, how do you justify your stance on cars and still live in the Desert? IT would seem that somebody who is convinced that man has such a big negative impact on the "earf" would not want to live in AZ - Just the climate control required out way any savings from your TCH.
Also how do you justify the Camry? Seems like you made a trade off size vs MPG you don't want the rest of us to make?
All the pollution from the batteries and the electric motor construction!!! Just think about the environmental damage!!!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That don't count because it is spewed in China not the USA. That and if you drive enough miles it catches up. Wait that is only true if you compare a PZEV hybrid to a non PZEV ICE only car. A Hybrid will go to the crusher with more total pollution than a PZEV VW or BMW. And if CO2 is still considered bad, you can drive a Jetta TDI that does not put out as much CO2 as many hybrids.
Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust." (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)
This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new "consensus busters" report is poised to redefine the debate.
Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.
So, I never said "everyone should buy a Honda Fit or a Yaris." My advice is to buy the vehicle which the the SMALLEST and/or MOST FUEL EFFICIENT and which will still be large enough to do the job for your family.
( By the way: If the entire population of the USA bought a TCH, we would be living in a vastly different country. )
No one needs a Hummer, which is a pure show-off toy. Very, Very few families need a Suburban. Many, MANY families who have an SUV could easily trade down to a 5-passenger family sedan and still have their transportation needs met.
That's what I'm saying - "Don't own a lower mileage/higher polluting vehicle than what you absolutely must have to move your family around."
I know from whence I come. I have been the "stupid guy" that I am warning other people not to be. In my last marriage I made the mistake of trading a 1996 Camry for a 1997 Suburban and getting eaten up by gas money and a substantially larger car payment. I compounded that problem by trading the Suburban when I was WAY upside-down and ended up paying $47,000 for a Chevy Avalanche. I ended up leasing that Avalanche to another family and still paying $300 a month of the payment for 28 months while I was not even driving the vehicle, and making a payment on my HCH the whole time.
I have BEEN one of the families which bought too much car for their needs and ended up paying dearly for it.
I know what I'm talking about.
I have BEEN one of the families which bought too much car for their needs and ended up paying dearly for it.
I know what I'm talking about.
You are mixing apples and oranges. You are urging people to buy the smallest vehicles possible, presumably to use as little gasoline as possible, but your example shows that one should not buy an expensive vehicle with a purchase price higher than what montly income can support. If you has substituted "BMW 3-Series" or "Acura RL" for "Suburban" and "Avalanche," you would have had the same result, even though the BMW and Acura get better gas mileage, because they are also pricey.
I think you are mistaking poor economic decisions as poor environmental decisions. I have been the victim of my own lust for having things that I could not afford. First we should look at what is practical. If you have 3 or more children a Suburban can be a very practical vehicle. Same can be said for a Mini van. Then you have the comfort angle to look at. I am never real comfortable on the freeway in a smaller car like a Camry or even our Lexus. I like to see way down the road to avoid hazards that are impossible to see in any sedan. For short trips to the store most anything is fine. An EV would suffice if they were legal or close to practical. Those are all economic or personal choices for what we drive.
From an environmental position we have, as you pointed out many times, Lots of RULES to govern what we can drive. I would be very happy driving an Explorer size SUV with a small diesel engine. I would most likely get 35 MPG on the highway. Our government in all its ignorance says you want a diesel buy a BIG PU truck. If you like driving a large SUV buy a gas guzzling SUV. So those are the options our government have given US. Are they the best from an environmental point of view. No, they are not. It is all laid out by politicians, each with an agenda. Some want clean air at any cost. Some want more taxes and push the automakers to make more gas guzzlers. Take your pick. I have learned to buy what I have the cash to buy. Then the gas bill does not affect me or my decision.
To say "no one needs a Hummer" is not a very well thought out statement. The people that bought our 400 acre ranch, here in San Diego, totally trashed an Acura MDX in a year on the 2.7 miles of fire road going up to the Ranch. They bought a Hummer 3 and love it. Much better built for rugged roads than the Acura. There is, no one size fits all, except in your mind. And if everyone drove a TCH it would be one ugly road full of cars. No offense. That is the ugliest Camry yet.
If you reduce the size of your vehicle, in almost every case you can at the same time reduce your monthly payment. Not in every case, but in almost every case, assuming you are buying new cars. That's win number one.
And you will always be reducing your monthly gasoline/diesel fuel payout. That's win number two.