Driving a gas guzzler? Should we or not?

[midinite]

I'm sure some feathers will be ruffled but the point of discourse is that different opinions (even those we may not like) need to be aired...often we see huge gas guzzlers driving around with just one individual in it.

First of all, if they have the means to pay for the gas its their business, right?

But here is the question - if doing so contributes to the dwindling of resources and essentially harmful to the environment is it right?
Or is it a matter of freedom of choice?

What do you think?

[theveed]

Yes and no... Yes it's their right, but no coz they don't own the environment.... Selfishness and greed kills the earth, not cars...

[artpogi]

I will not delve into the environmental aspect but it's a matter of freedom of choice.

[empy]

mmm...interesting thread. i'll wait to see what ppl say on this matter.

i own two gas guzzlers. but one of them is made by Audi/VW so it must be ok because that company can do no wrong :D

[squala]

mmm...interesting thread. i'll wait to see what ppl say on this matter.

i own two gas guzzlers. but one of them is made by Audi/VW so it must be ok because that company can do no wrong :D

Audi does no wrong? Then how come it's among the top in unreliable cars and not its class?

I also don't see the idea why SUVs don't get gas guzzler tax. If the tax wishes to discourage fuel-inefficient vehicles, then it should be imposed to all vehicles that guzzle gas. While production of supercars and ultra-powerful sedans is being deterred by this, automakers can freely build big 4x4s. It very much defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

Back to topic, the real issue isn't the cars that drink gas, but rather the fact that fossil fuel is getting less and less without being replenished. If no action is taken, all our normal cars will go extinct since there's no more fuel. Even if we can pay for it, there's simply no more source. Whether we drive a gulping American gas SUV or a puny British diesel supermini, supply of fuel is on a continuous decline, so alternative methods, as in a completely different type of fuel (or at least a new, hopefully bottomless source) and not hybrids that still run on fossil fuel, must be found.

[midinite]

Back to topic, the real issue isn't the cars that drink gas, but rather the fact that fossil fuel is getting less and less without being replenished.

Yup it is a finite source. And you are right. It doesn't really matter if one is capable of paying for it once it is gone of what use is it if one had the moeny to pay for it...but the actual autombile that employs an internal combustion engine didn't come to being until fairly recent times (relative to the over-all history of human transport). So maybe a new format will be coming soon. Necessity is, after all, the mother of invention.

[empy]

Audi does no wrong? Then how come it's among the top in unreliable cars and not its class?

I also don't see the idea why SUVs don't get gas guzzler tax. If the tax wishes to discourage fuel-inefficient vehicles, then it should be imposed to all vehicles that guzzle gas. While production of supercars and ultra-powerful sedans is being deterred by this, automakers can freely build big 4x4s. It very much defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

forget about the Audi/VW comment. it was an inside joke na hindi bumenta :down:

the gas guzzler tax loopholes do need work. trucks are exempted from the tax because the gov't didn't want to penalize business owners who needed these rigs to do productive things. now that very few suv's are actually used as work vehicles, they should be considered passenger vehicles that are subject to the same regulations

(actually come to think of it, there was some talk about abolishing that loophole here in the states. ma-check nga yung papeles nung suv ko to see if the tax was paid....)

[niky]

They do have the means, and freedom of choice means you can't really stop them from doing it.

It's not very friendly to the environment, yes, but consider that a huge amount of toxic emissions occur because of other things we do... everytime we turn on the aircon or the washing machine, aside from the impact of soapy waste water and drained coolant, you have to consider that we're using electricity produced, in part, by burning coal.

Or the tailpipe emissions of buses, which are huge diesel guzzlers... especially the dual motor aircon equipped ones, which often go around on off-peak hours carrying less than a dozen passengers, and burning diesel while waiting at stops.

Personally, I think SUVs are useless. But I feel that it's up to SUV users to decide whether or not they really need an SUV, and to act accordingly.

It's kind of difficult to know where to draw the line. I used to live okay by walking to the MRT (takes about 15 minutes), taking the train to the bus station and getting on a (non-waiting-non-malingering) bus, then walking 15 minutes to work. I used to bike, too. But as I get older, I find that I need to go further and further.

By all rights, the most I'd need for work is a bicycle or motorbike... or even a secondhand Kia Pride or Daihatsu Charade. But I got a "compact" car that uses 50% more gas. Knowing this, how can I condemn someone for using a vehicle that uses 100% more gas, when I know I'm still using more gas than I need?

The way people in small cars spit on SUV owners for being selfish, motorbike owners should spit on car owners for being selfish. And bicycle owners should spit on motorbike owners for being selfish, and walkers should spit on bicycle owners for wasting our resources of rubber, metal and oil (lubricants).

And we should all spit on walkers for living so far away from work, and wasting our rubber resources on their shoes.

Yes, SUVs are wasteful... but so are motor vehicles in general.

[Bogeyman]

By all rights, the most I'd need for work is a bicycle or motorbike... or even a secondhand Kia Pride or Daihatsu Charade. But I got a "compact" car that uses 50% more gas. Knowing this, how can I condemn someone for using a vehicle that uses 100% more gas, when I know I'm still using more gas than I need?

Ah, same here.

I own the same vehicle model as my parents-in-law, when we don't exactly have that big a household; meaning that, on average, there are only two people using it every day (driver + 1 passenger). Now, I could easily justify the size of my ride, given that we need the extra capacity for our business venture. And since that is coming to an end real soon, I can reason out that it will still come in handy with a family on the way -- or at the very least, it presents a good case for carpooling.

[Chip]

They do have the means, and freedom of choice means you can't really stop them from doing it.

The way people in small cars spit on SUV owners for being selfish, motorbike owners should spit on car owners for being selfish. And bicycle owners should spit on motorbike owners for being selfish, and walkers should spit on bicycle owners for wasting our resources of rubber, metal and oil (lubricants).

And we should all spit on walkers for living so far away from work, and wasting our rubber resources on their shoes.

Ditto. Besides, before some tree-hugger starts whining about the amount of gas your ride gulps up, why not ask them what their carbon footprint is? (and watch in satisfaction as they scratch their head)

Like niky said, its not only automobiles(although these are the most visible-hence most easily attacked) but its every little thing that contributes to the impact on the environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint

[swordsman]

But here is the question - if doing so contributes to the dwindling of resources and essentially harmful to the environment is it right?
Or is it a matter of freedom of choice?

What do you think?

Freedom of choice! Hehe...

But when the time comes na i see no more buses smoke belching sa EDSA. And Lafayette Mining stopping their mining operations in Rapu-Rapu Islands...i will reconsider

[4wrider]

Ours is a known guzzler but still not too bad compared to much smaller rides. Emission is negligible and so much less than those from poorly maintained smaller cars and public utility vehicles. I drive it mostly when I'm with at least 4 passengers and plan my trips very carefully. I consciously drive with a light foot and very defensively. Net effect, I think I'm a more responsible driver-owner now than when I was driving a diesel with no regard for fuel efficiency.

[tsupermario]

I'm sure some feathers will be ruffled but the point of discourse is that different opinions (even those we may not like) need to be aired...often we see huge gas guzzlers driving around with just one individual in it.

First of all, if they have the means to pay for the gas its their business, right?

But here is the question - if doing so contributes to the dwindling of resources and essentially harmful to the environment is it right?
Or is it a matter of freedom of choice?

What do you think?

i think its a question of whether you care or not.

there's nothing illegal in it but being legal does not mean its morally right.

[theveed]

Unless we live like wild animals again, our everyday tasks are detrimental to the environment hehe...

[Bogeyman]

Even merely breathing is detrimental to the environment -- how we inhale oxygen and spew out carbon dioxide (or methane, depending on which orifice we're talking about). Thank goodness for plants.

[midinite]

Even merely breathing is detrimental to the environment -- how we inhale oxygen and spew out carbon dioxide (or methane, depending on which orifice we're talking about). Thank goodness for plants.

question? do we breathe and exhale more than we need? or one could argue, I need my car so it is my choice whether it is efficient or not? that is what freedom of choice is right? Like should i eat to live or live to eat? many eat more than they should everyday and even foods that are not deemed "good." but that is their choice right? or do they have a choice as they are bombarded with advertising and foods laced with things to make them YUMMY...

just a question to add to the debate...

[niky]

Actually, even wild animals have a negative impact on the environment unless some form of external control is placed upon them by:

-Lack of food
-Predators
-Lack of nesting sites or homes

Given the lack of restrictions, wild animals will expand their territory and numbers until they've destroyed their local ecosystem. Just look at what rabbits are doing to Australia, or what elephants do within the confines of their already limited reserves.

Successful species are destructive to the environment, because they can adapt to use up all available niches and food sources. Humans, even when they were still wearing furs, managed to wipe out a couple of dozen large species already. Nowadays, we're even more effective at killing.

There's no way to have zero impact on the environment, no matter how you live... only ways to minimize it.

So... drive a gas guzzler or not? The best argument is: not using a guzzler saves you money that you can spend on other things. It's a real mystery why it took this long for American SUV owners to realize this.

[coiter]

freedom of choice. but, as with all other freedoms, this is not absolute.

right now, madami pa namang gasolina. its just the situation that's driving up prices. so if they can afford it, let them be. i just dont want to hear the owners complain about the costs or start hoarding to the detriment of others. or even steal from others just to satisfy their craving.

[ILuvDetailing]

Interesting topic, its a freedom of choice, there is no right or wrong only consequences.

[badkuk]

imho, kung finite resource ang pinag uusapan, we should all bear some responsibility. pero , once cars can run on renewables -- ethanol, solar power, etc -- hala, sige, kahit ethanol version ng bugatti veyron e ok lang!