SUV's good for the planet??

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Ok before i get dragged out and shot, hear my thoughts out on this one.
We all know that SUV (4x4) vehicles are huge gas guzzling pollution spitting monsters. But this may work in the planets favour.

We know that the earth can (when given time) heal itself of just about anything. (including humans) However at present by driving low emission (petroleum oil based) vehicles we are just prolonging the damage and thus healing. I fully realise that the technology for things such as hydrogen based fuels and other none polluting fuels has been around for many years, but it is quite evident that it has been made finacially unviable (or just plain suppressed) by the folk who control the oil market.

With SUV's instead of low consumption (and emission) vehicles though, the oil reserves will be depleted at a faster rate than current. Whilst bad in the short term, it does possibly help in the long term.
To throw an example (of enterly fake figures) If at current we have 20 years of petroleum fuels left using low emission cars, and only 10 years by using big SUV's. Then once the oil has gone in those 10 years, the strangle hold monopoly that the oil barons have over use is lost....

New means of fuel will be needed to prevent economic crash, Which I believe will only be possible by making "clean" fuels. Thus freeing the earth for the healing process, and also providing us with methods of transport that are potentially far more efficient than combustion engines.

So have I completly lost my mind or should we all be driving SUV's in first gear everywhere????

[edit on 9-12-2004 by feygan]




posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 07:52 PM
link   
We die also too so lets go out and kill ourselves to speed up the inevitable. I am sure SUV owners are not thinking about bringing about an energy revolution quicker by buying them, however you are correct. I wouldn't worry too much about how fast we should use up our resources as it will happen eventually anyway. I wouldn't think that the transition will be easy for any of us too. The best thing to do would be to conserve and make a serious effort to bring in new technologies long before we fall off the cliff. Of course the powers that be may have already done this and are waiting for the best time to spring it on us (for the highest profits possible). A new technology is always more expensive for consumers, although these things may be old technology and already figured out well in advance. Either way, be prepared to get out your wallet.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 04:17 AM
link   
.
UUUUUMMMMMM, *clearing throat*

You do realize probably the first fuel they will turn to after we run out of oil is coal.
You know much about the history of Pittsburg? The steel making capital? Back when they burned vast amounts of coal in the early industrial revolution.

Your thinking is very creative [which is not a bad thing] It just isn't based on sound logic.

Slower use of oil/gasoline allows more time to develop other fuel sources, more efficient use of energy and a gradual rise of price for weaning us of our addiction. Burning it up as fast as possible means we will hit a cliff and be forced to go 'cold-turkey'. That will leave us wrecklessly grabbing the first alternative which will not be well thought out or optimized in any way.

I don't think you have lost your mind, but haven't thought this through too well. Kudos for being willing to say the unexpected, it keeps us intellectually on our toes. If you can apply your unique mind to other more plausable viens of thought, you could be helpful in providing insights and solutions.

With all the Chinese and Indians that are starting to drive cars, trust me, you won't need to contribute one iota to the depletion of oil reserves.
.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 04:42 AM
link   
Well seeing as the use of fossil fuels is a pretty modern thing, compared to the age of the planet, we have no idea whether it can heal from fossil fuel damage or not.
Instead of producing unnecessary fuel burning vehicles we should be investing in the development of alternate fuels and energy.
Before the inevitable happens.
But as usual $ gets in the way and will be our eventual downfall.
Life before profit! Burn your SUV! ...oh wait a minute, that's not good.
Dismantle your SUV and re-cycle the parts to make playgrounds for kids!
And take the bus ya damn gas guzzlers!! Better yet ride a bike and do yourself a favour as well as the rest of us. Your status symbol is killing my planet.
(that wasn't directed at you Feygan, just general ranting)
(...or do you drive an SUV?)



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 05:58 AM
link   
It is definately important to conserve and save but I must ask...Why do SUV drivers become the targets everytime??

In London, they are trying to ban SUV's in the CBD. Even though Taxis out-number cars like 10:1 and buses are even bigger and consumes much more Diesel than most luxury (Most are) SUV's regardless.

I must agree that for a new fuel source to be introduced would mean to change the ways of the old and obviously Diesel & Petrol Companies wouldnt like that too much so there will have to be a world war or depleted stockpiles.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Ill tell you what will happen when oil supplys hit critical low leavel Opec will then start producing man made oil and gas and the same ball will keep on rolling.
man made oil is already avalble check any local car store. and making man made gas isent science fiction after all gas is just a fule that burns at a certian rate and temp that we desined our car moters to be able to withstand.
check out nascar not on gas run engian on the track.Alcahol will run an engian just fine and even creats less polution all you need to do in order to use it is improve the cooling of the engian . Alchol just burns hotter then gas is all . Bet you could add lets say terpintine to the mixe and lower the heat down to match gas easly then no engian mod needed . Terpitine can be made from pine trees and can be almost used as a disel alternitive as is.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 04:04 PM
link   
@Zenem

Because SUV's are huge very often one person conveyances. Unnecessary other than vanity. Another status symbol for those that have, to wave in the face of those that don't.
They also make the streets more dangerous for us non-vehicle owners.

A bus holds many ppl.

If everybody rode a bus, and in my city we have pollution free electric buses, then there would be a hell of a lot less vehicles on the road.

SUV's are just a product designed to make maximum profit for the oil industry.


E_T

posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by feygan
With SUV's instead of low consumption (and emission) vehicles though, the oil reserves will be depleted at a faster rate than current. Whilst bad in the short term, it does possibly help in the long term.
Yeah, it doesn't take so long for inevitable.

Do you also think human is able to survive 20mm HEI shell to torso because human is able to survive from small wounds?



Originally posted by Zenem
...and buses are even bigger and consumes much more Diesel than most luxury (Most are) SUV's regardless.
While transferring tens of people at same time.

And if everyone would use own car instead of public transportation there wouldn't be no way you could make anough space and roads for those! (US cities should be enough to prove that)





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join