Animation Source Forums

Gee, I guess it's all Hilary's fault now... I mean, come on, do us all a favor and at least pretend to be non-partisan. Man, this sounds like it came right from Rush Limbaugh's radio show... enough said.
And what's with that last line? We have a name for that sort of thinking: defeatism. I might not always be mister optimism, but I wont bow to the temptation of defeatism (a mixture of laziness and cowardice), that's no way for mankind to survive. No one has ever achieved anything through defeatism.

Did you know that the average temperature of Antarcita has steadily risen over the past couple decades? its true. Have you ever seen the movie "day after tomorrow"? what happens in that movie is NOT outside the realm of possibility. There is such thing as teh NAC (North Atlantic Current) which, as stated, DOES depend on a very delicate balance of salt and fresh water. Daily, Billions of gallons of Fresh water are being dumped into the ocean, due to the melting ice caps. Not only can this cause severe climate changes, sea levels will rise so high, like they were millenia ago, that the entire plains region of the USA will be under 10 feet of water. Yes, this may have happened before. however, because we can tell the climates from Millenia ago from teh Layers in Ice Core Samples taken from the arctic, that it happened MUCH slower for the many times before.. this time, its happening many times faster, and the only thing thats changed, it that we are here. You are so naive, thinking that 6 Billion people cannot change the world. C02 is a heavy gas. so, it sits at the bottom of the top layer of the atmosphere, thus producing the infamous "greenhouse effect" in your perfect little world, what happens to the Billions of tons of C02 we throw into the atmosphere DAILY? what happens to it? it just "poof!" vanishes into thin air? I really hate people who think that the world is all dandelions and lollipops, and that humans are perfect. well NEWS FLASH! Humans are the most self destructive creature ever to walk this planet.

First off that Prius you just bought to save the Earth is hurting it more then if you would have bought a Hummer H3, also the Prius will need a very expensive battery change when it hits 100,000 miles and they have to dispose of the battery, while the H3 should last 300,000 miles. Also you're only getting around mid-to low 40mpg so you should have bought that diesel Lupo that gets 75mpg


Another thing electric cars only cut a small small amount of pollution, most of the pollution is coming from power stations, like Coal burning plants! So unless you are using solar panels to charge your car, you're still hurting the environment.

What can we do?
Well there is Wind and Solar power.
And what about nuclear power, it's safer then coal and less harm on the environment.

Also Burning that Hummer so someone wont drive it released alot of harmful chemicals in the atmosphere.

so don't try and be a Eco-nut and just look things up and do a lot of homework if you want to save the world


Also don't believe anyone who says we need to stop using SUVs, then gets into a Prius and drives to their private jet. That's a waste, use Concord.

Also buy energy efficient products, they can save you a good amount of money and another then the Electric car was not killed buy big business but by it own short comings face it people need Huge 7 seater Suburbans, because some people have families and their kids might want to bring a friend.

Also why is there no public out cry to get rid of coal burning plants, China is building 500 of them over the next 8 years!!
Don't blame pollution on the SUV

When we dump the nuclear waste all around us or have a nuclear meltdown, yes, that's really less harm on the environment. Nuclear power is not an option in my opinion, it's just as bad.


There's been several posts in this thread already about coal plants, and they're public enough.

Wait, let me get this straight... You say it's ok to drive an SUV because there are things that cause more pollution, like coal plants? That's so faulty an argument it just boggles the mind. But on the other hand, if that is the SUV's best defense, that's saying a lot about SUVs.
I do blame pollution on SUVs. It might be true that their relative impact is limited, but I prefer to look beyond that, because SUVs are more than just pollutive; they are a symbol. Basically, every SUV out there is just a 4 wheeled, two ton raised middle finger to society. Wasteful because of the poor fuel economy and excess weight, an eyesore for obvious reasons, simply dangerous for other drivers and pedestrians, way too large for urban (or even suburban) traffic, harmful to our infrastructure because of the weight... and most of all: utterly useless! It has no purpose whatsoever; if you live in the jungle, buy a real offroader (after all, SUVs aren't built to go out in the dirt); if you have a large family, buy a compact minivan; if you live in the city, buy a compact.
For all of those reasons mentioned above, SUVs are just waste, and a symbol for all that is antisocial.

A "real offroader"? what is your definition on that? If it's a Land Rover, say, Defender 90 or 110 or even a Series 1 it's an SUV, then you're contradicting yourself. If you say Jeep Wrangler or Willy's Jeep, that's also classified as a Sport Utility Vehicle. Also, blaming SUVs also puts the blame on pick up trucks and large vans, since what're the large SUVs based off? A pick up truck! I think you really need to check your statement before going on a rant. Plus, there are PLENTY of vehicles that pollute as much, if not more than an SUV and aren't an SUV...exotic sports cars (IE: Ferrari Enzo, Lamborghini Diablo) have huge engines with huge power, and are thirsty.

And yeah, I think very highly of trucks, large vans and SUVs, I just don't usually think highly of their owners. I have a very strong opposition to hybrids. I feel that diesel is the fuel for the future. Biodiesel ring a bell?

I resent that. We own a 2003 Ford Expedition with the 4.6L Triton V8. we get rougly 17MPG/13MPG. We have 5 people, and a dog. When we go on long trips, like to visit family, we struggle as it is to pack it all into our huge truck. a compact minivan? BAH. I hate vans anyway. ugly as hell. Oh, and we also own a Jeep Wrangler with a 2.5L I-4, running 33" Baja Claws, on only 3.73 axle gears. We get like only 14MPG up here on the highway. City is not much better (and yes city is better than highway) So we go through a lot of gas. and actually, the batteries that hybrids use are Lithium Ion, and can be recycled. unlike the old Nickel Cadium batteries. I agree, we have way too many coal plants. Even though we are finding much cleaner ways of burning it, so they pollute much less and put out more energy. Oh, and did you know high performance sports cars for the most part get very low gas mileage because of their enourmous engines? Yeh, tis true. Oh, do you know how ineffiecient Solar panels are? They are on the line of around 20% efficiency. And they are extremely expensive. Nuclear power, and Hydro-electric are the wave of the future
There is just no way that americans will cut down on Oil consumption. there was a poll on CBS a month or 2 ago, and the majority of people said they wouldnt get a new car, or change their driving habits until gas hits $5.14 average per gallon of gas. So i dont think people get that either.

EDIT>> BTW, Bio-diesel pollutes almost as much as regular Diesel fuel does.

No, actually it doesn't, if you mix 20% biodiesel to 80% petroleum diesel, it cuts back on the emissions substantially. Plus you can recycle it from places like McDonalds, who throws all it's used oil away. If you filter it, it'll work just fine in any diesel vehicle. Unfortunately, the really efficient and clean diesel engines that Germany developed is regulated to the rest of the world since they can't run on ULSD (Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel.)

Wow so you're saying that no you don't deserve to drive more then 4 other people around and still haul all the luggage that goes with it! You know contrary to your thoughts of SUV's people don't drive them because they feel like killing the Earth, they (and I know this will be really hard for you to grasp) actually use them for stuff. Stuff like pulling trailers and boats, they also use them for Winter weather, snow and ice, because that rear wheel drive sedan will over steer you into a Semi.

And some people don't want a station wagon because they need 7 seats, plus the storage behind the 3rd row. Before you make ignorant comments on how wasteful SUV's are attack something that actually has a large enough effect on the environment, because if we got rid of all of our SUV's there would be a 1 to 2% decrease in pollution, I.E. not enough to warrant the act.

Wait what's that you say, you want to bring a minimum of 7 people to your lake house and still carry the standard boat? Well look no further then the Toyota Sienna (Mini Van) XLE 4WD it can tow 3500 pounds and will cost you about $47,391 over the next 5 years?
But wait that nasty SUV Suburban LS 1500 4WD will only cost $46,950 over 5 years and carry 8 people and tow 7000 pounds, all the while having a 3 MPG difference between the two but the Sienna is a V6 with 266 Hp, and the Suburban has a 310 Hp V8?

There your logic is blown! Mini vans cannot do the same things as a SUV, and SUV's are safer then cars in the respect that the Dodge Durnago and the Chevrolet Suburban, have the lowest death rates on the road—about 24 occupants killed for every million registered vehicles, while your super minis like Mini Cooper or the Toyota Yaris. As a group, they average 144 deaths per million registered vehicles. Midsize SUVs, including the Honda Pilot or Nissan Pathfinder, average 57 deaths, while midsize cars, like the Ford Fusion and Honda Accord, run as high as 70 deaths per million vehicles. Average things out and you are, on the whole, safer in an SUV than you are in a passenger car—their death rate ratio is 47 per million compared to 86.

Also SUVs can go on the dirt, it's one of the things they were made for among Sand (Lamborghini LM002) Mud, water, snow, and rocks. All of which a Van or Estate would have trouble crossing, because they are both relatively low to the ground.

Gee, I seem to have hit a nerve here. How do we all love our decadence... Now, as it wouldn't be efficient to respond to all posts individually, I'll group up the arguments that are being hurdled in my general direction.

1. SUV's are off-roaders.
No, they are not.
"Off-road vehicles are a very different class of vehicles, being vehicles primary built for off-road use. Although some SUVs have off-road capabilities, this is often a secondary role and they often do not have the ability to switch between 2WD, 4WD high gearing and 4WD low gearing." (Wikipedia).

2. I need an SUV to tow my boat.
You have a boat? Maybe you do (and maybe some of your neighbors in your wealthy suburb do too; boat-owners tend to cluster), but that doesn't mean everyone has one. As a matter of fact, very few people actually have a boat (and for the better). The number of people who own an SUV to tow their boat doesn't justify the enormous amounts of SUVs on our roads. But it is true that the only thing SUVs are very good at is towing boats, which says a lot about the SUV.

3. I need 7 seats. And a lot of luggage capacity.
Large family, huh? The same thing I said about boats applies here to too: the small amount of people who need an SUV for their large family doesn't justify the cluttering of our roads by these behemoths. And they could always use a compact minivan... unless they have a boat, of course ("You want to bring a minimum of 7 people to your lake house and still carry the standard boat." Lake house? Boat? I don't know in which society you live, but here people don't own "lake houses", or a "boats" - certainly not if they have a family of 7.)
About the luggage: have you actually ever loaded up an SUV which had 7 seats in it? If you had, you'd know that the amount of luggage you can add if you have three rows of seats isn't that impressive.

4. SUVs aren't dangerous
"Figures from the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration show that most passenger cars have about a 10% chance of rollover while most SUVs have between 14% to 20% (varying from a low of 14% for the AWD Ford Edge to a high of 23% for the FWD Ford Escape)." (Wikipedia)
Enough said.
"The height and weight, while perhaps giving an advantage to occupants inside the vehicle, often poses a risk to drivers of smaller vehicles in multi-vehicle accidents, particularly side impacts[4]. In 2003 and 2004 in the US, passenger cars were involved in 1.65 and 1.58 fatal crashes per 100M miles respectively compared to 2.14 and 2.05, nearly 30% more, for light trucks (SUVs pick-ups and vans)." (Wikipedia)
It takes two to crash. The SUV driver might be a bit safer in multi vehicle collisions, but only by sacrificing the security of all others. Selfishness galore.
"In 2004, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released results of a study that indicated that drivers of SUVs were 11% more likely to die in an accident than people in cars." (Wikipedia)
The list goes on and on...
How can anyone who is near-sane claim that SUVs are safe? They're dangerous and antisocial.

5. Exotic sports cars are worse than SUVs
And Hitler was worse than Pol Pot, but that doesn't make the latter a nice guy, does it?
Exotic sports cars are indeed a symbol of wast also, but they are exotic - if SUV's were just as expensive and rare as Ferrari's, I wouldn't have a problem with them. I mean, if it's use were confined to the odd boater, why not. But SUVs are too widespread.

6. SUV drive better in winter conditions than rear wheel drive sedans and compacts
Contemporary European and Asian compacts utilize front wheel drive. And all but the more extreme winter conditions can be overcome by snow chains, government efforts to clear the roads and prudent driving.

7. I don't like hybrids
I didn't say I like them either, did I? Read my post, then open your mouth.

I know you didn't say anything about hybrids, I just felt I should throw it out since we're on the topic of pollution, fuel efficiency and senseless car bashing. And you seem like the kind to waste your money on them.

You still haven't answered my question as to what a real off roader is...all these years I've been sitting and looking at vehicles like Explorers, Bronco IIs, Blazers, etc as off road vehicles, especially since they're rather capable, and can switch drives and ranges. And also, they're not the large, gas guzzling, "antisocial" monstrosities like you peg all SUVs to be.