Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
An anti-SUV stance is NOT extreme amongst environmentalists, its one of the more moderate views. Extreme is sleeping in Sequoias or living off the grid. Living off of nuts and roots. So, if I were actually extreme, I'd be writing this message using smoke signals or something.
This:
driving an SUV is probably the worst environmental decision that an individual consumer can make.
is an extreme stance (on the extreme end of the spectrum), and open for debate.
I guess I'll believe you if you want to consider that extreme. I don't know of any consumer, individual decision that's much worse that doesn't involve an extremely hypothetical scenario.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady
This:
driving an SUV is probably the worst environmental decision that an individual consumer can make.
is an extreme stance (on the extreme end of the spectrum), and open for debate.
As I said, it paints "Green" in black and white, and that's definitely not the case. It is reassuring, it allows finger-pointing (though, remember, that's three fingers pointed back at you when you indulge yourself in that behavior) and "holier than thou" behavior (always addictive), and it doesn't require coming to terms with the true complexity of the issue. But in spite of all of those things, attitudes like this don't serve the planet particularly.
I agree that most environmental issues are gray. Wind power vs. nuclear? Bamboo fabric vs. wool? Chicken vs. fish? But, getting unnecessary SUVs off the road is one of the most clearcut, black and white issues. I am fully aware of the complexities of this issue. I've been studying these kinds of issues for 10 years now.
Also, I'm seriously not holier than anyone. I take longer showers than I should. I don't recycle yogurt cups. I'm using electricity right now. Look, I'm seriously saying that this one issue has a much larger impact on the environment than any of these small things that we quibble about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady
As I said, it paints "Green" in black and white, and that's definitely not the case. It is reassuring, it allows finger-pointing (though, remember, that's three fingers pointed back at you when you indulge yourself in that behavior) and "holier than thou" behavior (always addictive), and it doesn't require coming to terms with the true complexity of the issue. But in spite of all of those things, attitudes like this don't serve the planet particularly.
I disagree. (Obviously.) There are far too many variables for it to come down to something as simple as SUV vs. not-SUV. (I don't drive an SUV, by the way, I'm worse, I drive a diesel pickup that just passed 300,000 miles a couple of months ago and is still going strong and gets 22 mpg no matter what (city/highway, empty/pulling a trailer with a farm tractor on it), but it's bigger than most SUVs.) Our other car is a Camry; the one before that was a Mercedes diesel that got 37 mpg. There are so many factors to take into account, from mpg to driving style to usage, that this is no more black and white than the other areas of environmental impact.
And, by the way, I'll see your 10 years and raise you at least 30 (adding up to 40 years studying and living this topic).
Ok, let's agree to substitute SUV with "a consumer vehicle that gets crappy gas mileage" or "vehicle with large tailpipe emissions".
Also, I wasn't aware that real estate was an environmental field. Good to know.
That first we can agree on.
As for the latter, of course, it is! Not only does real estate have to do with how and where we live, and with how our homes can help or harm the environment, but there are continuing education courses and certifications that reflect that - I'm an EcoBroker, for example.
But I've not been a real estate agent for 40 years - I have studied the environment and how best to live in it and been "green" for all that time (and, come to think of it, longer than that, closer to 60 years, because I had parents who taught me the "what if everyone did it?" way of evaluating the consequences of things I wanted to do, right down to picking flowers by the side of the road). That's one reason that I know for a fact that it can't be reduced to black and white, and that to do so gives a false sense of "doing the right thing" and causes more harm than good. "Greenwashing" is a real problem, and that kind of thinking plays right into it. Christopher Alexander is one of my idols, because he acknowledged that we're a part of our environment, not separate from it, something that a lot of environmentalists have a problem with as regards their fellow human beings. Until one can acknowledge that, one has precious little chance of accomplishing anything in terms of helping others (and oneself) learn how to live in better harmony with the environment.
Greenwashing is chicken labeled all-natural, with no backup claims as to what that really means.
Feeling good about driving a car that has a lower carbon footprint than an SUV does not mean you are greenwashed. There's actual data, from multiple sources, from multiple years, that will back up that choice.
"what if everyone did it?" is a good question to ask ourselves. Even though it is highly unlikely that everyone would ever do any one thing, undoubtedly the planet would be better off if that question was asked more consistently. THL, it appears that your parents were green pioneers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) There are far too many variables for it to come down to something as simple as SUV vs. not-SUV. (I don't drive an SUV, by the way, I'm worse, I drive a diesel pickup that just passed 300,000 miles a couple of months ago and is still going strong and gets 22 mpg no matter what (city/highway, empty/pulling a trailer with a farm tractor on it), but it's bigger than most SUVs.) Our other car is a Camry; the one before that was a Mercedes diesel that got 37 mpg. There are so many factors to take into account, from mpg to driving style to usage, that this is no more black and white than the other areas of environmental impact. 
