SUV Phobia

What you say about GM selling at twice the price is really THEFT. It gets away with it, as do all companies because 'if you like it and buy it at that price', all's well. But it shouldn't be! If asked, most consumers would feel cheated and want their money back.

As you also say, here in the UK we're taxed heavily eg. 1 litre of ordinary unleaded costs about £0.90 [x1.85] = $1.67 [x4.54] = $7.56 per gallon!

We also will be paying incremental road tax that will see a BMW X5 costing £1800 [$3330] per annum extra, to use a British road. An X5 here starts at about £35000 [$64750].

What about the OLD cars/trucks that are inefficient; we all have to breath their dirt but as long as they're small...less charge. You in the USA should thank 4/7 for ending the tax. We're easy targets.

Other things banned in UK: hunting of foxes [rabbies carrier some years ago], for which there is still no cure; pistols, because you can concile them in a pocket [but not shot guns that can be sawn-off and easily conciled], and are more lethal. [in the right hands].

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,uk
December 21, 2006 2:22am

Neil, I didn't have you down as a supporter of fox hunting!

I think it's important to point out that it's the hunting of foxes with dogs which has been banned. As far as I am aware, it is still perfectly legal to cull foxes by other methods should they pose a threat, through disease or otherwise.

There's a big difference between blood sports, and organised culls.

Neal Campbell, Belfast, Earth
December 21, 2006 5:55am

You neglected one of the fundamental sources of SUV-phobia: class prejudice. Back when SUVs were "off-road vehicles" used by sport enthusiasts for various outdoor pursuits, typically involving expensive gear like skis or fly fishing rods, they were fine. But when the masses of the Middle Class started buying SUVs to haul their squalling brats and loads of groceries around the suburbs, suddenly the vehicles became a menace to the planet.

Cambias, Amherst, MA
December 22, 2006 10:24am

Neal, I wouldn't say I supported fox hunting PER SE but, as here, I don't like governmental [knee-jerk] reactions to gain votes, especially from people who would otherwise not vote for them; unless they are baited. Pistols were banned because of a psycho who killed kids, so does that mean we're all nuts. [apparently so]. I'll feel better about this type of thing when I see politicians cycling to work [in the rain].

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,wales,uk
December 22, 2006 2:26pm

We can't get over the wastefulness of American cars!

Is it really considered acceptable for them to do 16 mpg US (20 mpg Imperial)?

If it is, THAT is being profligate with a finite resource, whatever body is built onto the chassis—SUV, saloon or anything else.

And as for old cars being inefficient and polluting, our Renault 21 is 16 years old. It's a five-door five-seater estate, with a 2 L diesel engine, and does 6 litres per 100 km (= 47 mpg Imperial or 37 mpg US).

And we thought Californians were serious about fuel efficiency!

Happy New Year!

Anne & Archie, Nr Chantilly, France
December 30, 2006 2:40pm

A 2004 Audi S4 is a high performace car and is an unfair comparison to a SUV, a regular 4 door sedan should do at least 25 mpg.

Anthony cowan, N.Ireland
January 05, 2007 3:44am

In Korea I drive a Matiz which on paper, is supposed to get 21 km/liter (or about 50 mpg) but in reality gets about 15 to 16 km/liter (or about 35 mpg). If I drive conservatively on the highway, I can inch it up to around 40 mpg. The thing about the Matiz though which would be why it would never be sold in the US, is that it is small and not very powerful. It is a little bit smaller than the 2001 Ford Focus that I drive when I lived in the US. And if I floored the gas pedal, the fastest it will go is about 90 mph. Keep in mind that neither of these two things are a problem for me. I don't care about it being small and not having a lot of power. But it gets to the heart of why Americans like inefficient cars. They like big and powerful. Unfortunately, big and powerful does NOT equate to fuel efficient. If you think about it skeptically though, do you really need to drive any faster than 70 mph? And if not, why should it matter if the top speed of your car is only 80 or 90 mph? Also, does it really matter if your car is small if the only thing you are using it for is to go, by yourself, to work?

Brian Dean, Korea
January 28, 2007 10:48pm

I don't really agree with your roundup and telling us that SUVs are the wrong foe, for one thing, because most people know that already. I think instead that the "movement" against SUVs is not wrong but too blunt. You skeptoid then should help it to become sharper, more fact based, and thus more effective to help along protection of the environment. Unfortunately, what comes across is a great new justification for all the RAM drivers and V8 fans to get the next bigger car. Cars are a very large factor in global warming. They are not the greatest one, but it is a point were consumers can easily make better choices. Who is served by pointing out that a cargo ship is a much bigger polluter and guzzler than a large number of SUV's? On which side are you standing then?

Reiner, Belchertown, MA
February 17, 2007 10:12am

At the moment we're looking to get a big-gas-guzzling-4.8is BMW X5...

Screw the environment!

Couldn't god design one to cope?

Bummer!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
August 10, 2007 8:38pm

What's a gallon and a mile? Please for the love of humanity come over to the metric system. It's so much easier, logical and makes so much sense.

John Grayson, Newcastle / Australia
November 07, 2007 7:30am

Update. Got a 4.8 is...

What a machine to drive... out performs most hot hatches @ 355 BHP.

Class...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
January 26, 2008 2:55pm

Um, no. There are no fines or fees for any vehicles, SUVs or others, entering Paris.

Marc Naimark, Paris, France
April 06, 2008 4:21am

We still generate only 3% of all carbon emissions! It's a red herring that no one in politics or the media is facing up to.
At least they all agree that methane is even worse, but that comes out of our asses so it can't be taxed (yet).
The English channel filled with water due to global warming and subsequent glacial melt 10,000 years ago. There were no SUVs then.
Walking and cycling use more calories per person than driving, that's carbon into the atmosphere too. Every dollar spent means a dollars worth of emissions somewhere, because that money goes to pay for the product or service you're buying. Because of this, government subsidies cannot help alleviate emissions; all they're doing is spending the same dollars but taking some from the taxpayer. An example is solar panels. They take twenty years to pay for themselves but they don't last twenty years. The government is going to step in and part fund them, so that they'll pay for themselves sooner. BUT THEY'LL STILL COST THE SAME! The reason they cost the same is cos that money needs to pay the people and factories where they're made, regardless of government subsidy. Those workers still travel to work the same, the machines they use are still made and used the same. The fact that they just about break even shows that it's not energy saving. And, like I said, the carbon emissions of humans are not the problem anyway.

tom braider, newcastle UK
April 11, 2008 8:50am

Four years ago there was an attempt to ban SUVs in Paris. Does not seem to have happened though. Of course, this article was written in 2006....

One other observation, if you have children you need by law to keep the children in these bulky seats and they cant be in the front. 2 children are tight and 3 require an SUV or minivan as far as i am concerned.

Aaron Richoux, New Orleans
April 14, 2008 10:25pm

I agree with most of the sentiments and details of the podcast. We should be talking about efficiency & utility, and not styling.

What might have been made clearer is that anti-suv sentiment is probably residual from a time when SUVs as a category really were way less efficient than regular passenger vehicles. This was when they were meant for off-roading, and the car-chassis-based SUV didn't really exist. The podcast could have mentioned that that thinking is NO LONGER applicable with todays cars and SUVs.

There really was a time when SUVs were nearly uniformly inefficient compared to regular passenger cars. When the owners of such SUVs were just using them to haul groceries it really was a shame.

It is great that the market corrected the situation and car companies brought out models that allowed for many people's SUV style preference, but not its truck-based characteristics. Those late in making the transition (e.g., Ford) paid the price.

High-performance enthusiasts such as Brian's family (with an Audi S4 and a V8 SUV) won't be satisfied with the high MPG SUVs these days though. Assuming accelleration rather than top-speed is Brian's family's goal in having such horsepower, than I think we can even get him in a more efficient vehicle after a generation or two of plug-in hybrids allows the market to diversify and "small engine, big motor" ones become available...just a guess.

Keep up the good work Brian!

James Culver, Milladore, WI
April 24, 2008 11:25am

Actually we need the power for towing; I am not of the illusion that a big engine converts a heavy 4Runner into a sports car. :-)

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
April 24, 2008 11:29am

Thanks for the reply Brian. I didn't mean that it would give you sports car like performance, but different folks have different tolerance for sluggishness when hitting the pedal. I have a 90HP passenger car and am used to its responsiveness (or lack thereof).

You use it for towing? Well, that sounds like an appropriate choice of vehicle to me (and probably anyone except the most diehard enviros).

If you only tow infrequently, you *might* have been able to save yourself some money by going with the more fuel efficient engine and renting a beefier vehicle for towing times (assuming such rentals are available), but that can be a pain, and has some other downsides.

Thanks again--I've already done one half of your 2-and-2 donation. Now I guess I'll have to join iTunes or Digg or something--I guess the registration time will bump it up to a 2-and-4 donation. :-)

James Culver, Milladore, WI
April 25, 2008 6:47am

I agree with Aaron, and since having more 'girls' equates to more 'baggage' :2 car seats, pram & buggy, bags of clothes and sundries...

In the UK it just goes to show that the consumer is easy prey for the taxman. Especially the Labour taxman!

Why can't they financially support projects to use cleaner fuels eg Hydrogen gas, instead of Hydrocarbons....
#

Answer... they're all in each others pockets and until the oil actually runs out it's a good (tax)earner.

Still, I (we) balance the equation, a bit, by consoling ourselves with the fact that we get some of the tax back as benefits...

Thanks Gordon!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
May 27, 2008 2:34am

Sure I agree with a few of your points but ultimatly I think this is a document written to be skeptical for skeptic sake. No real value outside of the fact it was written.
But either A, you've never taken a basic physics course in your entire life; or B, your not paying much attention to your surrounding very well.
Reason why I say A: an object moving from one place to another has an easier time doing that if its total size is less. For example try running with a parachute to your back that is 10'x10'. Now try that with a parachute that is merely 12.5'x12.5'. That 2.5' per side is going to drastically increase the drag, ultimately increasing the amount of energy used to move the same distance. And the reason why cars have better emissions is they fact that they are indeed smaller. My TR250 (1968) gets better gas millage than my 2007 Honda. Why. The TR250 is incredibly lighter in spite of the much more powerful engine.
On the flip side I do think you did a good job in mentioning other fuel using entities such as a freight ship.

N Ring, South Bend
July 05, 2008 2:59pm

Do some research instead of perpetuating ignorant criticism. The HUMMER H2 is not "mechanically identical Yukon or Tahoe". GM did not just take "their existing conventional Yukon/Tahoe/Escalade vehicle, put a vaguely Humvee-like body on it, and ...now sell it as the H2 Hummer".
See:
http://www.cars.com/go/crp/research.jsp?section=reviews&aff=olympian&makeid=363&modelid=6149&year=2003&revid=47208&revlogtype=18

East Texan, Nacogdoches, Texas
July 07, 2008 1:20am

East Texan's link didn't work but I googled around. Several sites say that H2 is based on a modified GMT820 platform. The modifications are to allow for the high gross weight of 8600 pounds. The engine is a Vortec V8. My take is that GM continues its long-standing practice basing all its models on cosmetic variations of some standard platforms. It's how they keep costs down and profits up. Anybody who remembers the Cadillac Cimarron knows how far GM will go in making silk purses from sows ears.

But checking did show that Brian is being pretty loose calling H2 an SUV (Though other sites do the same. What IS an SUV, really.) . H2's chassis is beefed up to handle the weight because that takes it into a different vehicle category. It's now a commercial truck, qualifies for a tax break, and doesn't have to report it's fuel numbers. It's a straw man SUV that really isn't an SUV anymore. It doesn't make Brian's case though the rest of examples seem to.

Joe Strickland, Clarksburg, WV
July 07, 2008 4:20am

Joe - That's true of all solid axle SUV's. In fact, it's even true of the PT Cruiser, because of the way its rear seat folds! GM is not the only manufacturer to take advantage of the loopholes in the "light truck" classification.

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
July 07, 2008 9:47am

What most proponents of ridding myself of my 16 year old paid up Explorer for a new Prius et al, don't want to hear is that although I might save $2000 a year in fuel costs, I would also spend an additional $5600 a year to buy the Prius, and handle tax and insurance increases. I would then have a car that couldn't carry my wife's wheelchair, three trash cans to the dump or the 12 foot planks I bring home for projects much less shrubs from the garden center or a half ton of mulch. If I'm going to subsidize the USA carbon footprint at that rate, I want a tax break.

Niel Spillane, Mystic, CT
July 22, 2008 2:18pm

You are right, Niel, there are many reasons that someone may need a larger car, and a wheelchair is a very good reason. I'd like to point out that you are doing all this with the relatively small Explorer. But, lot's of people think they need an Expedition/Excursion/Hummer/Escalade/Ford350...etc to drive a couple of kids around and perhaps go on a trip with some camping gear once a year.

I personally have a Ford Escape and my friends continually harass me about it. But, it's a standard with 4 cylinders, it is built on some Ford car chassis (I forget which one), it gets about 27 MPG, it has better emissions then my little 4 cyl. Toyota Spider I used to own, it can fit two dogs and a husband with no problems, and most importantly I ride my bike and take the bus whenever I can.

My point, don't peg ALL SUV drivers as the reason for nature's demise, just most of them. :)

elaine ellerton, austin, TX
August 13, 2008 2:21pm

I have a 4.8 BMW X5 that'll do 155mph.

I don't think I'd call it a 'jeep'!

It's a tall super car.

I love pulling away from people at high-ish speed!

Bite me!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
August 20, 2008 4:35pm

I think that Brian dropped the ball on this one. My impression is that he decided first that SUVs aren't as evil as some people think they are and then went about gathering evidence to prove that point. He used selection bias. He is a skilled skeptic and this gaff surprises me.
The article starts with the premise that we all agree low fuel efficiency and excess pollution are bad things. The article then goes on to compare the bodies of the cars. The one place where he states the actual efficiency is the example where the car is less efficient than the SUV.
A trip to fueleconomy.gov will show in most cases, an SUV built on a car body uses more fuel per mile than the car. The SUV versions are heavier, less aerodynamic, and are tuned differently. They often have different transmissions. Some also do not offer the smaller, more efficient engine option the car offers. And what about the large SUVs that are not car based? As Brian notes, The H2 is based on an already heavy, gas-guzzling truck. Just stating that it is a civilian vehicle based on a civilian vehicle does not make it efficient.
I am not anti-SUV (I drive a Jeep), and do not condone banning or restricting them. I don’t blame them for pollution levels and fuel prices. Consumers will decide what vehicle suits their lifestyle, and what they can afford, but this article is not a helpful comparison of the choices.
However, if the message is simply, "Be Skeptical," it should not have been wrapped in a half-efforted article.

John Logiudice, New York
August 22, 2008 3:38pm

I agree with John, now that I have listened to this podcast again. He doesn't address the problem of what most of us really consider SUVs (Expedition, Excursion, Range Rover, Yukon, Suburban, Escalade...). Also, true the Camry and Highlander share a chassis, but the Highlander gives off over two more tons of CO2 emissions a year then the Camry! So, don't say they are the same thing, Brian. I can't find much out about the SUV ban in France and UK. However,I know that UK has been taxing cars on their emissions for quite awhile. More sporty or heavier cars generally have higher emissions, so they pay more. As for London, Ken Livingstone has it out for 4x4s, which generally are heavier, use more gas and have higher emissions. He isn't going after the RAV4!

Yes, we should work on other polluters, like container ships, as well. But, it doesn't do any good to justify driving these "cars" because of the government's failure to monitor other polluters.

elaine ellerton, austin, TX
September 11, 2008 8:26am

I see what both John and Elaine are saying. On average, SUVs are worse than cars. But I don't think that's the point of the article. He was purposely pointing out exceptions from the norm. The point is that a blanket ban or law against all SUVs is definitely not the way to go.

To use an analogy, this is similar to the Pitbull ban. Yes, a number of pitbulls are raised for fighting purposes and that is the image that the general public has of them, but there are quite a few who will unfairly suffer from a blanket ban.

Dave Sullivan, Toronto, ON
January 05, 2009 1:17am

I am not against SUV's in principle however I feel that Brian omitted at least three major points in this podcast:

1 Aerodynamics...he mentions that most SUV's are mechnicaly similar to cars...but with taller bodies. Taller LESS aerodynamic bodies. The aerodynamic drag of an SUV is considerably worse than a car...for a given velocity an SUV will have considerably worse fuel consumption from a mechanicaly similar car.

2 Handling....in an emergency situation like a sudden stop or evasive manuever SUV's perform much worse than cars. Due to their increased weight and high centre of gravities.

3 Pedestrian safety...a pedestrian hit by a car at low speed id far more likely to survive than if they were hit by a SUV.

I enjoy Skeptoid but feel this episode was below the usual standard.

James, Harrogate
February 28, 2009 8:01am

I have a 1983 Isuzu Trooper (Rodeo). It's basically a block of metal. It's considered an SUV by many (although that is strictly speaking not entirely accurate) and thus I often myself the target of angry ranting from "environmentalists who care about Mother Earth and our impact on the world".
Interestingly enough, this car gets around 15km/L (approximately 42MPG in British units and 35MPG in American units), when using the "more environmentally safe" and much less energy-efficient low sulphur diesel. And this car is over 2 decades old!
Misconceptions about these issues and others are all over the place in modern society. It could be partly due to our inability as a species to get over our arrogance ("we are so powerful that we will destroy this planet if we are not careful"), financial or other interests of some ("you must buy this NEW AND IMPROVED car from us"), and even the need of some to call attention to themselves by starting "wars" ("look at me! I am taking up a cause to save all of you!").
I am not saying that humans do not cause pollution; just that we often fail to realise exactly *how* to improve our behaviour as a species. We tend to jump at the first nice-sounding solution and defend it with all our might in the presence of "skeptoids".

Well, enough ranting from me - I have dozens of episodes to go through now that I have found this website. ;)

Chris, Cyprus
August 12, 2009 7:28pm

We should ban SUV's because I can't see around the damn things. That's reason enough.

Seriously, though, my main criticism is that, although Brian made a good point in that we should look at the fuel efficiency of the individual types of cars and SUV's rather than just banning them, I heard very few numbers comparing the actual fuel efficiencies of the models. So I get the impression that there are a couple of exceptions here or there, but that for the most part SUV's really are less fuel efficient than the average car.

A bigger, heavier car is also more likely to seriously injure or kill the other driver in an accident than a normal sized car. Couple that with James' point about handling, and SUV drivers are more likely to get into accidents in which they will kill another driver.

Jarek, Ohio
August 23, 2009 11:22am

The Pit Bull analogy is indeed valid. Since I run a dog rescue & have had dozens of them come thru & get adopted successfully, I know that they are one of the more stable and people-friendly breeds -- usually even after being abused & fought.

Another aspect of the debate that gets ignored quite often is that many people have a real NEED for a van or SUV-type vehicle, unlike the urban yuppie scum that whine & moan about mileage and carbon footprints.

I live in a rural area where snow happens, and there are no buses or subways to get me to the grocery store or feed store when there's a foot of snow on the ground. For urban dwellers, no problem. For me -- it's damned essential that I have something that will work in ice or snow (high ground clearance & 4wd), people & 35 dogs will get hungry.

Also, unlike the urban bums that annoy me so much -- most of us rural dwellers do our own home maintenance & repairs, build sheds, fix fences ... and I need something that will carry plywood & lumber, hundreds of lb of dog food at a time. Expecting us to drive some little Asiatic abortion of a hybrid, not much larger than my Great Danes, is ridiculous. And I'll be damned if there's any reason I should get stuck with higher fees. I already pay more in gas because of my needs.

The real problem with the growing mob of urban voters is that they barely have a life, and want to turn the rest of us into THEM.

The worst fascists are the liberals.

G. White, Arlington VA
September 04, 2009 11:13pm

To further James from Harrogate's points SUV's might also cause more accidents. My premise is that these are more dangerous for those of us driving smaller cars due to not being able to see around them. In this way they are like freight trucks, except that they don't cary cargo.

In my estimation the real problem is americans needing a larger foot print every time we turn around.

Robert Mcbride, Columbia, MD
November 02, 2009 10:30am

Well, try not to tail gate next time you drive!

I still love my BMW 4.8is

Not many people tail gate me, as when they do, I usually drive over the centre of the road (you know, the part with the grit!) and you can see them back off in a hail of grit and a huge dust cloud!

HAVE THAT!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
November 20, 2009 4:38pm

I hate the argument that "SUVs are too big on the road." So are Mack trucks. Do you want to ban those? People in urban areas would starve without trucks bringing in food.

"SUVs don't fit in compact parking spaces." So make larger parking spaces.

SUVs are valid choice, and here in America, we have that sort of freedom.

I think the hype against SUVs is finally dying down as rationality reasserts itself. People can't make a groundless argument forever unless it's backed by a church or political group.

Abby, Austin, TX
February 17, 2010 10:01pm

SUVs are not, and never have been 'fined for entering downtown' in London. There is a congestion charge in operation whereby all vehicles entering the defined zone. This is currently £8 (USD 12) per day.

Irritatingly, there are exceptions to this charge. Electric cars (such as the G-Whizz) are exempt, as are hybrids. This annoys me a great deal - as you skeptics all know, a hybrid SUV is no more fuel efficient than their conventional stable-mates, yet don't have to pay. The hideous Prius can enter London for free, yet the more efficient VW Golf bluemotion is charged the full whack.

And as for the electric cars - where does this electricity come from? Cos I'm betting it's from tonnes of dirty coal belching out more CO2 and assorted other crap than a whole fleet of SUVs! That's before a lot of the energy generated is lost as heat as it races through the overhead cables to charge up your 'emissions free' electric car.

I hate SUVs. It's not scientific, it's snobbery. I think they're ostentatious and vulgar. However, until all vehicles are judged on their efficiency alone (and for electric cars, this includes generation and transport of the electricity) then government policy will sway with the whims of the motor industry ('hybrid carssss are ssssso sssssaintly!") and the vocal and oft ill informed eco-campaigners.

PS - Mr Dunning, I still don't buy that SUVs are comparable to 'normal' cars. The H2 hummer was a bad example to use given you need your own oil well to run one

Chris C, Birmingham, UK
April 19, 2010 3:47am

First of all, you lay out some "common ground" near the beginning. Usually, this means facts that all the readers and the author agree upon. Then you try to pull one of them apart.

Second, it's a bit of a strawman to say that people push for SUVs to be outlawed. Not only that, you claim that there's a significant push to ban SUVs based not on fuel efficiency, but based on being an SUV. I don't see any evidence of this in your references. Please explain.

It seems like, to prove your point about SUVs being as fuel-efficient as compact cars, you rely on the following piece of logic: SUV A uses the chassis from compact car Z. Therefore, SUV A is just as fuel efficient as compact car Z.

Why didn't you cite actual fuel efficiency ratings? Oh, because they don't support your argument.

The Toyota Camry, from your first example, gets a combined 26 mpg, according to the EPA. The Toyota Highlander, your first SUV from your first example, gets 19 mpg. The Lexus RX, the other SUV, also gets 19 mpg. Honda Civic: 29 mpg. CRV: 23 mpg. Element: 21 mpg. The Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe are not SUVs, they're compact cars. Keep comparing fuel efficiency ratings in these cars you're comparing, and you'll keep finding the same thing: the SUV is significantly less fuel efficient than the compact car.

As for the Paris and London "bans," you'll find that they're both based on fuel efficiency, not just some random definition of "SUV."

(Running out of space in this comment.)

Timothy C., Washington, DC
July 10, 2010 1:30pm

I would love to see you re-visit this one, Brian. You are on to an excellent overall theme, but as some of the comments note, you don't do your usually excellent job of fleshing out the details.

Timothy C.'s comments of 7/10/10 are a good example of what you should do to turn this article into a fully developed skeptical analysis of why efficiency ratings alone would be the proper way to legislate passenger car usage.

You also ignore the impact of cosmetic styling on fuel efficiency. The shape of a vehicle is indeed highly influential to its overall efficiency. Cars with large cross sectional areas are less efficient than cars with smaller cross sections, which is one reason why the SUV segment is less efficient, even though they are based on identical passenger car platforms.

I'm sure you are aware of these observations, and they don't weaken your argument. So consider including them in a more effective version of this topic in the future!

By the way, I love your blog. Keep it rolling! But see if you can get your wife to consider trading the Highlander for a V-6 Camry, and your old Audi for something more efficient...

Rob Robertson, Cleveland, OH
August 24, 2010 7:34am

The Audi was not that old; it was a 2004. And the wife's 4Runner is barely able to handle the towing load we put on it even with its V-8, I don't think moving down to a Highlander or Camry would quite do the job. :-)

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel
August 24, 2010 11:41am

Dunning claims he never hears environmentalists protesting gas guzzling sedans. If that's the case then why are environmentalists pushing for a 40mpg standard on passenger cars? Sounds like a protest and this protest has been around for quite some time.

Dunning needs to try fact checking rather than rely on ad hominems and arguments from ignorance.

Doug, Wichita, KS
September 04, 2010 3:12pm