Using SUVs as scapegoats
won't work
By
Maurice O. Ndole
The Collegian
We’ve heard plenty of
anti-Sport Utility Vehicle arguments but we rarely hear arguments supporting
victimized SUV owners. SUV owners have been accused of promoting terrorism,
massive pollution and total disregard of a clean environment.
There is no truth in the allegations that SUVs promote terrorism and I
loathe the idea that singles out SUVs among many other heavy duty vehicles
as the worst air polluter.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t own an SUV, I drive a Toyota,
the kind of car that would make anti-SUV activists and self-appointed
environment police crown me a saint. But be assured, I wouldn’t
turn down an opportunity of owning several SUVs.
Anti-SUV activists’ argument that SUVs cause pollution may be correct
but it is conveniently flawed. SUVs, just like all other cars, have to
undergo smog check test before getting their fuel-guzzling vehicles on
our roads.
And what is the difference between the fuel consumption of an SUV and
a full-size pickup truck? Why criticize SUVs and let trucks slide? And
which cars don’t pollute the environment? Even hybrid cars cause
minimal pollution.
There are all kinds of things causing pollution and blaming it on SUVs
alone is just being narrow-minded and unreasonable. Small cars, which
are the majority on our roads, contribute a great deal to pollution. Agriculture
and our kitchens also play a role in polluting our environment.
Anti-SUV activists argue that SUVs are an unnecessary luxury, so is smoking,
drinking and night clubbing. Besides why should people care what kind
of luxury others engage in if the activity is not illegal?
I’d grudgingly agree that a person who buys an SUV just for the
sake of moving from one point to another is a danger, but only to his
financial situation because freedom extends even to personal fiscal irresponsibility.
One of the most ridiculous arguments against SUVs is that they promote
terrorism. This argument by itself makes me want to go out and get myself
an SUV the size of the Save Mart Center. The kind of car that would guzzle
so much fuel that the Shahs of Saudi Arabia would applaud and perform
multiple back flips in my honor. I don’t remember seeing the Sept.
11 terrorists flying SUVs into the World Trade Center, or seeing Osama
Bin Laden threatening us from a Hummer.
It is inane to single out SUVs out of all vehicles on our roads as the
ones promoting terrorism. The argument that SUVs promote terrorism can
only be valid if Bin Laden or his AK-47 toting deputies were heads of
state. They’re not; they’re holed up in caves hiding from
our missiles.
This argument is also ridiculous because most of the oil-rich countries
are on somewhat good terms with the U.S. in a strange alliance that doesn’t
seem to help reduce our ever-escalating gas prices.
I’ll harp on this point some more, really, why pick on SUVs? Luxury
cars, vans and full-size pickups consume about the same amount of gas
as SUVs. Rigs, which transport goods from state to state, guzzle even
more fuel and emit even worse pollution in wider areas than SUVs. Cow
manure is famous for stinking whole towns. How come we never see activists
setting them ablaze?
It’s also ironic to blame SUVs for pollution more than factories
when a single factory emits in one day worse toxins than the pollution
from thousands of SUVs in weeks. The sad part is most of these factories
operate around the clock.
Anti-SUV activists, however, have one valid point: the influx of SUVs
will eventually force the government to widen the roads and cut into our
tax base. I’ll let the government worry about that.
I don’t know about you, but I think SUVs are cool. They are big,
sleek and powerful. They can be used for fun, transporting large families
and carrying bulky loads.
Owning an SUV is not a liberal or conservative issue. It is a matter of
preference.
It wouldn’t bother me at all if I came to school one morning and
all the parking stalls were filled with SUVs.
Comment
on this story in the Opinion forum >>
|
