portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting global

bikes/transportation | environment | imperialism & war

SUV = Weapon of Mass Destruction

SUVs quickly burn the stolen oil of Iraq, increasing corporate profit of Halliburton/EXXONmobil/etc and releasing the evidence as air pollution that causes asthma and lung disease in inner city children..
Petroleum extraction is the main reason for the US military occupation of Iraq, and the upcoming US invasion of Syria. The Middle East oil reserves contain over 50 % of the world's oil, mostly due to the geological features of the Arabian tectonic plate (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Kuwait). Notice how convieniently 2 of the "Axis of Evil" countries fall into this region..

America consumes more petroleum than any other nation, and this in large part fueled by SUV culture. The gas guzzling SUV/HUMVEE vehicles speed the extraction, refining and consumption of petroleum, giving Halliburton, EXXONmobil, British Petroleum and other corporations exponential increase of financial power..

The US military occupation of Iraq will likely last as long as there is petroleum to be extracted, then Syria and Iran will be on the list 4 regime change. The faster the oil is sold to gas guzzling SUVs, the greater the profit 2 the petroleum corporations..

The Israel/Palestine situation is part of the American Zionist interests 4 total control of the remaining Middle East oil reserves. Israel is an ally only as long as the oil remains, given US made nuclear weapons to keep the Arab Muslims from interfering with US petroleum extraction. When the oil is gone, Israel will be useless & discarded along with all the other puppet dictatorships B4. The Jews are being used as pawns against the Muslims by Christian Zionists like Jerry Falwell/GW Bush/etc. who are preparing to fulfill some delusional "Armageddon" idea when all the Jews return to Israel and are either converted to Christianity or killed in the "Rapture" (2nd coming). Regardless of how bizarre this sounds, many Christian conservatives (Zionist neo-cons) believe this and will attempt to make this reality..

SUVs are weapons of mass destruction that encourage petroleum corporations to fund US military occupation of Iraq. They also emit more air pollutants (SOx, CO, CO2, etc) that cause asthma and lung disease, low level carbon monoxide poisoning. Robin Givens (recently hit pedestrian w/SUV) should know by driving SUV she is contributing to asthma and lung disease in inner city children (many of African descent) of smog prone cities like LA, Houston, Miami, etc..

Not to mention their higher center of gravity makes them more likely to rollover..

Not to mention... 30.Jan.2004 15:17


They're overweight.
They block the line of site of the drivers behind them with thier ridiculous height.
Thier useless standard option tinted windows contribute to the blocking of the line of site of drivers behind them.
They're often nearly as wide as the width of a lane, leaving little room for driver error.
Thier bumbers are not of a standard height and only work when hitting another SUV.
They're expensive to fix because of thier near universal uni-body constriction.
They're sure to cause high medical bills for whoever they don't kill in a collision.

Everything about SUV's are designed to send more cash down the path of big business, regardless of who gets maimed or killed.

Greenhouse Effect 30.Jan.2004 16:14


SUVs are allowed to pollute 5 times more pollutants than cars and they have such terrible gas mileage they excrete twice the carbon dioxide greenhouse gas that cars do. I was talking to a couple scientists from France today here for the International Oceanography Conference and they said that greenouse effect is absolutely true and a fact. They said one of the main things about it, it is changing the ocean currents with potentially worldwide devastating consequences.


Dairy is a bigger cause of asthma than SUVs 30.Jan.2004 16:19

No to cow's milk

SUVs with their big engines increase air pollution but are not a major source for asthma in kids -- it's true they don't help

Cow's milk and the products made from it: butter, ice cream, cheese, protein powder (whey), cottage cheese, half & half, etc. have a greater link with asthma particularly with the primary protein in cow's milk: casein.
Breast-fed babies obtain very little casein as human milk contain much lower quantities of this protein.
Some children get additional servings of milk from school lunches (in many states schools are required to serve milk to be funded), the WIC program, and food banks which are frequently given dairy products.
It is the protein's reaction with the body that causes the asthma symptoms in susceptible people.
Michael Klaper, M.D. of the Institute for Nutrition Education & Research stated that by taking only the dairy products out, 30% of the asthma patients have their problems vanish immediately.

Sport Utility Vehicles -- cars on truck chassis providing a great profit for the manufacturer

Asthma 30.Jan.2004 17:02


"Because SUVs and pickups, and all vans, are permitted to emit 29% to 47% more carbon monoxide (CO) and 75% to 175% more nitrogen oxides (NOx) (as well as other pollutants) than passenger cars, they contribute far more towards the health and environmental degredation on our planet and in your home. "


Is attacking an SUV a hate crime? 30.Jan.2004 19:19


"They're expensive to fix because of thier near universal uni-body constriction. "

We need to define terms here, neither of my SUV's are unit body construction, you know crush cars. Just what is your definition of a SUV? I agree with you they are the root of all evil. I just can't find anything to move the same amount of equipment and people at the mileage the this equipment does. I don't mind the hate but let's hate responsibly. In stead of attacking, how about telling us what we are permitted to do.

jlii-what about a mini-van 30.Jan.2004 21:02


In short jlii, the Caravan mini van has 40 more cubic feet of space than the large SUV Suburban and seats as many people and gets much better gas mileage and minivans have the safest driving record of all vehicles followed by large cars then large SUVs. Minivans are also less expensive.

Go to Edmunds to compare all specs>  http://www.edmunds.com/

CAR TALK guys:>

Minivans prove better than SUVs on gas, stability

By Tom and Ray Magliozzi
My wife and I recently took the "Do You Need an SUV?" quiz on your Web site. The results gave us some alternative suggestions, including minivans and "compact" SUVs. My wife asked: "Why are minivans any better than SUVs? They're both oversized, and they both get lousy mileage, etc." I valiantly replied that minivans ride lower to the ground, so they cause less damage to other cars in accidents. She wasn't convinced. So why is a minivan a better alternative to an SUV? My wife really digs the Subaru Forrester. -- Mark
RAY: Good question, Mark. The key is that minivans (and an increasing number of small SUVs, like the Forrester) are built on car platforms, as opposed to the old "body-on-frame" design of trucks and SUVs. And, like you say, car platforms are lower to the ground, and are the same height as what? Other cars! So, in accidents, they don't ram their bumpers into other people's throats.
TOM: Plus, the lower center of gravity means that minivans are less likely to flip over if you turn too fast or have a blowout or an accident. In general, the passenger-car platform allows for better handling, which can help you avoid accidents.
RAY: In addition, minivans generally get better gas mileage than trucks, which is good for everybody (except maybe OPEC).
TOM: There are also a couple of less "global" but equally important advantages of minivans over traditional SUVs. One is that because they're lower to the ground, they're easier to enter and exit. Some of the SUVs we drive are real pants-splitters and require a "heave-ho" to get into.
RAY: Minivans are also more comfortable to ride in, since the car platform is less harsh-riding than the truck platform of a full-sized SUV. And finally, the minivan design makes better use of interior space. So, you can comfortably fit seven people in a standard minivan, vs. five in all but the largest SUVs.
TOM: Then there's that other little problem with SUVs that minivans don't have: If you drive an SUV these days, everybody else hates you. They don't want to drive behind you because they can't see. They laugh at you when you can't fit into a parking space, or when you spend 60 bucks on a tank of gas. So, a minivan or one of the compact (car-based) SUVs, like the RAV4, CRV or Forrester, makes a lot more sense, in my opinion.
RAY: Plus, Mark, the Forrester is what your wife wants. Have you learned nothing yet in all these years of marriage?
Write to Tom and Ray Magliozzi in care of King Features, 8

Get the facts straight..... 30.Jan.2004 22:44


Those really big SUVs have big C-channel frames running front to back because they are truck based. This is also the reason why they get around EPA restrictions for passenger cars, because they are classified as trucks. When you use misinformation to make an argument, you come off looking like a conservative republican calling protesters anarchists. Or like a conservative calling an anarchist a terrorist. We all know that anarchy simply means self-rule, which is something most adults could never handle.

truck stop 31.Jan.2004 10:09


The difference is in the details. My SUV's have ladder frames so OHV use on forest trails or very back 'roads' they don't bounce apart like a minivan would until it got stuck. As for vehicles that get better gas mileage - the point should be consumption. A vehicle the gets better gas mileage and better emissions and uses four times the amount of fuel isn't better than a vehicle that burns less fuel throughout the year. So once again what is an individual's limit in gallons? .

SUVs are free for rich folks 31.Jan.2004 13:59

Another SUV hater

Rich people essentially get their huge SUVs for free. SUVs over a certain weight (Hummer, Excursion, etc) have a huge tax writeoff, encouraging rich people to buy them for "business" purposes and take an enormous tax writeoff of $50000 or more. This tax benefit should be repealed. The proper tax regarding SUVs would be a gasoline tax (because SUVs consume the most gas per mile) and other taxes that punish people for having SUVs.

Dead Iraqis to the gallon. 31.Jan.2004 14:02


If you can, you would ideally have an SUV for backwood use only and for daily commute use a bike, MAX or small car/minivan. It is said that only 1-2% of SUV owners ever take them off-road. So you are a very small exception. Its all these SUV pavement princesses that is the big problem. Burning tons of gas for fashion sake.
As to limits ask yourself, "How many dead Iraqis does it get to the gallon?"

Solve the problem! 31.Jan.2004 14:19

Bird Dog

Develope a new source of energy!

The best way to fix the problem is to come up with a cure!
The real problem is getting the corporations to care about people.
Then the rest will follow.

Respect/Hate 03.Feb.2004 11:44

SUV Owner

This site has quite an ironic point of view to it: Respect everyone regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, ect... yet advocate hate toward a human being who drives an SUV and in some cases commit crimes of assault and property damage. I don't quite understand this point of view. I have read postings calling for assaults on people because of what they drive, how is that different than assaults on people of different color, religion, or orientation? This is such a hypocritical stance. I do believe that the environment should be protected and I do believe that people should be protected, specificaly from this kind of behavior. I also have noticed that there is an extreme focus on Hummers. Why just Hummers? I've seen entire sites dedicated to it. I don't see VW haters. The only difference between a VW SUV and a Ford/Chevy SUV is 1-2 mpg. Amazing how you don't see crimes being commited against those owners or there vehicles. How about the new Porche or Land/Range Rover. Interesting- not seeing a whole lot in the way of hatred towards them. Somebody help me out here. I am trying to understand some of these extremists point of view. Maybe it's just pointless to try.

Touareg VS Excursion 04.Feb.2004 21:14

Old VW Bus Owner

I sincerely doubt that the VW Touareg gets almost the same mileage as a Ford Excursion.

The hatred for Hummers stems from several things :
1)Hummers are military - based and most people here are anti-war.
2)They are wasteful no matter how you slice it: nobody needs a truck that big on the street and I know most of them never see dirt even though they are very capable offroad trucks (particularly good for fighting wars)
3)Most people who drive them think they have the right of way since they are the biggest thing on the road. Alot of people who have SUVs are arrogant beyond belief. They seem to think signaling for lane changes and turns is optional. As a matter of fact tonight I had one(Dodge Durango SLT) coast a stop sign and almost hit me. I had my headlight on and I didn't have a stop sign,so I was visible and I had the right of way.

I personally do not support vandalism of personal property or the harassment of individuals. There is no difference between someone harassing me for riding a bike and someone harassing a SUV driver for driving an SUV. If they cut me off and almost kill me I am gonna get in their face though, for damn sure.

Toureg/ Excursion Response 05.Feb.2004 13:12

SUV Owner

So what I am reading from your comments is that all Suv owners are arrogant and because of the Hummer's military stylings, it is hated in the NW . If I may, I would like to respond with the fact that for every person who says they have been cut off by an SUV, I can give at least two examples of a honda civic, subaru, saab, or a BMW that have whizzed in and out of traffic like wild people who believe it is ok to put peoples lives at risk. Mostly what I and getting from your response is that it is a political statement to hate SUVs or a complaint about careless driving behavior . As an SUV owner I can agree that a lot of people I know with SUVs do not "off-road" . They do however go camping, skiing, and tow recreational water craft. I do go off roading, but I don't presume to know a person's intentions, penis size (nore do I care) , self- esteem level or anything else based on a vehicle and what they do with it. Once again I must say that in a city that knows no bounds as to its stance on personal freedoms of choice, it is very hypocritical to say no SUV's or condemn because someone has one. As to the mpg of a new VW Toureg, it has been posted on there web site that it " acheives" 14mpg in the city. The Excursion, though not posted on the web, claims 14 on the dealer lot. The Land/Range Rover also receives the same and is used by other militaries aroung the world as a transportation device. I guess we could all go round and round about the debate. For every stated fact , there will be a come back, which leaves me to believe that this world is full of opinions and choices and to act they that people do in this town contradicts the liberal left attitude of this area. Again, EVERYONE can be accused of hypocritical behavior. I would make more sense to me if people said, " I hate SUV because I do",. than try to throw half cocked statisitcs about the environment or site example about bad traffic behavior. Oh and by the way some of the most arrogant people I've met are corporate bid whigs who drive S class Mercedes or Porches. Do you see my point. There are arrogant morons in every walk of society from wealthy corporate tpyes, right down to that moron Craig Rosen...whatever. There are however outstanding human beings in those different social groups also. I guess I was raised with a background that tried to teach to treat people with respect and dignity until they try to harm you, and then handle it accordingly. Just my prospective.

suv's are a public safety issue 05.Feb.2004 14:33


But first, I would remind suv owner that there is a tremendous difference between anger and hate. Those who express anger at something or someone do not necessarily, or even often, hate that person or thing. We should be very careful when using rhetoric and hyperbole that is not accurate as it undermines our arguments.

"treat people with respect and dignity until they try to harm you"

Yes, this is a good policy, as is "love the sinner, hate the sin" (though I would not use the term "hate" personally). For me I suppose it's love the person, do not respect their choices when those choices harm others. This is the case with SUV's. This is not a case of "everyone should be allowed to do what they want." The presence of SUV's on the highways has led to an increase in accidents and fatalities. The decision to purchase an SUV is overwhelmingly a decision of "status" not "need". In almost every person I've ever heard argue that they "need" an SUV the things they "need" the SUV for would be better served by another vehicle, a safer vehicle.

Now, if SUV's were only dangerous to the people buying them I wouldn't have any more a problem with them than I do with motorcycles. If a person choose to put their own life at risk than they should have that choice (though we enter a gray area when it comes to a person's family). However, unlike motorcycles whose dangers fall onto the owner and rider, SUV's have led to an increase in fatalities of other drivers. In fact the single statistic that is toted to show that SUV's are "safe" is their higher survivability rate in fatal collisions. However, if one examines the combined survivability rate, that is the rate of all people involved in an accident, the rate is lower with SUV's. Or in other words, the increased survivability rate of an SUV driver comes at the direct expense of others on the road.

Since SUV's are not necessary (with very few exceptions) and since they pose a danger to people we should treat this as a public safety issue no different than other public safety issues. If we were to inform people of the dangers posed by SUV's such as the increased fatalities to pedestrians, the higher roll-over rates, increased accident rates, etc we can begin to eliminate the status that is associated with SUV's. We would be doing owners like yourself a favor because SUV's are currently the cheapest produced vehicles with the highest markup. We should insist that all vehicles on the road meet certain safety requirements many of which SUV's are exempt from at this time.

Of course, some have argued that it's not the vehicles themselves which are dangerous but the drivers. And while there may be something to be said about the class of people that are drawn to SUV's and their driving habits I'm not a fan of that argument.

As for environmental arguments, those too have merit. Emissions are a problem and SUV's have also been exempted from standards which would have greatly reduced our dependency on foreign oil (or national drilling) and have reduced emissions leading to global warming, public health issues (such as the many diseases on the rise due to air pollution), and even helped to keep gas prices lower (remember that the faster we use our oil the faster demand will outstrip supply and prices will rise considerably).

So, as anyone who has done the research can see SUV's offer us collectively as a society many problems with very little to be said in their defense except "I should be able to drive what I want". Well, that's not how this country works no matter how much someone wants to hold on to her or his status symbol. When enough people realize that there is a public safety and health issue we take action. We don't condone people who drink and drive because of "personal freedoms of choice." We don't condone those who run businesses that keep their workers in unsafe and unhealthy conditions. And we won't condone those who put other people's lives at risk so that they can drive the vehicle of their "choice."

Now, I know people whom I love and respect who own SUV's but I am not silent about telling them that I do not respect their choice. Many have been misled into thinking SUV's are "safer" which I debunk. Though again, sadly people are selfish enough that when I tell them that yes, though you are more likely to be in an accident and injured in an SUV but you are less likely to be killed but more likely to kill the people in another car, many are ok with that (under the assumption that it will not be them who causes the accident). The arguments that you are much more likely to be killed in any accident other than a car collision (hitting a stationary object for example) sometimes falls on deaf ears. But I will keep trying because I want them to be safe, and make better decisions with regard to their family's safety in the future.

Response to Evolutionary 05.Feb.2004 16:05

SUV Owner


O.k. , this is the dialogue I was hoping for. I do see your point on philosophy of love the person, not the choices. But I have to say that using the "status" card is not fair. You say that owning a SUV is status, what about the hundreds of $60,000.00 plus luxury sedans that also acheive not more than 16mpg city ? Are you going to tell me that these people, which clearly out number SUVs in the Portland area, are different. There is not a "need" for that kind of a vehicle. To name a few:
1. BMW 700 series
2. Mercedes Luxury sedans
3. Cadillac Luxury sedans
While I can appreciate your perspective, I must qualify it . Have you been involved in a SUV related accident ? I can tell you I have been hit twice by smaller sedans. Once while my wife was seven months pregnant. I wasn't harmed but my wife went into the hospital with labor complications. Again the statistics you quote can be played with to fit the argument. I can appreciate your concern for others well being but where do you get your information. Seriously, I would like to be brought up to speed on what all these people on this site, including yourself, are throwing out there. All I can tell you is the fight that you need to fight is not with the owners, it is at the Federal level and the manufacturers level. What you are fighting is peoples' desires. I have never said I "NEED " an SUV . I enjoy my vehicle and like the things that come with it. As far as consumers as a whole are concerned, I believe that as long as a product exists they are going to buy to fit there desires or wants. I am not opposed to EPA standards that are enforced on SUV but people will still find a way to hate or dislike them. Roll over rates?-- come on, I have seen enough accidents and have a friend with an accident investigation team for the police department that have shown me those statistics. HWY 26 alone has had countless roll overs with everything from sedans to mid-size SUVs.
As far as the environment is concerned, where do you get your information on the impact directly related to SUV's? I would like to get access to that . The whole dispute over depending on foreign oil is no different than depending on slave labor in Africa where they mine for our diamonds that we hold so precious. Do you not consider that an issue. I don't see people up in arms protesting the Shane Company.
Thanks for the debate and hope to see a reply from you.

is this a classroom or a bar? 06.Feb.2004 19:16


You were hoping for a dialog where you resorted to using straw man arguments and anecdotal evidence? That seems odd to me as the straw man is a sign of desperation from one who can't make a cogent argument and anecdotal evidence is better suited for an argument in a bar than a serious discussion of policy. I realize that cognitive dissonance puts you in a position where it will be uncomfortable to realize how dangerous and deadly SUV's really are. We all like to think of ourselves as good people and yet when faced with the serious consequences of our actions our minds are quick to deny, excuse, and overlook the evidence. So be aware of your own potential limitations in understanding these issues. You should also be aware that most people have researched and discussed these facts ad naseum and hence very few people feel like holding your hand and walking you through widely published information (I do so because it's been a few months since I've written of these issues in detail).

First, some facts.

* SUV's have a 3-times higher rollover rate than cars ( http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=oped&ID=43)
* SUV's have the highest rate of death occurring from rollovers ( http://www.suvrollovernews.com/html/general.html)
* "Pickups and SUVs are proportionally more likely than cars to be in fatal single-vehicle crashes, especially rollovers." ( http://www.hwysafety.org/safety_facts/fatality_facts/passenger_vehicles.pdf)
* "Single-vehicle rollover crashes accounted for 47 percent of driver deaths in SUVs in 2002 compared with 36 percent of deaths in pickups and 20 percent of deaths in cars." ( http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/fatality_facts/passveh.htm)
* pedestrians struck by SUV's are twice as likely to die as those struck by cars ( http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994462)
* "In single vehicle crashes, heavy vehicles with stiff frames (most SUVs) might actually do more to harm the vehicle's occupants because there is little give, or energy absorption engineering, to dissipate the force of running into an immovable object." ( http://www.iihs.org)
* SUV's are more likely to be involved in accidents due to high rollover rates, longer braking distances, and less maneuverability ( http://poseur.4x4.org/reasons2.html#Safe)

More information can be found at these sites:

"I have to say that using the "status" card is not fair."

It is fair; the vast majority of people who buy SUV's do not have a need for them (as you have conceded). They buy the most cheaply made, highest profit-margin vehicle out there because they are buying the image being sold to them on television. Anyone who really has use for a larger vehicle is inevitably better off with a pickup which is not exempt from safety and emissions standards, are higher quality, and a much better value. Your use of "luxury vehicles" is just a straw man and usually I don't bother responding to such things. I will say this, as a class of vehicles SUV's are the most unsafe (for their drivers, occupants, and other motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, etc) and produce, on average, the most emissions, and have, on average, the lowest fuel efficiency. Now, some individual cars have low fuel efficiency, high emissions, and are less safe (for the driver and occupants at least) like sports cars. Now these individual vehicles have to meet safety and emissions standards from which SUV's have been exempted and I have no problem making those standards higher. However, there is no other class of vehicle that is as dangerous to people as SUV's.

"which clearly out number SUVs in the Portland area"

Do you have any data to support that. Not that it's a relevant point anyway but if you can't back up your assumptions your argument only looks that much weaker.

"What you are fighting is peoples' desires."

Yes, and when we fight drunk driving we are fighting people's desires. It is not always successful, but that does not mean it isn't worth doing. And frankly, except for scale there is no difference between a drunk driver and an SUV driver. Both are putting other people's lives at risk because of their own sense of "personal entitlement" or "freedom" in their own words. Just as the drunk driver does not believe that they are really doing harm to anyone by driving, neither does the driver of the SUV. Yet the facts remain, SUV's continue to lead to increased fatalities, just as drunk drivers have.

"I believe that as long as a product exists they are going to buy to fit there desires or wants."

This may or may not be true, but it does not make it healthy or safe. Alcohol and cigarettes are neither healthy nor safe, nor are drugs but people continue to use them. The least we can do is try to protect people from those who choose courses of action that endanger the lives, health, and well-being of others.

"I have seen enough accidents and have a friend with an accident investigation team for the police department that have shown me those statistics. HWY 26 alone has had countless roll overs with everything from sedans to mid-size SUVs."

This is just anecdotal evidence. The statistics are clear on SUV roll-overs, both in frequency and fatality rates. If you choose not to believe it you do so at the risk of yourself, your family, and all those in your community.

"I can tell you I have been hit twice by smaller sedans."

This is more anecdotal evidence. But the statistics are clear here too, because there are far more cars on the road than SUV's you are still more likely to be hit by a car. However, proportionally, you are more likely to be hit by an SUV. That is, the accident rate for SUV's is far higher than that of cars but there are still more accidents involving cars because there are more cars. Luckily, accidents involving cars are much less likely to be fatal, or permanently debilitating (and you should consider yourslef lucky that the drivers in your accidents weren't driving SUV's).

"As far as the environment is concerned, where do you get your information on the impact directly related to SUV's?"

 http://www.suv.org/environ.html is a good place to start, all information has sources at the bottom from the EPA, DOE, IPCC, and others

"The whole dispute over depending on foreign oil is no different than depending on slave labor in Africa "

Actually, it's completely different; how would you argue the two are similar? Oil is the foundation of our economy, diamonds are not, and hence the policies which surround them are completely different.

"I don't see people up in arms protesting the Shane Company"

Well, that's thanks to the corporate media. I've been to several protests against DeBeers and others and Amnesty International has had several long running campaigns against diamond mines. You should do some research on that too.  http://web.amnesty.org/web/web.nsf/pages/ec-diamonds-eng