"Watson A.Name "Watt Sun - the Dark Remover"" wrote
in message ...
Anthony Matonak wrote:
Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun - the Dark Remover\" wrote:

Last nite (Tue, 9pm) I watched a prog on PBS that was about getting
people to use more renewable resources, hosted by Cameron Diaz (hot
blonde movie star), who drives a Prius. They talked about getting
every home to have a solar panel, and selling power back to the
utility co. She also said that if everyone in the U.S. drove a hybrid
vehicle, we could completely eliminate oil shipments from the middle
east. Well, I'd go out and buy a Prius, but one of the guys at work
has had his new Prius since xmas and it took him 4 months or so to get
it after submitting a $500 earnest check to several dealerships to get
on their waiting list. They say they're trying to make more of them,
but I think they really don't want the prices to fall, since they're
expensive to make. In any case I'd like more solar power, but the
initial outlay is _not_ cheap.


While I'm all for using more renewable resources, and especially
ones that are environmentally friendly, it doesn't make sense to
cause yourself financial pain doing so. It makes sense to buy the
must fuel efficient vehicle that fits your needs but not to overspend
simply because it's a little better on the gas mileage.

It's not a "little" better, it more than double - 50+ MPG compared to 25!

[snip]
You could
also change your diet to include less animal products. Raising animals
to produce food takes many times more resources (which often means
energy) as plants alone require.

Right, but it's **you** (see above) that said to not cause yourself
financial pain. Well, I _try_ to do my part to eat little or no beef,
instead eat chicken. But I _have_ to pay a premium to do so, even tho
it's cheaper to bring chicken to the table, just because of supply and
demand issue. People consume less beef so the price drops below
chicken, not because it's cheaper. So I and everyone else hasto pay
extra for, helping save resources. Just what you said _didn't_make_
sense_.

There are also many alternatives to a Prius. One option would be to
get a diesel powered car and use biodiesel or get it converted to
run on straight vegetable oil. Another option is to buy an electric
car.

Again, you're asking for people to make a financial sacrifice when
buying an electric vehicle. The last I checked, it cost $46,000 to
purchase a RAV4 EV, with a good chunk of that going to the installation
of an electric charger in the owner's garage. According to you, that
financial pain 'doesn't make sense'.

If you simply
must have a hybrid vehicle then a much wider selection of them should
be available within the next 10 to 15 years.

In the next 10 to 15 years, the situation may be much, much worse. The
big worry in the near term seems to be China, with 1/5th of the world's
population, which may have a growing economy that will gobble up an ever
growing part of the world's non-renewable energy resources. In 10-15
years, it may be too late! The price of fuel in europe is already over
$5 a gallon, and we Americans are currently bitching about having to pay
over $2! Well, wait until it goes up to $3, or more! All those SUV
owners in the U.S. will be taking tbe bus to work. Time will tell!

Anthony

Surprisingly enough some SUV owners actually need the SUV at the time of
purchase, I personally drove through snow 70cm deep on a regular basis prior
to my recent job change. Just because the people in southern California
don't need it doesn't mean no one does.

Charles

Charles W. Johnson Jr. wrote:

[snip]

While I'm all for using more renewable resources, and especially
ones that are environmentally friendly, it doesn't make sense to
cause yourself financial pain doing so. It makes sense to buy the
must fuel efficient vehicle that fits your needs but not to overspend
simply because it's a little better on the gas mileage.

It's not a "little" better, it more than double - 50+ MPG compared to 25!

[snip]

Surprisingly enough some SUV owners actually need the SUV at the time of
purchase, I personally drove through snow 70cm deep on a regular basis prior
to my recent job change. Just because the people in southern California
don't need it doesn't mean no one does.

Charles

Surprisingly enough, many of those people who bought a big Ford
Expedition or GM Yukon could have got by with a lot smaller, and hence a
lot more economical SUV. ALso, there are vans, too, with a much better
gas mileage. Surprisingly enough, it's not about whether or not it's a
SUV or a truck or whatever, it's whether or not it's a gas guzzler.

"Watson A.Name "Watt Sun - the Dark Remover"" wrote
in message ...
Charles W. Johnson Jr. wrote:

[snip]

While I'm all for using more renewable resources, and especially
ones that are environmentally friendly, it doesn't make sense to
cause yourself financial pain doing so. It makes sense to buy the
must fuel efficient vehicle that fits your needs but not to overspend
simply because it's a little better on the gas mileage.

It's not a "little" better, it more than double - 50+ MPG compared to
25!

[snip]

Surprisingly enough some SUV owners actually need the SUV at the time of
purchase, I personally drove through snow 70cm deep on a regular basis
prior
to my recent job change. Just because the people in southern California
don't need it doesn't mean no one does.

Charles

Surprisingly enough, many of those people who bought a big Ford
Expedition or GM Yukon could have got by with a lot smaller, and hence a
lot more economical SUV. ALso, there are vans, too, with a much better
gas mileage. Surprisingly enough, it's not about whether or not it's a
SUV or a truck or whatever, it's whether or not it's a gas guzzler.

A van with 4X4 or allwheel drive and ground clearance is an SUV.
Gas mileage becomes secondary if every time you try to move you get stuck.
The small SUV hold a family of 5 uncomfortably the larger hold a family of
seven, mom, dad, grandma and grandpa + 2 or more kids comfortably plus will
pull that 30'+ mobile home they camp in. Again not everyone lives in
Southern California where you can't do anything fun least you violate some
environmentalists dream.

Personally I bought the smallest vehicle I felt could do the job I needed it
to. That turned out to be a V6 that get about 25mpg highway.

Charles

"Watson A.Name "Watt Sun - the Dark Remover"" wrote
in message ...
Charles W. Johnson Jr. wrote:

[snip]

While I'm all for using more renewable resources, and especially
ones that are environmentally friendly, it doesn't make sense to
cause yourself financial pain doing so. It makes sense to buy the
must fuel efficient vehicle that fits your needs but not to overspend
simply because it's a little better on the gas mileage.

It's not a "little" better, it more than double - 50+ MPG compared to
25!

[snip]

Surprisingly enough some SUV owners actually need the SUV at the time of
purchase, I personally drove through snow 70cm deep on a regular basis
prior
to my recent job change. Just because the people in southern California
don't need it doesn't mean no one does.

Charles

Surprisingly enough, many of those people who bought a big Ford
Expedition or GM Yukon could have got by with a lot smaller, and hence a
lot more economical SUV. ALso, there are vans, too, with a much better
gas mileage. Surprisingly enough, it's not about whether or not it's a
SUV or a truck or whatever, it's whether or not it's a gas guzzler.

A van with 4X4 or allwheel drive and ground clearance is an SUV.
Gas mileage becomes secondary if every time you try to move you get stuck.
The small SUV hold a family of 5 uncomfortably the larger hold a family of
seven, mom, dad, grandma and grandpa + 2 or more kids comfortably plus will
pull that 30'+ mobile home they camp in. Again not everyone lives in
Southern California where you can't do anything fun least you violate some
environmentalists dream.

Personally I bought the smallest vehicle I felt could do the job I needed it
to. That turned out to be a V6 that get about 25mpg highway.

Charles

in article , Watson A.Name "Watt Sun - the Dark
Remover" at wrote on 4/15/04 13:19:

Charles W. Johnson Jr. wrote:

[snip]

While I'm all for using more renewable resources, and especially
ones that are environmentally friendly, it doesn't make sense to
cause yourself financial pain doing so. It makes sense to buy the
must fuel efficient vehicle that fits your needs but not to overspend
simply because it's a little better on the gas mileage.

It's not a "little" better, it more than double - 50+ MPG compared to 25!

[snip]

Surprisingly enough some SUV owners actually need the SUV at the time of
purchase, I personally drove through snow 70cm deep on a regular basis prior
to my recent job change. Just because the people in southern California
don't need it doesn't mean no one does.

Charles

Surprisingly enough, many of those people who bought a big Ford
Expedition or GM Yukon could have got by with a lot smaller, and hence a
lot more economical SUV. ALso, there are vans, too, with a much better
gas mileage. Surprisingly enough, it's not about whether or not it's a
SUV or a truck or whatever, it's whether or not it's a gas guzzler.


And this becomes your decision or business exactly how?
DC

"Dave Cole" wrote in message
...
in article , Watson A.Name "Watt Sun - the
Dark
Remover" at wrote on 4/15/04 13:19:

Charles W. Johnson Jr. wrote:

[snip]

While I'm all for using more renewable resources, and especially
ones that are environmentally friendly, it doesn't make sense to
cause yourself financial pain doing so. It makes sense to buy the
must fuel efficient vehicle that fits your needs but not to overspend
simply because it's a little better on the gas mileage.

It's not a "little" better, it more than double - 50+ MPG compared to
25!

[snip]

Surprisingly enough some SUV owners actually need the SUV at the time
of
purchase, I personally drove through snow 70cm deep on a regular basis
prior
to my recent job change. Just because the people in southern California
don't need it doesn't mean no one does.

Charles

Surprisingly enough, many of those people who bought a big Ford
Expedition or GM Yukon could have got by with a lot smaller, and hence a
lot more economical SUV. ALso, there are vans, too, with a much better
gas mileage. Surprisingly enough, it's not about whether or not it's a
SUV or a truck or whatever, it's whether or not it's a gas guzzler.


And this becomes your decision or business exactly how?
DC

I did not write the above please be careful of your snips.

Charles

"Dave Cole" wrote in message
...
in article , Watson A.Name "Watt Sun - the
Dark
Remover" at wrote on 4/15/04 13:19:

Charles W. Johnson Jr. wrote:

[snip]

While I'm all for using more renewable resources, and especially
ones that are environmentally friendly, it doesn't make sense to
cause yourself financial pain doing so. It makes sense to buy the
must fuel efficient vehicle that fits your needs but not to overspend
simply because it's a little better on the gas mileage.

It's not a "little" better, it more than double - 50+ MPG compared to
25!

[snip]

Surprisingly enough some SUV owners actually need the SUV at the time
of
purchase, I personally drove through snow 70cm deep on a regular basis
prior
to my recent job change. Just because the people in southern California
don't need it doesn't mean no one does.

Charles

Surprisingly enough, many of those people who bought a big Ford
Expedition or GM Yukon could have got by with a lot smaller, and hence a
lot more economical SUV. ALso, there are vans, too, with a much better
gas mileage. Surprisingly enough, it's not about whether or not it's a
SUV or a truck or whatever, it's whether or not it's a gas guzzler.


And this becomes your decision or business exactly how?
DC

I did not write the above please be careful of your snips.

Charles

in article , Watson A.Name "Watt Sun - the Dark
Remover" at wrote on 4/15/04 13:19:

Charles W. Johnson Jr. wrote:

[snip]

While I'm all for using more renewable resources, and especially
ones that are environmentally friendly, it doesn't make sense to
cause yourself financial pain doing so. It makes sense to buy the
must fuel efficient vehicle that fits your needs but not to overspend
simply because it's a little better on the gas mileage.

It's not a "little" better, it more than double - 50+ MPG compared to 25!

[snip]

Surprisingly enough some SUV owners actually need the SUV at the time of
purchase, I personally drove through snow 70cm deep on a regular basis prior
to my recent job change. Just because the people in southern California
don't need it doesn't mean no one does.

Charles

Surprisingly enough, many of those people who bought a big Ford
Expedition or GM Yukon could have got by with a lot smaller, and hence a
lot more economical SUV. ALso, there are vans, too, with a much better
gas mileage. Surprisingly enough, it's not about whether or not it's a
SUV or a truck or whatever, it's whether or not it's a gas guzzler.


And this becomes your decision or business exactly how?
DC

Charles W. Johnson Jr. wrote:

[snip]

While I'm all for using more renewable resources, and especially
ones that are environmentally friendly, it doesn't make sense to
cause yourself financial pain doing so. It makes sense to buy the
must fuel efficient vehicle that fits your needs but not to overspend
simply because it's a little better on the gas mileage.

It's not a "little" better, it more than double - 50+ MPG compared to 25!

[snip]

Surprisingly enough some SUV owners actually need the SUV at the time of
purchase, I personally drove through snow 70cm deep on a regular basis prior
to my recent job change. Just because the people in southern California
don't need it doesn't mean no one does.

Charles

Surprisingly enough, many of those people who bought a big Ford
Expedition or GM Yukon could have got by with a lot smaller, and hence a
lot more economical SUV. ALso, there are vans, too, with a much better
gas mileage. Surprisingly enough, it's not about whether or not it's a
SUV or a truck or whatever, it's whether or not it's a gas guzzler.