Edwards asks Americans to make sacrifice to lower fuel emissions,MSM-"HE WANTS TO TAKE YOUR SUV'S!"

[jsamuel]

Edwards: Americans should give up their SUVs

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards told a labor group Tuesday that he would ask Americans to make a big sacrifice: their sport utility vehicles.

“I think Americans are actually willing to sacrifice,” Edwards said during a forum held by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. “One of the things they should be asked to do is drive more fuel efficient vehicles.”

The former North Carolina senator was asked specifically if he would tell them to give up their SUVS, he said, “Yes.”

And what is the headline - "Edwards: Americans should give up their SUVs"

[MethuenProgressive]

1. Edwards was asked if he'd tell them to give up their SUVS, he said, “Yes.”

A straight answer! Good for him! But why didn't he mentiom hybrids, more eficient engines, etc as an alternitive to SUV-grabbing?

[jsamuel]

2. A good example is the Toyota Highlander Hybrid (SUV)

Obviously, only low emissions SUV's are going to be at issue here, but that goes for all vehicles.

[AZBlue]

57. It still gets only 18 MPG City/24 MPG Hwy.

That sucks!! For an SUV that's ok (sad to say) but you could choose any number of non-hybrid cars that get way better mileage than that.

The only excuse for an SUV is someone who lives on the Canadian border and gets so much snow that only an SUV will allow them to travel from October to the spring thaw. Other than that, not much "need" for them.

People who have them now, have them. But, production should be decreased and anyone looking to buy one now should have their head examined - and be required to take an environmentalism class.

[aquart]

3. Another reason to vote for him!

[Clark2008]

40. What's the first one?

I haven't seen any reason to, yet.

[GreenArrow]

48. there are several.

He's white. He's male, naturally. He's Southern. He's electable. He knows how to say "I'm wrong", thus proving he learns from his mistakes. He's adaptable. He's purty. He has a strong wife. He has cute kids. He's charismatic. He's so charismatic, he can charm owls down out of trees. Those are just a few of many reasons to vote for and financially support Senator -- soon to be President -- John Edwards.

[Mass]

78. He is white. He is male. ??? The GOP has a long list of candidates like that!

If these are your first reasons to vote for Edwards, may be you should change party?

In fact, you just described the way the GOP selects their candidates. Ken dolls without any substance. Is it what you are trying to convey, that Edwards has no substance?

[2rth2pwr]

79. Elizabeth Edwards: 'Can't make John black' or a 'woman' nt

[Cameron27]

80. I think GreenArrow's playing the devil's advocate here.

He hasn't been a fan of Edwards lol.

[GreenArrow]

82. "that Edwards has no substance?"

Correct. I don't think he has much substance.

Guess I should have used the sarcasm smiley.

[bdamomma]

4. yea, give up those gas guzzlers.

SUV's :puke:

[liberal N proud]

5. They will sell the Democrats as coming to get your SUV

This will replace or be added to the old meme that Democrats will take your guns away.

[MethuenProgressive]

8. "Edwards: Americans should give up their SUVs" was the headline

I expect his "what he really meant to say" people are trying to fix that as fast as they can.

[Romulox]

6. I'm calling on Americans to give up 30,000 square foot mansions

Why is one form of gluttonous over-consumption OK, but not others?

Why is it always the "little people" who have to sacrifice for the environment?

[jsamuel]

7. sad RW argument against lowering fuel emissions...

[Romulox]

9. Selective environmentalism

Nonsense. It's about class interests. It's much easier for Edwards to buy some support at the expense of the beleaguered US auto industry and its workers while at the same time not making any sacrifices that threaten his own luxurious lifestyle or those of wealthy donors.

Just another "Do as I say" kind of argument, really.

[jsamuel]

10. he drives a hybrid, his entire campaign is carbon neutral

If all you are interested in is what Edwards does and not what is best for the country or world, then there is nothing anyone can do for you.

[Romulox]

14. Oh, I'm interested in what's best for this country

I'm just not sure that attacking the domestic auto industry at the very moment they teeter on the brink of bankruptcy is it.

And I notice that John Edwards isn't calling for any new tax on excessive home heating and cooling costs. I guess it's all about whose ox is being gored, and membership still has its privileges even when the very fate of the earth hangs in the balance!

[jsamuel]

16. He did not attack the domestic auto industry. His plan calls for reducing carbon emissions by 80%

In everything (including home power) by 2050. That includes more fuel efficient vehicles regardless of whether they are SUV's, American, or otherwise.

[Canuckistanian]

43. Who's attacking the auto industry?

All Edwards said was basically "It would be good if people sacrificed cars with high gas consumption"

How does that constitute an "attack"?

[Cameron27]

11. The rich can buy carbon credits.

That might become an issue of class interests when environmental legislation kicks into high gear.

/spelling

[Romulox]

12. like dispensations or indulgences from the Catholic Church

His money justifies his pollution.

[DangerDave921]

38. OK

I'm starting to get a little ticked off here. Every time some poster makes a good point about something that challenges the OP, someone is sure to say that this is nothing more than a RW talking point. I'm really tired of that tactic. Address the point being made!

As for Edwards, I have to agree that his comments reek of hypocrisy. He is tone-deaf as a politician.

You know what? My wife drives an SUV and I'm glad she does. We have two little kids and I'd rather them be safer in a big car than driving around in some tiny little thing. Excuse me for being selfish, but that's the way I feel.

[calimary]

13. Welcome to DU!

It always mystifies me about the "gluttonous over-consumption" part. You'd think that people who can afford that kind of lifestyle could also easily afford some of the best new solar technology or recyclable or renewable building materials or SOMETHING with those big mansions. People who can afford it should be on the forefront of those developments, investing in them, putting them to practical use in their own homes and offices, helping to develop them as potential job sources. Plus, the more affluent people who help jumpstart these industries and innovations help them proliferate - and help the prices for those things go down. The more the interest and the bigger the market for these things, the more entrepreneurs and mainstream industries will want to get into them, thus developing more retail opportunities AND making them not only more widespread for the consumer, but more affordable.

Hey, I can remember when a good pocket calculator cost 350 bucks.

[Romulox]

15. I think it's a form of regional and class warfare

The coded message is clear: The gilded age can proceed full steam ahead, but the rabble are going to have to eat some cake!

[cobalt1999]

17. First really stupid thing I've heard Edwards suggest...

You can encourage people to reduce their carbon footprints, but you make a huge mistake when you tell them HOW to do it. People have different priorities and desires, so there is no one size fits all sacrifice.

I drive an SUV because I have a boat to tow, 4 dogs, 2 kids, a wife and usually a pile of camping gear. However, I live in a small house and we don't use A/C (largest single use of electricity).

John: What's it cost to cool that mansion of yours? Probably the carbon footprint of 10 SUV's.

[jsamuel]

18. every presidential candidate is arguing for that

it is part of all the plans to reduce emissions by 80 or 60 % by 2050 or 2080.

[cobalt1999]

19. I said planning to reduce emissions is fine.

It's not the reduction I'm talking about it's the telling people HOW to do it and what choices they should make is what is stupid. With my life and priorities, I drive an SUV, but don't use A/C. That's my choice. You can't set people's priorities for them. You need to make sure they have options.

[jsamuel]

21. Edwards isn't saying you will be arrested for driving an SUV.

He is saying that if they are going to make more SUV's, they have to be more fuel efficient. That is it, period.

[cobalt1999]

24. That's not what was in the article..

...The former North Carolina senator was asked specifically if he would tell them to give up their SUVS, he said, “Yes.”

He didn't say I would tell everyone to drive more energy efficient SUV's. The problem anyone has when they try and make the choice for others, is that no one is perfect and we are all living in glass houses. If he condemns SPECIFICALLY one thing, he opens himself up to the charge of hypocrisy in his own life choices. Which is why it was a stupid thing to do.

[jsamuel]

26. I guess it depends on what exactly was asked and how you read it.

I just read it as, we need to move away from gas guzzling SUV's. I don't read that as, "I am going to take your SUV's away."

[cobalt1999]

30. Even that opens him up to criticism.

That is still focusing on one element of the total equation, and opens him up to the charge of say "cooling a mansion" is a bigger hit on the environment.

Hey, I like Edwards fine, but he stepped in it this time. He'll have to backpedal raise the topic back up to the level of reducing total emissions, without targeting some peoples individual choices because he'll be hit with the hypocrisy charge easy now.

[jsamuel]

31. I disagree. He can ask for sacrifice for the good of the country wether he has a big house or not.

The house thing is just being USED. It isn't an issue. Reducing carbon emissions is the right thing to do and no amount of distraction on his house is going to change that.

With that message, he could be a hobo and people would still find something to attack him with.

[cobalt1999]

32. I don't think you are getting my point.

I totally agree with the idea of "sacrifice for the good of the country" and "reducing emissions". No one is arguing against those ideas.

Here is my point. Edwards can be for sacrifice, but he CAN'T tell people specifically which item they need to sacrifice. We all have different needs and priorities, we all make choices, and Edwards cannot point to one specific choice without opening himself up to an easy attack on his own choices.

Politically, it was a dumb mistake. To extract himself, he needs to get back to talking about reducing total emissions.

[cali]

58. Oh, bullshit

If he wants to pontificate, he should practice what he preaches. Do you have any fucking idea how big 24,000 sq ft is? No one, and I repeat no one, needs a house that big. It's conspicuous consumption at its worst.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

29. Do you think JE would surrender the SUV vote by calling for arresting SUV voters?

It makes no sense politically or from a policy perspective.

[cobalt1999]

36. Which is why you'll see him backpedaling away from that statement ASAP.

It opens him up to the charge of hypocrisy.

[jsamuel]

23. btw, not using the AC and leaving the windows down uses more gas than just using the AC

because of wind resistance

[cobalt1999]

25. I'm talking about Home A/C

I don't think too many automobile A/C's are driven off the local power grid.

[jsamuel]

gotcha

[BreweryYardRat]

42. So that's why my crappy Volvo always seemed to burn gas ridiculously fast!

I had no A/C and had to leave the windows down. Man, I'm glad I'm getting rid of that piece of shit.

[trogdor]

76. Depends.

At city speeds, windows down is better. At highway speeds, AC is better.

[2rth2pwr]

20. I like Edwards, but he seems

to change quite a bit. Do you think he will stick with this?

[jsamuel]

22. He has been for a 80% reduction in carbon emissions from the beginning of his campaign.

(possibly before that for all I know)

[2rth2pwr]

44. I saw Edwards has SUV's

Is he going to give them up?

[venable]

46. he has hybrids nt

[Cameron27]

47. He has hybrids, and he has SUV's

do you have a link that shows his SUV's are all hybrids? I'm asking because there are questions being raised about this.

[venable]

49. i don't have a link, but during the big house hullaballoo, this was discussed and clarified

and no matter how dumb someone might think Edwards is (I think he's blazingly intelligent BTW), he could never be so dumb as to drive a non-hybrid SUV, and call for people to give them up.

[Cameron27]

51. Who discussed his vehicles during the house debate?

Here? At his website? Sorry, you should know by now that on DU, if you make an absolute statement, it has to be supported with facts.

I'll keep looking. (There's all sorts of crap popping up when I google "John Edwards news," or "John Edwards SUV" (pics of SUV's in his driveway etc.) but unfortunately it's coming from sites I'd never trust)

[Cameron27]

53. Looks like he actually does drive a non-hybrid SUV.

I'm only using Hume's account since Edwards said this in an interview with him. If I can find the interview, I'll post that.

Brit Hume, writing on FoxNews.com, points out that Edwards is, in fact, an SUV owner himself. The Edwards campaign admitted to Hume that the former senator owns a Ford Escape Hybrid SUV and a 2004 Chrysler Pacifica SUV, but said he is driving them less frequently.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=122410



Chrysler's tried-and-true 3.5-liter V6 delivers a healthy 250 horsepower and 250 lb-ft of torque. Combined with a four-speed automatic, it delivers plenty of passing power and EPA mileage ratings of 17 city/22

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=100316

[venable]

54. well, I'd guess you're right, then

though I don't know what sources you wouldn't trust, but then would trust Brit Hume.

I'd hope, and assume, that the non-hybrid is not used. why they have it, I don't know.

my guess is that with this unequivocal answer today, they will do something about it.

I'm sure more to come.

[Cameron27]

55. If Edwards trusted him enough to do an interview with him,

I'll post information about that interview. I suspect the Edwards's are definitely going to have to make some decisions about that SUV, but so far they haven't commented.

[venable]

56. update for seasoneblue

just talked to someone close to them.

they don't drive the pacifica, but when they did they got 18mpg, and think of it as a station wagon. but they don't use it.

[Cameron27]

64. I'll wait for an official statement venable,

but he was stupid to raise this issue if he still owns the thing.

[venable]

66. I'm not going to argue that it was brilliant

but I don't think, given the fact that he doesn't drive the car, and his carbon neutral campaign are pretty convincing.

still, I can't and won't try to argue that it was brilliant - even if it is true (his car aside) that people should de-SUV.

For the poster above who love his SUV because his kids are safe (as a father I get that need), there are several very safe cars that don't drink so much gas.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

60. Even if he does stop using his non-hybrid SUV,

why hasn't he already stopped using it? Is JE trying to run the most hypocritically Democratic campaign ever?

[venable]

63. sounds like he has given up his 'station wagon'.

but let me wager a guess that, no, he's not trying to be a hypocrite.

i would also contend it's not so terrible - he doesn't use the 'station wagon' that's not a hybrid, he does use a hybrid, his house has the highest energy star rating, his campaign is carbon neutral, so I think there's no reason to get in a lather about the fact that he says people should give up their SUVs. sounds like he has.

[Cameron27]

67. What's the monthly electric bill for his high star energy rated 28,000

sq ft.home/compound, because that's the bottom line. (the completed home, not the amount he estimated on his partially finished house) And if he still owns that SUV, yes, he can be called a hypocrite for it. How much of his campaign's carbon neutral status is taken up with carbon credits btw? He's flying by private plane to his campaign stops, yes?

[Indenturedebtor]

33. Hmmmm I feel for you

I wonder sometimes though.. there were no SUVs when I was a kid, and I remember going camping and boating quite a bit. I can't remember how we managed. Oh... Yeah!!!!!!!! With a car ;)

Minivans make more sense than SUV's. They're much more fuel efficient, cheaper, and safer. Oh and many can tow 5,000 pounds which is more than enough for a good sized boat. Also they hold their value better and provide more room and comfort. But they're not "cool".

[cobalt1999]

34. Yes, with cars that used to have huge displacement V-8's

Those cars also had springs and suspensions to handle lots of weight.

I'd love to see you find me a car that is as fuel efficient as a modern SUV that can tow 5,000lbs without burning up the engine, bottoming out the suspension, or frying the brakes. Shoot, many of the small Jeeps are only rated to 3500lbs.

What cars are you talking about and what is their mpg compared to an SUV?

[waiting for hope]

45. Really? Not cool?

My two kids (6 and 2 1/2) think I'm the coolest, driving my Chevy Venture with the Red Hot Chili Peppers on CD. Therefore, since they believe that, I'm a pretty hip Mom!

[trogdor]

39. Tow that boat every day?

What about those four dogs? They have biweekly vet requirements or something? You go camping every weekend?

How often is it just you and your coffee mug going to work? Need an SUV for that? I don't know if you're aware of this, but every time somebody starts talking about how wasteful SUVs are in general, and how most people who own them really don't need anything that big on anything close to a regular basis, some wiseacre starts talking about their boat and their herd of kids and the crap they occasionally carry. It's flamebait, and it's something I'd expect to see at Fark, not here.

The argument isn't about whether you're going to Hell for driving an SUV, but whether you'd consider right-sizing your energy consumption. For most folks, that means downsizing their personal transport.

[ProudDad]

62. How often

do you need to haul all of that?

"a boat to tow, 4 dogs, 2 kids, a wife and usually a pile of camping gear"

I have a vision of a world where there are a few larger vehicles per neighborhood that can be shared and used when needed...

For the other 95% of the time and usage, there will be small, electric town vehicles -- recharged by decentralized solar energy.

This IS what must happen. Holding on to the old, wasteful, greedy paradigm may kill us all...

[2rth2pwr]

72. I don't disagree

but what is the deal about advocating something for others and doing something else? And what does carbon neutral mean?

[ProudDad]

75. Realistically

It's easy to tell others what "THEY MUST DO", I agree.

"Carbon Neutral" has become another fog phrase to allow people who don't really know what they're talking about to avoid having to talk about it...

------------

We need a crash program to develop and implement alternative energy solutions to the destructive oil/coal/gas/nuclear cabal. This crash program should make the New Deal and the Race to the Moon look like a tortoise race in the Arctic.

We need to begin that program by removing all subsidies from oil/coal/gas/nuclear and putting HUGE subsidies on decentralized solar power and electric vehicles powered by same for two and seriously scientifically vetted as they are determined. (The current Dem "energy" bill in Congress does JUST THE OPPOSITE -- it's a set of subsidies for the oil/coal/gas and especially nuclear mafia with a few crumbs tossed in the direction of the WRONG "alternative" technologies - NOTHING for decentralized Solar)

There's room for some interim technologies like biodiesel (NOT using food but using grasses) and hybrids but only until the crash program produces results...

If this doesn't happen in the next 10 years or so, we (all mammalian life on Earth) can grab our ankles (or what passes for ankles) and kiss our asses goodbye...

:hi:

[The Backlash Cometh]

27. Hell, if we could trade in our SUVs for a hybrid SUV, we'd do it tomorrow.

Shared pain. The government should pay for the trade-off.

[jsamuel]

28. agreed, his plan includes subsidized renewable energy

[Indenturedebtor]

35. I work about 50-60 hours a week

selling cars trucks, and sadly SUVs. I meet usually between 1-5 different individuals and one of the first questions I ask is "how many passengers do you usually have?" the response of the SUV buyer is usually "3, my wife and 2 kids". About 30% of the time the SUV buyer has no kids. When I ask "so you go offroading quite a bit?" The customer usually tells me that they have never been offroading and have no plans to do so, but just in case they would like 4x4. I often argue successfully that 4x4 costs 1500 to 2500 more, has higher insurance costs, and brings down gas mileage by about 2 mpg... but just as often people insist that they want it because it looks cooler to have the truck/suv sit up higher.

98% of SUV buyers should be saving about 10-20 THOUSAND dollars in initial costs, and thousands more in gas mileage and insurance by buying minivans and cars, but they somehow think that they "need" an SUV. The truth is that 98% want an SUV for "cool" factor, and the most disgusting thing I hear in my work week: "When i get in a wreck I wanna be the one that does the killing!" Even though minivans are categorically safer.

Plus there are some good affordable hybrid options out there now, as well as diesel SUVs that have recently hit the market. 20,000 dollar vehicle financed is on average 450-350 a month with nothing down. Gas savings between 13mpg and 30mpg... well you do the math. It is an economical decision if you want it to be.

[plusfiftyfive]

50. Does anyone tell them to RENT an SUV?

For the 5 weekends and 2 weeks a year they need one?

Buy a 30+ MPG commuter car, drive that car 85% of your mileage, squeeze the kids in there for the 15 minute trips a week when the kids and all of you go to church, to the shops, out to dinner at the pizza place.

On those 15% of your drive time you spend "together as a family, RENT what you need, leave the small sedan at home, or loan it to your next door neighbor who still drives an SUV to work all alone, save him some gas dollars.

Project your income an expenses in 5 years when gas prices is rising through $5, -$8.. or more per gallon...........what are you willing to do to change your life? If a Democrat or a Republican wins the next election, $8 to 10$ a gallon may be here before 2012!!!!!!!!!!! Be ready for that! Prepare your life fot this, 40 MPG or better, home equipped with 50% solar power....electric grid for your area 25% solar or wind or tidal powered by 2012.......we can do this. Get with the program

[Beaverhausen]

37. Good- someone has to LEAD when it comes to lowering emissions

god knows, I don't see anyone else doing it.

[Catchawave]

41. Linky ? Is this CNN's headline?

If so, I want to nominate them for Keith Olbermann's Worst Person in the World :evilgrin:

I need the link...thanks :hi:

[usregimechange]

52. kick

[AnotherGreenWorld]

59. His supporters should call on him to make a sacrifice for once...

"Alright, John, we like what you're saying. It's nice. But your record doesn't support your rhetoric. And the way you live certainly doesn't. So why not make a few sacrifices of your own? If you do not, we won't vote for you."

[BlueCollar]

61. I'll drive my Jeep Cherokee to the polls and vote for him anyway,,,n/t

[defendandprotect]

65. If we had electric cars, what would this matter -- ?????

Why aren't the candidates talking about electric cars -- ???

See: "Who Killed The Electric Car?"

[Cameron27]

68. Well he should have challenged the industry to start producing

more environmentally friendly cars, and not put the burden on the consumer. Getting the cost of hybrids down would be a great start.

[defendandprotect]

69. Right -- and neither has Gore spoken about electric cars -- and he has long time relationship

with one of the oil companies having backed him.

Anyone who wants to talk about Global Warming has to talk about taking back control of our natural resources from private interests. We should nationalize our oil.

As for electric cars -- certainly Gore could recommend the movie --
"Who Killed The Electric Car?" -- and he could talk about SUBSIDIZING both the manufacture and the purchase of electric cars. Btw, Detroit's disinterest in producing electric cars causes me to wonder if their business is producing cars and running a successful business or whether it's representing the oil industry????

If we subsidized both ends -- and raised up a new automobile corp to produce electric cars --
we could replace ALL our gas-guzzlers in five years.

Keep replacing the older ones first -- 20% a year --

Anyone who really understands the severity of Global Warming -- and Gore says he does!! -- would advocate the immediate stopping of the burning of fossil fuels.

If we have any chance -- this is it!!!

[Cameron27]

71. I don't know that much about electric cars, but I'll

definitely rent the movie. How much does it cost to charge up one of those cars btw?

[defendandprotect]

73. "Who Killed The Electric Car . . . ?" -- my library had it ---

You have to see the movie which answers most of these questions --

A shocking and informative movie --

But, evidently America put huge amounts of money into developing gasoline stations to service and refuel the gas-guzzlers.

Something of the same effort would have to be made to provide "recharging" stations for electric cars --

But, the expectation is that once the market moved in this direction that advances would be rapid.

See the movie -- you'll like it --

[Cameron27]

74. Thanks, I just ordered it from netflix,

I should get it in a few days.

[Triana]

70. He's right. They should. They won't, but they should. (n/t)

[ProudDad]

77. About that myth that you're "safer in a SUV"

and your family is safer in a SUV...

I cry, "bullshit"...

It's only because so many fuckers are out there driving around in the stupid things. I get tired as HELL of having to try to look over those fucking lincoln, ford, cadillac and hummer pieces of SHIT.

It's sure as hell NOT safe for the rest of us...

I do get a chuckle once in a while when one of those jerkwad SUV's loses a battle against the real Goliath of the road; a semi-trailer truck...

But, being the U.S. one can't ban them...however...

A huge property tax based on vehicle on weight added to vehicle registrations along with a 100% sales tax on their purchase would be a good start...

They should also be required to carry a painted on hazardous warning label like on a cigarette pack and, if the label is removed, a year in jail...

[NaturalHigh]

81. I personally feel it's everyone's personal choice what to drive.

I drive a Honda Civic, which gets around 35 mpg. It's my work car, and I love it. I plan to drive it until the wheels fall off. The fact that it's paid for is also a big plus.

My wife drives a Chevy Trailblazer, which, even though it's a six-cylinder, doesn't do so great on gas. We need something to haul the kids around in, though, and a smaller sedan isn't feasible for us because we sometimes need to haul feed or other-ranch related items.

I would never own a big gas-guzzler because I don't want to pay for the gas. If someone has the money and doesn't mind paying the ridiculous fuel prices and propping up the oil companies' profits, though, what they drive is their choice and should remain that way.

[Cameron27]

83. What someone chooses to drive is only part of their

carbon "footprint" and should be taken in the context of their entire lifestyle IMO. Why not go after the manufacturers instead of consumers at this point. If laws can be made to ban lead paint, I don't see any problem with introducing laws that ban toxic cars.

I love the Hollywood crowd that flaunts their shiny new Prius's, but then drive home and consume vast amounts of energy in their extravagantly wasteful houses.