A more measured argument

Thanks to Mandy for bringing this article on the SUV debate in Europe to my attention.

Apparently several European countries are using underhanded means to control their citizen's lust for fuel-inefficiency and neuvo riche exhibitionism. These range from name calling (London's Mayor called SUV owners "complete idiots") to higher fuel taxes on prices that are already around three times what Americans have been complaining about. Most drastic, Sweden is considering "taxes of up to $20,000 per vehicle on SUVs by 2006." SNAP.

A Porsche spokesman had an interesting take:

"Do you call 4.6 million people (SUV drivers) irresponsible, or are the car manufacturers irresponsible? Or are the people trying to create an issue irresponsible? Take your pick. We're not a socialist society. We're a society with free choices."

There's that word again. Free. I won't bother with the falsehood of equating socialism with authoritarianism, which is a rhetorical tool made popular during the Red Scare, because he's fundamentally correct, this is an issue of freedom.

This is part of a larger war of attrition in Europe about just what's defined as a freedom. Freedom, in this case, is used as the more rhetoric-friendly synonym of inalienable right. It's like this: In America, as the report stated, people like the unrestricted, selfish freedom of being able to do whatever we want. We like big ass cars and big ass plots of land. We don't like to be stacked on top of each other and we really don't care how much habitat we have to destroy to give every man, woman and child their own fenced-in back yard. But large, landscaped properties and gas guzzling cars have price tags that aren't only burdens on the owner's bottom line, they contribute significantly to the degradation of this planet as a viable habitat for all animals, humans included.

I think the question needs to be addressed in this country, and not just on the issue of cars, but of lifestyle in general--urban sprawl and sustainable resource use--at what point does one person's freedom of consumption and possession begin to infringe on another's (possibly generations in the future) freedom of life and health? When will we stop focusing on immediate gratification and unrealistic creature comforts and begin looking forward to the type of world our actions [and automobiles] are creating? Humans are intelligent creatures, we have the unique ability to project forward and extrapolate the consequences of our actions. It's odd, then, that Humanity should be so horribly short-sighted.

Something else the report stated was right on point. The weight of SUVs is a problem we fail to recognize in America. Roads aren't invincible, they eventually break down. The rate at which they break down depends on the speeds allowed and the weight of the vehicles that travel them. In Europe this is a huge problem because often, in older city centers the roads are still cobbled. But even in America, residential and surface streets take a pounding from heavy trucks and SUVs. This is a huge civic cost that taxpayers ultimately pay for. What's wrong with making the culprits pay a proportionate amount of the repair costs? I think it's a good idea to have a rolling vehicle registration fee, not based on a car's age and price, but based on the amount of damage it does to infrastructure annually. This will obviously be seen by some as an affront to freedom of choice. Maybe it is, but only if you confuse liberty with having no obligations. That's more akin to anarchy. For citizens of democratic republics, freedom is not without responsibility.

Trucks are more excusable because they have valid functionality, they do work. Fine. They have the ability to do work. SUVs really only serve a valid purpose for a very small cross-section of Americans. Call these the REIers. For the rest it's variously window dressing and the false security of driving a big-as-hell rig. This is epitomized in the oxymoronic Luxury SUV class. For most Americans, SUVs have very little utility at all. Unless you need a Safari Snorkel and are often in real danger of getting eaten by something big, you don't need an SUV.

But it's still nice, you know, to have that freedom.

I once watched a Toyota Landcruiser in Florence negotiating about a 9 point turn. The long wheel base cut a yawning though interrupted arc on the narrow street. Forward, reverse. Forward, reverse. Nine times. It finally commandeered the sidewalk to complete the maneuver.

This was in the centro, the building I was coming out of was twice as old as America the nation, and the roads have remained pretty much unchanged since the Renaissance. This Landcruiser, struggling as it was, wasn't making a u-turn, or pulling out of a tight parking spot. It was just turning right. That's the most salient image I have of the absurdity of SUVs.