Should the government ban SUVs?

Question

If you think they should then, why?

Answer 1

No, I am all for fuel effeciency, but some people actually need to seat 7.

I don't think the government should give tax breaks to businesses who buy them. This was something that was happening, I don't know if it still is. It had something to do with a tax break designed for farms and heavy machinery. Businesses used the tax incentive to purchase Hummers and Suburbans for their businesses and get a load of cash back.

Answer 2

Just convert them all to electric, problem solved.

Answer 3

h**l NO!!!!! It is a choice. It is freedom.

SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 4

the government should stay out of our lives thats what that ****** up system should do.

Answer 5

The Do-nothing Democrats have already shut down SUV plants from Ford and GM due to their do-nothing gasoline policy.

They want people who need them to support them.

When you living in gov't housing, ride gov't transportation, to your gov't job to pay gov't taxes.  When you own nothing and work to support THEM and they are nice enough to let you live - you are a slave and they have won.

Answer 6

Yes.  Go door to door and have the DNC to decide if the owner "really needs an SUV."    It would be prudent for the government employees to put a Red Star on the door of the home to check back for compliance with the decision of the government or the Gore Commission.  This would an excellent crime to which to apply the death penalty.   Check the home for any newly determined "hate literature. "

Answer 7

Yes:  Because in a couple of years when all the middle class has gotten rid of their gas guzzling SUVs and then the poor people will be stuck buying the used SUVs because they are cheap and fuel efficient cars will be out of their price range.

This is unfair to the poor.  This happened back in the 70's and should not be repeated.

The government should take in all the SUVs and issue economical cars to those who can't afford them.

Answer 8

no because there good if you have a big familly and vans are freakin ugly

Answer 9

Its called freedom of choice! who are you to influence my decision in what I am buying. Maybe I like my SUV.

Answer 10

For what reason? Maybe they should ban public transportation too? How about air travel? Then what? Ban Cars too? Ban motorcycles and mopeds? How about home heating furnaces? They use lots of fuel.

Answer 11

No, some people need SUVs.

What the government should do is regulate CO2 emissions, either with a carbon tax or carbon cap and trade system.  That will force people to pay for the environmental impact of their gas consumption, so SUV owners will have to pay more.  That way you're not banning them, but you are discouraging their use.

Answer 12

Obviously, this is debatable, but I don't think so. Citizens of Canada should be entitled to any form of transportation they want, and besides, the government would have to determine what constitutes an "SUV".

And what would they do with the SUV's already on the road?

Answer 13

We already have government dictating how much water our toilets are allowed to use. Do you really want the same dunces that screwed up public education and social security telling what you may drive?

The whole world must be doing just ducky if congress doesn't have anything more important to worry about.

How did we get hybrid vehicles? We got them because the free market made them an attractive investment for an auto manufacturer. And it was all done without an act of congress and without a single dime of taxpayer money.

People will happily give up their SUVs as soon as some other free market driven entrepreneur comes up with something better and more attractive.

Answer 14

No. That's the kind of counter-productive dictatorial tactic that the right-wing accuses liberals of advocating (fall sly) simply because that's what they would do if they wanted to take action--it never occurs to them that there are far better ways to eliminate oil use.

We DO need government policy change--but here are some of the things we need to do:

>ban any further subsidies to oil companies

>ban any further drilling on public land (not private; that's their business)--but the ban shoud include offshore drilling--the property is not privately owned and the oil industry has no inherant property rights.

>we can legitimately require that the oil companies build refinery capacity equal to any new sources of oil--or they don't get to drill anywhere. We do not need to encourage them to continue their practice of selling domestic oil abroad with the excuse they don't have refineries for it.

>research and development money should go to alternative technology, not to the fossil fuel industry

>enforce clean air, mie safety, nd other laws

>our transportation infrastructure is necessarily a government enterprise. The government should shift from favorig road construction to mass transit expansion

>to the extent tht tax breaks are granted to business and private individuals, they shoud be for alternative enrgy/energy conservation projects and the like. The current practices of de facto subsidization f  conventional power production and energy-wasting housing should be stopped.

>Stop catering to the coal companies by refusing to authorze new nuclear power plants (it is the coal industry, NOT environmentalists, who are blocking this)

>Given the proven (and I do mean PROVEN) history of the oil companies spreading misinformation about global warming, an oversight (NOT regulatory) panel should be established. It would be empowred to unilaterally and independently carry out investigatios of any dishonest or unethical practices on the part of the fossil fuel industry, and to initiate legal action wen violations of the law are discovred. In addition, any and all purveyors of "information" about global warming--including websites--would be required by law to PROMINANTLY disclose their source(s) of funding--and if that source e is a "non profit" who funds the non profit.  The oil /coal companies should be required to disclose ALL so-callled "public information" operations, together with a full acountig of what messages they publish or otherwise disseminate.

Now--read these carefully. ou wil see that NOTHING is a measure tha twoudld dictate technology or design. The effect of all items woud be to foster competition, innovation, and transparency. Government edicts in such an approach are confined to ares where the government is properly concerned or has a vested interest and therefore is justified in acting.

Full implementation of such a program would also effectively be a death warrant for the oil and coal industry--because they would no longer be able to block competing technologies from entering the energy industry on a large scale. And when--not if--that happens, they are dead. Oil and coal are technologies from the 19th century. They are fundamentally inferior to what we can do in the 21st century. kil

>

Answer 15

the government controls us WAY to much anyway... they can't tell us what cars we need to drive

Answer 16

umm no..what if u have a big family

Answer 17

That's the great thing about this country.

You're free to drive what you want, need or can afford.

SUV's serve a porpoise.

Shamu

Answer 18

Nope.

But they should increase the overall standards for fuel economy for cars and trucks.  There'll still be some big cars for people to buy who need them.  But fewer people will be using a 4000 lb SUV to take one person to the grocery store over paved roads.  That's wasteful, gives more money to countries that don't like us, and causes global warming.

Answer 19

No.. that isn't even workable.