...
written by J Hudson , August 16, 2007

Surowiecki skirts the most interesting part of the conundrum, which is that, left to their own devices, voters in blue states would likely already regulate themselves. And would have been doing it for a long time, just as voters in Europe and Japan do. But blue states can't, because they lose elections.
(Even the exception, winning the presidency with Clinton, left only a fragile hold, with not enough national political capital to accomplish anything of substance on energy. And this was with Gore in the administration.) Looking back, 1980 was a benchmark choice between two ideas. Reagan won, largely on a wave of newly engaged religious support, which allowed him to insert an idea intellectually separate from churchgoing: regulation is bad. The losing voters of the blue states had to accept that mandate because this is one country. On the other hand, had the regulatory gains in fuel efficiency instituted in the 70's continued through today, our cars might now be surpassing 50 mpg. Or they would be electric. Blue states, as a nation, probably would have ratified Kyoto. And carbon might be at 340 ppm, instead of 390 ppm and climbing. Paradoxically, it's their historically utter lack of political power that makes it possible for doctors, bankers and lawyers to indulge their appetites for Range Rovers in New York. Looked at that way, each SUV you see tooling down Park Avenue is a gift from conservative voters, the ones that may frequent a megachurch in Oklahoma. The really interesting thing is that the social dynamic between red and blue, which might stem from an underlying anger over status and identity by middle class heartland populations that feel besieged culturally and economically, or maybe just from people ticked off at being called 'flyover country' too many times by Hollywood phonies, continues to successfully lock up American policy on the issues of energy, and make Rover dealerships safe for your dentist.

As for the indulgent choices consumers make, analysts of the industry, including analysts working for the big three, have noted that the 'safety' argument for SUVs is probably a fig leaf. The real appeal is sex appeal. Particularly persuaded are married couples trying to maintain a sexual front while raising a family (with the only other vehicle option the dreaded minivan, which on an American road pretty much says you are dead in the sexual marketplace). Or as Surowiecki puts it: "...people like the fact that driving a higher-horsepower car makes you look better at the stoplight." This stroke of marketing luck allowed US automakers to thrive in the past 15 years, slapping shells on pickup trucks and selling them for $ 35,000 or more -- and for a few years, the most profitable factory in the world was the Lincoln Navigator factory.

The desire and guilt over SUVs is so fascinating (and elemental to our time and politics), several writers have weighed in.

The cornerstone article on identity and why people buy SUVs, by Keith Bradsher:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/financial/071700psych-auto.html

Glenn Reynolds, the conservative blogger known as Instapundit, on the low prestige of being a parent:
"People in the suburbs buy SUVs instead of minivans not because they need the four-wheel-drive capabilities, but because the SUVs lack the minivan's close association with low-prestige activities like parenting, and instead provide the aura of high-prestige activities like whitewater kayaking. Why should kayaking be more prestigious than parenting? Because parenting isn't prestigious in our society. If it were, childless people would drive minivans just to partake of the aura."
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=051706C

Malcolm Gladwell, on what the people that make them think:
http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html

A survey that shows SUV owners are more concerned about global warming than are drivers of regular cars.
http://www.one-country.com/yale_poll_globalwarming.pdf

...
written by Invent Horsepower , August 17, 2007

Thanks for writing the embarrassing truth.

I believe this is also going on though.

I don't really want an SUV but I wouldn't feel safe on the highway without one, considering all the SUVs.

I don't really want an SUV, but I need a SUV so I can see over all the others.

I don't really want a SUV, but thats what I can afford to buy used.

...
written by Arnaud , August 29, 2007

Gee! Carbon went up from 340 ppm (parts per million) to 390 ppm: 50ppm. In short the atmosphere content has been altered by a fantastic 0.005%!!!! Now I understand why we are facing an ecological Armageddon. Those 0.005% are guilty.

Now I feel ashamed I flew first class to FL last week and rented a Hummer for the week. Guilt overwhelms me. HEEELP!