Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Johnwazup t1_ja48x0l wrote

Reply to comment by Deep_Grizz in Florida city opens nature preserve after citizens helped save it by Metlman13

1 truck takes as many parking spots as any other car. You're arguing against all cars but hate trucks specifically because they have more than you. Make a anti car argument rather than a anti truck argument.

Regardless, cars are great. They give a personal freedom that public transportation is incapable of providing.

−9

Deep_Grizz t1_ja4af87 wrote

So you're not aware that the average size of parking spots has been increasing over time due almost entirely to the increasing size of pickup trucks? Sure, my car takes up one parking space like a truck would. But if you built a parking lot based on the size of my car it would take up substantially less space than a lot for an equivalent number of trucks.

I'm not dumb enough to pretend that a country that's spent almost a century building infrastructure around cars as the top priority over bikes and pedestrians is going to function okay if we suddenly went car free. But to act like the arms race of increasing truck size isn't causing measurable impact on construction practices and the environment is naive.

I 100% agree with you that it is far from the only reason, and honestly it's not the biggest priority if you're trying to enact changes in policy help the environment. But if you drive one of those trucks, don't come at me with some bullshit about how much you care about the environment, because your actions are 100% opposed to that.

6

Johnwazup t1_ja4ghiv wrote

Customers don't necessarily demand larger trucks, manufacturers are building larger trucks, ironically because of environmental standards. Not just trucks, but all vehicles from civics to superduty Ford trucks. CAFE emissions standards allow a vehicle to produce more emissions based on its wheelbase and track width. Manufacturers produce longer, wider vehicles to help offset the billions of dollars each of them spend a year on R&D to produce more efficient power plants. It's also why every car Is a luxury car, with better margins to pay for the R&D and why cars are getting so godly expensive.

Farmers, construction workers, or people who just live in rural environments with shitty roads may need those trucks while still caring for the environment. Now there are some who drive giant suburbatanks through city streets. But if they dropped 100 grand on a car or other SUV. I guarantee you the efficiency will be nearly the same. Cars are an extension of yourself for a lot of people, all it is, is a choice of how they present themselves.

I drive a heavily modified jeep that I've built over the years, it gets piss poor gas mileage in comparison to modern cars, but I take it every weekend to the middle of nowhere and camp. Enjoying the natural environment and using the principles of Leave No Trace. Because I drive a lifted jeep, does that mean I don't care for the environment?

−3

Deep_Grizz t1_ja4m42o wrote

You act like there aren't alternatives on the market that don't follow those same manufacturers processes. No one is forcing anyone to buy the big truck. For the majority of lifted pickup trucks it is entirely based on personal vanity.

And I was very obviously not referring to people that drive those vehicles out of necessity by specifying lifted trucks. That is an aftermarket decision by the consumer, and is completely unnecessary for any practical purpose that you mentioned.

I'm sure you like nature, and would be upset if we messed it up. But your actions suggest that you care more about personal convenience than actually changing your spending to reflect your care for the environment. You could easily hike out to the middle of nowhere and camp. But you'd rather drive out, introducing tons of pollutants that wouldn't otherwise reach that more remote environment, and leave tread marks from your 2 ton vehicle while claiming to 'leave no trace.'

2

Johnwazup t1_ja4obl8 wrote

> For the majority of lifted pickup trucks it is entirely based on personal vanity

So what? People are vane. The co2 released by those trucks is nothing in the grand scheme of industry.

>That is an aftermarket decision by the consumer, and is completely unnecessary for any practical purpose that you mentioned.

Again, so what. You're mad that people modify their vehicles? It's unnecessary for anyone to drive anything but the most bland milk toast vehicles out there, but you know what, some people enjoy modifying their vehicles because it makes them happy. Let people have fun.

>You could easily hike out to the middle of nowhere and camp

I do. And I'd like to see what alternative there is. I have yet to hear about public transportation that can take me out to the Fischer national forest.

You seem like the type of person who is envious of others because they have more than you. Stop that. It's toxic to others and yourself. Stop caring what other people have, work on yourself

0

Deep_Grizz t1_ja4rd4k wrote

If you are driving your vehicle to a national forest, you could easily do that in a smart car if you wanted to. I never implied public transit was a viable option for this.

That said, I do not care at all what people do with their money. At all. I do not care if you continue your drive your Jeep out wherever you please. It's a free country. My very first comment was simply pointing out that native floridians do not care about environment as some universally held belief, as evidenced by the things I pointed out. I could absolutely afford to buy and drive a truck if I wanted to, but my personal values are antithetical to making that purchase. I am simply pointing out that your actions are directly opposed to your stated values. If anyone needs to quit lying to themself, its you. Just be honest about what you like, and accept that the drawbacks of your preference are negative for something you supposedly care about.

1

Johnwazup t1_ja5pihf wrote

> If you are driving your vehicle to a national forest, you could easily do that in a smart car if you wanted to. I never implied public transit was a viable option for this.

My brother in Christ, why do you think I've lifted and put larger tires on my vehicle? Do you think these roads are paved? Have you ever left the city?

1

Deep_Grizz t1_ja5vt6i wrote

Because you're lazy and don't want to hike out to the campsite? I go to big cypress, park my car where the road ends at a lot for park visitors, and hike to camp. Not every weekend mind you, but its not that hard. It's literally a mile or 2 at most to get to a remote enough spot that there aren't other people around. If you want to drive out even further than that, more power to you. But suggesting it's necessary to off road to get to a remote camping site is ridiculous.

Look, I'm not trying to take your jeep from you, or even say you're a bad person for driving it. Do what makes you happy. But an individual's choice of transportation is the single most impactful decision they can make for themselves that will impact the environment. You can tell me you care about the environment all you want, but the fact you made literally the worst choice possible for your mode of transportation as an individual tells me you really don't care that much.

2

Johnwazup t1_ja606n8 wrote

Maybe you have trouble understanding me. I'll go to Fischer national forest. The nearest gas station is over 100 miles away. There is no one nearby. To get to the trail is a borderline off-road obstacle course. There is no taking a car and hiking in to the trail head. You have to drive 30 miles deep into the park. This is the middle of no where Utah. You understand not all locations are the suburban getaway your talking about correct? There's tens of thousands of different parks, forests, BLM lands in the united stated. You understand how each of them can be different, no?

> You can tell me you care about the environment all you want, but the fact you made literally the worst choice possible for your mode of transportation as an individual tells me you really don't care that much.

Are you able to comprehend that not all situations are black and white? How you can be a conservationist, in preserving the natural beauty our great nation has, while caring less so about CO2 output. I mean come on man. You can live totally off the grid, never burning a single particle of fossil fuels in your life, while being absolutely dwarfed on the global scale with the likes of China, India, and developing African Tribes and nations.

0

Deep_Grizz t1_ja63hd8 wrote

I guess it must be pretty remote, considering there's not a listing on Google maps for that park in Utah. Even if we assume that wasn't just a bullshit anecdote to try and prove your point, let's look at it. If you're 100 miles from a gas station before getting to the park, we can safely assume you live no less than 100 miles from this park. You are correct about there being 10s of thousands of different parks in the country. With that many, it's probably a safe assumption that there's other options closer or as close as Fischer, especially in the western part of the US where the population is more spread out. I am 100% confident you could find an adequately remote nice campsite that wouldn't need an off road vehicle to get to.

You realize your attitude is exactly why those other countries are producing as much pollutants as they are? That pollution is the direct result of consumer spending, and the attitude of it's always someone else's fault. That's exactly how those countries' citizens view the US and western Europe. People that buy whatever they want without caring about how it impacts the world, why should they then care themselves? I can't control those countries actions, but I can control my own, same as anyone else.

1

Johnwazup t1_ja63ylq wrote

Yeah dawg, imma take that as a no

👍🏻

0