May Libertarians Drive SUVs?

A reader named Kevin writes, in response to my post about some economic insights I gleaned when I bought a new SUV recently:

[B]uying an SUV is not the libertarian thing to do. Anthropogenic global warming is undoubtably a problem, and if libertarians don't want government to enforce all kinds of regulations they're going to have to curtail their own fossil fuel use. Buying an SUV instead of a hybrid flies in the face of that, and merely encourages government to regulate, regulate, regulate. It's a shame you couldn't overcome your basic desires. 

Really? "Buying an SUV is not the libertarian thing to do"? I find that sentiment ironic for a few reasons.

First, it presumes that I must consult some libertarian bible, or undergo a libertarian litmus test, or gauge what other libertarians think, before I may decide which car to buy. Presumably, I will have to repeat this rigamarole when choosing what libertarian-sanctioned town to live in, where to go on a libertarian-approved vacation, and how to wipe my ass in such a way that the smallest possible number of libertarians will be offended.

Though I am greatly sympathetic to the libertarian cause, I can't allow any group or movement to control my intellect (such as it is), my free will, or my family's checkbook. Or my ass-crack, for that matter.

This blog is mostly about not letting other people decide for you, about extending a bit fat middle finger to the meddlers and the smug-faced moralists and the self-professed paragons of virtue. Given that, you can see why Kevin's sour objection strikes me as a tad ironic.

Also, I live in the rural Northeast (emphasis on North) where ice and snow and muddy dirt roads are a daily reality during much of the winter, and sometimes the fall and spring. A Prius is not going to cut it up here — certainly not for a family of four, such as mine, with dogs and strollers and bikes and what have you. Also consider, for instance, that we live deep enough in the boonies that our town declines to pick up our recyclables; we take trashbags- and boxes-ful of old paper and empty containers to the recycling center ourselves a couple of times a month. That, too, is no job for a little hybrid — to say nothing of the roughly 30 bags of groceries the missus hauls home every other week or so.

(As for the few hybrid SUVs, the only one I briefly considered getting, based on overall brand dependability, was a Toyota Highlander. But that medium-sized truck only gets three or four more miles to the gallon than the slightly smaller gas-burning vehicle I ended up buying, a Toyota RAV4 Limited. Especially since that difference in gas consumption is nothing to write home about, the price difference between the RAV and the hybrid Highlander — some 8,000 dollars — would have made buying the latter a patently irrational choice.)

Oh, and please tell me again why all SUVs are so often branded as the cars of choice for self-centered jerks who loathe fresh air and love to dine on spotted owl à l'orange? A gallon of gas in the tank of my RAV is good for about 25 miles. According to fueleconomy.gov, that's markedly better mileage than you'll get from, say, a new Lincoln Town Car or a 2002 Mercedes CL600 sedan, and about on a par with, for instance, a 1995 Toyota Camry Wagon or the latest Nissan Maxima. I suspect that drivers of Maximas and Camrys are very rarely heckled about the irresponsible assault they perpetrate on the environment.

But let's return to Kevin's assertion that libertarians with SUVs are essentially shortsighted hypocrites. Over at the always thought-provoking Volokh Conspiracy, Todd Zywicki (who owns a Nissan Pathfinder) begs to differ. In fact, he argues the exact opposite: namely, that every self-respecting libertarian should own an SUV. Zywicki observes that when Hurricane Katrina began unleashing its fury on New Orleans, people with SUVs and other light trucks were much more likely to get out of town unscathed than drivers of Dodge Neons or Honda Del Sols.

[B]y self-insuring their ability to get out of the crisis zone, this of course reduced the number of people who have needed to be tended to in New Orleans, leaving more supplies for those who couldn't get out. More SUVs, it follows, equals more people able to exit the city. So the externality is actually created by those who could afford to purchase an SUV, but instead choose to indulge their pro-environment tastes not to, thereby relying on taxpayers and other victims to subsidize their decision. Policy conclusion: We should mandate that every American household purchase an SUV which they can use in the event of an emergency.

But you don't have to flee pounding squalls and rising floodwaters to reap the benefits of SUV ownership. Zywicki again:

The point is more general. Every time it snows, I can get around in my SUV (that's one of the many reasons we bought an SUV in our family). Those hybrid drivers out there, by contrast, can't move until the streets get plowed. Yet the snow plows are paid for by my tax dollars as well as theirs. Again, whereas I have self-insured against snow and internalized my costs of getting to work, the hybrid driver has again decided to externalize the costs of his choice by forcing me to pay for the snow plows that he needs and I don't.

On a final note: I've often wondered what SUV bashers do when they need to move a major appliance or a large piece of furniture. Ask a friend with a Smart or a Mini, perhaps?

Comments

[Misanthrope]

Regarding your response to the rather odd reader comment: I think the argument from necessity (conditions where you live and lifestyle) and the comparison of fuel economy where both excellent points. I was surprised that you did not expand on the argument that voluntary psuedo-environmentalism is extremely ineffective. As long as gas is reasonably affordable, consumers will purchase gas-vehicles with limited regard to mileage, and that you and the rest of the population will purchase hybrids when market forces and competition have created hybrid vehicles that match the performance and price of gas equivalents.

The extending of middle finger to moralist argument, while I understand your point, will most likely come across to non-libs as yet another example of libertarian self centeredness. Like I said, I understand your point, but it will be misconstrued.

[Leah]

I thought the point of libertarianism was self-centeredness...

We just bought a family car and were thinking about a decent-mileage SUV. I don't like them much (they feel flippy and unsafe to me), but we needed more space for the two dogs and the carseat, and AWD was a must. We ended up with a Subaru Outback and love it, but I hate that people think that they could have made a better decision for my family than I would. And a lot of people chimed in with their input, let me tell you...

[delurking]

"On a final note: I've often wondered what SUV bashers do when they need to move a major appliance or a large piece of furniture."

Rent. Net gain.

if libertarians don't want government to enforce all kinds of regulations they're going to have to curtail their own...

...their own anything. Libertarians should apparently not do anything that invites regulation. That rules out smoking, watching TV, eating meat, drinking beer, ad nauseum. That's not how freedom works.

[Phelps]

Let's see, I can avoid government regulation if I simply act as if the government enacted these proposed regulations anyways.

Mmmmm, that sounds like FREEDOM!!!

[Kevin]

You're free to give the middle finger to anyone and everyone, but it is a pretty juvenile way to live. Most people get over that kind of selfish, uncompassionate attitude when they leave their teenaged years behind. Anthropogenic global warming is undoubtably a huge problem, and you're part of the cause (as is everyone else). By not being part of the solution, you merely make things worse and you encourage government to regulate your life into a solution. This is a direct consequence of your selfishness, and quite frankly, you will deserve it, because you lack the maturity and self-confidence to address the world as an adult--as it is, and not as you wish it to be. Just because you're a libertarian doesn't mean you're not a member of a community, and being a member of a community carries with it responsibilities. By shirking those responsibilities, by insisting that you must be able to swing your dick far and wide, you show how a certain subset of libertarians are much like those in the Ayn Rand books, who were so indignant about having their own way that there was no thought or emphasis every given to the lives of children and the weak, or of community and the environment, or of those who have fallen down Darwin's ladder.

So go ahead and buy your big SUV and drive around in it like you're a big macho stud who no one tells what to do. Just don't imply that you're somehow reasonable or mature while you're doing it, because you are, in fact, just the opposite. The sad thing is, I doubt you'll ever really understand this.

[Rogier]

Whoops, I did it again: While getting rid of comment spam, I accidentally erased a bona fide response. I'm reposting it here, with apologies. It's from The Atavist, http://atavist.blogspot.com/

>> I am a libertarian and a Libertarian Too. I drive an SUV. Perhaps Kevin could explain to me how I too can swing my dick far and wide. Sounds like fun. <<

[Rogier]

Kevin:

You took my 'big fat middle finger' comment out of context. But you knew that.

Anyway, rather than going on about my supposed immaturity, why don't you show me what it means to be mature, and actually address the points that I made in my post? F'rinstance:

- Why harp on me for driving an SUV that gets 25 mpg, which is about as good as a Camry Wagon or a Nissan Maxima?
- Do you suppose there might be a difference between socialites who use their Lincoln Navigator to go shopping on Rodeo Drive, and people in wintry climes who need their four-wheel-drives in order to be able to leave the house?
- Would you pay an 8,000-dollar premium for a suitable hybrid vehicle, as I would have had to do?
- When you need to move a dresser or a washing machine, or your car needs a tow, do you call a friend with a Prius, or a friend with an Explorer?
- What of Todd Zywicki's argument that libertarians OUGHT to drive SUVs, for the reasons he outlined?

Misanthrope and Phelps, above, also make excellent points that you might want to respond to.

In short, you could try generating a little light, instead of just a lot of heat.

[ben]

"Anthropogenic global warming is undoubtably a huge problem, and you're part of the cause (as is everyone else)."

We don't know what Kevin is guzzling in his privacy that might also cause global warming. Overheating, air conditioning, vacation-flying, hot showers, multiple freezers? Of course we don't know, because Kevin doesn't expose his guzzling equipment in the streets.

Libertarians who are skeptical about the anthropogenic global warming (libertarians are skeptical by nature) might come to the conclusion that their is no evidence in the claims, but a lot of hot air.

May be some reading will help?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/11/15/EDG5PFN8UP1.DTL
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5309
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

[TacticalJack]

How about that "Inconvenient Truth about the Prius?". This is *never* discussed by all of those "green" people. Just do a bit of research on the environmental impact of building the batteries for the Prius. It is quite shocking.

[Rogier]

Leah:

I was sure I was going to get a Subaru Outback, too. They're great, dependable cars. The area where I live is riddled with them, for good reason. The Outback Wagon I testdrove was marginally thirstier than the SUV I ended up buying, though, and it required premium gas too (it was one of the higher-end models; most Outbacks do fine on regular). FWIW, I explained my decision here: http://www1.epinions.com/content_301311692420

[smurfy]

I own a (bio) diesel F250, 15 mpg. And a Honda civic commute car, 40 mpg, conventionally powered, 15 years old, no high technology.

My experience has been that making my own fuel, toiling over each and every gallon, getting dirty, blowing weekend after weekend, has encouraged me to cut down on my driving. Last winter I went 100 miles out of my way to hitch a ride with a friend rather than spend 60 of my hard earned gallons on a 900 mile road trip. That wasn’t some noble gesture, it was economics. Then I bought the Honda. I drive the hell out of that thing with almost no regard to the cost because, in fact, there is almost no consumptive cost. A full tank is 10 gallons, $25, and no labor on my part.

From this I conclude that high mpg hybrids are no silver bullet for decreasing our national number of person/miles driven and likely will not have much effect on overall emissions (manufacturing costs aside).

My personal belief is that we should move towards the middle, concentrate on meeting most of our needs most of the time. That’s where we will see the big payoff. Yes that’s anti-Zywickian. Chain-up for the once a year trip to the snow, borrow or rent to move. This is one area where a little personal dependence would go a long way toward national independence. One person’s preparedness comes at a cost to the rest of us. It also decreases that person’s incentive to participate in community-based alternatives, like the bus, or helping a friend move. It’s great to be responsible for your own needs, but we are really talking about a balance between your own needs and the goals of the larger community. Enter the RAV-4 and my wife’s new Subaru, compromise. As far as that Katrina example, just pull the breather tube off your fuel injection intake and ford the water in the neon.

Kevin, remember that the people you are really pissed at drive H2s. And conventional wisdom holds that their dicks don’t swing too far or wide. Call me immature if you wish, but I make biodiesel just to stick my skinny little middle finger up in Atlantic Richfield’s face. And it is largely a symbolic ‘ahem’ gesture, given my over-use of the Honda.

[Phelps]

I personally don't buy the Anthropogenic global warming hysteria. I don't doubt that there is an effect, but I doubt that it is more than a fraction of a percent, and even at that, I haven't seen credible evidence that global warming will cause more problems than it solves. (World food production would skyrocket as more land becomes arable, for example.)

What I have seen, on the other hand, is quite a lot of poor science and outright fraud supporting the idea that the sky is falling. The "hard truth" needs no spin and selling. The environmental movement has become so imbued with superstition that even some of the original movers and shakers are disillusioned with the whole shebang.

You need to remember these things:

1. Environmental activism is big business. The various foundations channel billions of dollars around.

2. Government studies are big business, and the money is made in following up the study you just finished. Scientists who find "no problem here" results have to start looking for another field to study.

3. Selling "environment friendly" products is big business. You can make minor changes and realize huge markups, or push an uneconomical technology if you can play on people's superstitions about the environment. The hard truth is that the best measure of cost to the environment is COST. If it is cheaper, it is probably better for the environment (because there is less energy consumed in its production.)

You've been suckered by the Snake Oil Salesmen of the 21st Century, Kevin. Congratulations.

[Vache Folle]

Anthropogenic global warming is real and bigger than you think, but there is nothing that can be done about it. It's too late. So leave as big a carbon footprint as you like. Embrace the warmth and prepare for the psotapocalyptic dystopia instead of hand wringing about climate change. It's coming and you can't stop it.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

My mid-size SUV gets better gas mileage than almost any vehicle manufactured 25 years ago, including that crappy VW I owned. That is a point that is largely overlooked.

[Kevin]

I did not take your middle finger comment out of context. You wrote, "This blog is...about extending a bit fat middle finger to the meddlers and the smug-faced moralists and the self-professed paragons of virtue." From what I've read of your blog, for you that includes pretty much everybody. As least accept the meaning of your own words.

And yes, it is a juvenile way to live.

> Why harp on me for driving an SUV that gets > 25 mpg, which is about as good as a Camry
> Wagon or a Nissan Maxima?

And not nearly as good as a hybrid.

> Do you suppose there might be a difference > between socialites who use their Lincoln
> Navigator to go shopping on Rodeo Drive,
> and people in wintry climes who need their > four-wheel-drives in order to be able to
> leave the house?

Until last year I lived in rural New Hampshire on top of a mountain near Lake Winnipesaukee. I did just fine with a Mitsubishi Eclipse, and never needed an SUV merely to get around. Neither do you. What do you suppose people did before the development of the SUV--walk everywhere? Sled dogs?

> Would you pay an 8,000-dollar premium for a > suitable hybrid vehicle, as I would have
> had to do?

I'll need to see facts backing up this assertion. I don't believe it.

> When you need to move a dresser or a
> washing machine, or your car needs a tow,
> do you call a friend with a Prius, or a
> friend with an Explorer?

You rent a truck or a van. They're more suitable for moving furniture than an SUV, anyway.

The fact is, you chose a vehicle without regard for the environment or for how it would affect anyone in your community other than you.

[Kevin]

Ben wrote:
> We don't know what Kevin is guzzling in his > privacy that might also cause global
> warming.

In fact, I live in Oregon, and the circumstances of my home are such that I do not use either heat or air conditioning. My gets 29 mpg (city), and I drive an average of 150 miles per month. I pay 10% more to buy green power. I calculated my carbon footprint over the summer and it came to a surprisingly low 4,900 lb/yr. The national average is 15,000 lb/yr.

> Libertarians who are skeptical about the
> anthropogenic global warming (libertarians > are skeptical by nature) might come to the > conclusion that their is no evidence in the > claims, but a lot of hot air.

So you're a climate science expert? Because the national academies of pretty much every nation in the world have agreed that anthropogenic climate change is underway. Why should I believe junkscience.com over them--especially when Steven Milloy is known to take money from the fossil fuel industry (before that he took money from the tobacco industry and he downplayed the health concern of tobacco use)?

[Kevin]

Phelps, you have presented exactly zero scientific evidence to back up your belief that anthropogenic global warming is an hysteria.

At this point, the burden is on the global warming deniers to prove that the highest CO2 levels in 650,000 years will *not* lead to global warming. It's been known for over 100 years that the pre-industrial level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere cause the earth's surface to be an additional 15 C higher that it would be without them. Therefore, why will a 35% increase in CO2 levels (and more in methane, 20 times more potent) *not* cause further warming?

If you don't buy anthropogenic global warming, you believe that the warming the planet has been undergoing for the last 100 years (and especially since 1976) is natural. This is a scientific assertion and must be proved. Where is this proof? No climate skeptic has ever provided it -- in fact, no climate skeptic has even tried to build their own climate model. Mainstream climatologists, on the other hand, have painstakingly calculated the natural "forcings" on the atmosphere and found that greenhouse gas heating is the only mechanism that can account for the warming seen in the last several decades. (See IPCC TAR, v1.)

I await your scientific rebuttal.

[Kevin]

Vache Folle wrote:
> Anthropogenic global warming is real and
> bigger than you think, but there is nothing > that can be done about it. It's too late.

Calculations show that there are now enough GHGs in the atmosphere to produce a "warming commitment" of about 2 C. That is, even if we stopped producing all anthropogenic GHGs today, the world would still warm about 2 C, over about the next 50 years. This is far from what's possible if we continue to pump GHGs into the atmosphere for decades, as we undoubtably will. Scientists seem to think that a warming of 2 C can be handled and migh not be too dangerous (it will be much higher at the poles), but the types of warming that could happen with still higher GHG levels, warming of 5-6 C, is much worse. In fact, positive feedbacks could even produce a runaway greenhouse effect, until ultimately the earth turn Venus-like. So "leave as big a carbon footprint as you like" is just stupid advice.

[Phelps]

How as I to have the burden of disproving your apocalyptic myth? I have seen more then enough fraud (starting with the Hockey Stick and moving on from there) to see no credibility in the global warming hysteria.

In addition, the idea that "weather is going to kill us all" is a natural fear that has been around as long as people have been talking to each other. From Noah's flood to Soddom and Ghamorah to the book of Revalation to the coming Ice Age to Global Warming to Global Warming Causing the Coming Ice Age, there are all extentions of natural human fears.

And every time, there is a certain percentage of the population who allows those fears to approach hysteria. The only difference is that the hysterics have the ability to have their wails heard by more people now.

[Kevin]

Phelps wrote:
> How as I to have the burden of disproving
> your apocalyptic myth?

What, then, does *your* calculation show for the expected temperature change for a 35% increase in CO2 over pre-industrial levels?

Let's see your number.

Simple and fundamental physics, known for more than a century, *predicts* global warming. Fourier understood the greenhouse effect about 200 years ago, and Arrhenius made the first calculation of climate sensitivity (~5 C) in 1896. The science has only gotten more refined since then.

So, present your own calculation. I mean, you're so sure there isn't an effect, so show us the calculation that says this.

[Phelps]

Simple chaos theory says that simple and fundamental physics is useless in climate modeling.

I have no calculation. That has no bearing on my opinion that your calculation is "bullshit".

[Kevin]

Phelps wrote:
> Simple chaos theory says that simple and
> fundamental physics is useless in climate
> modeling.

Chaos theory, when it applies, applies to exact solutions. Of course, no one expects an exact solution of the differential equations that underly climate. Climate models are not exact solutions, they are models of the fundamental physics. As such they model fundamental physical phenomena in order to obtain increasingly better numberical solutions.

In other words, this reason is crap.

> I have no calculation. That has no bearing > on my opinion that your calculation is
> "bullshit".

You have no calculation, you have no scientific reasoning whatsoever, yet you do not accept physics first explained in 1827. You can't say why you won't accept it, or offer competing ideas. You just label anything you don't like as "bullshit" and try to act as if your position has any intellectual integrity whatsoever. You probably stamped your feet as well.

This is how six year olds reason.

[K. Dale Boley]

I'm the cause of Global Warming! I own a Jeep Cherokee and... Wait for it.... A Dodge Charger R/T (Ya it's a Hemi). I get about 14.5 MPG cause I just can't keep my foot out of it. This thing is flat out FAST!!! I burned, and I do mean BURNED through the first set of tires in less than 15,000 miles. When I turn off the traction control, every time I drive it, and put it into Fun Mode, I can slide it around corners like crazy. On-ramps in the rain are particularly challenging. Seat heaters, DVD nav system, oh ya, and it's a HEMI!!
For those that know not what a Hemi is, it's a huge V8 engine.
And don't go all "You could kill somebody" on me. I do not drive fast when I'm in traffic. I'm exceedingly cautious. I live in rural Ohio and the roads are all flat and straight.

Did I mention it's a Hemi?

[Rogier]

Kevin:

You’re still misconstruing the ‘middle finger’ comment. It applies to bluenoses who seek to tell others how to live, even if those other people’s choices have no bearing on said bluenoses. That’s what this blog is about, and that’s what that line referred to. On the other hand, SOME choices people make do INDEED have a deleterious impact on other individuals or on the community at large, and THOSE choices I’m not so flip about. (In short, your freedom to choose shouldn’t be a threat to my well-being or my property, and vice versa.)

So I’m not saying there’s no enlightening exchange possible here. Something like a car’s gas mileage can be an interesting touchstone for a discussion about individual responsibility. But, like so much else, it’s a matter of degree. And tone. What irked me is that your haughty little tongue-lashing revealed a fundamentally kneejerk mindset. You read the word SUV and promptly assumed the worst about me and my car. I’m fairly certain you wouldn’t have painted me as the anti-Christ if I’d said that my new vehicle was a Nissan Maxima (even though the gas mileage of the Maxima is just about the same as that of my 4x4 Toyota RAV).

• You wrote: "Until last year I lived in rural New Hampshire on top of a mountain near Lake Winnipesaukee. I did just fine with a Mitsubishi Eclipse, and never needed an SUV merely to get around. Neither do you. What do you suppose people did before the development of the SUV — walk everywhere?"

I grew up in a three-bedroom house with a coal stove in the living room and no heat anywhere else in the house. I pretty much froze my nuts off in the winter, but other than that, like you in your Mitsubishi Eclipse, we all did “just fine.” And yet, for some reason, I don’t care to repeat the experience in this day and age.

I’m sorry it displeases you that I don’t put myself or my family in jeopardy by adhering to some standard of what people USED to do, back in the thirties or sixties or eighties. I live in snow-and-ice country, so I have a vehicle that is built to handle difficult road conditions. Odd as it sounds to you, I don’t want a car that can PROBABLY get me there MOST of the time. Getting stuck in the icy muck at night, on a little dirt road in the middle of nowhere, with temperatures at 20ºF or lower, might mean paying a dear price.

• I wrote, "Would you pay an 8,000-dollar premium for a suitable hybrid vehicle, as I would have had to do?", and you replied "I'll need to see facts backing up this assertion. I don't believe it."

Liar, am I? You’re right, that wasn’t the correct number. The correct price difference is $9,000, not $8,000. Go to toyota.com. Price a RAV4 Limited (no hybrid models available). Then price a comparably equipped Toyota Highlander hybrid (the closest alternative in size and utility to a RAV). The Highlander costs nine grand more.

• You wrote: "The fact is, you chose a vehicle without regard for the environment or for how it would affect anyone in your community other than you."

Isn’t it a point of some relevance, Kevin, that at least until very recently, YOU didn’t drive a hybrid either? You had a Mitsubishi Eclipse last year, you said. Interesting. That’s a car with a regular combustion engine. According to fueleconomy.gov, it gets about 25 mpg on average. Hey, you know what? That’s the same as my SUV. Your Eclipse produces almost eight tonnes of greenhouse gases a year — again, same as my SUV.

Doesn’t that make YOU 'juvenile' and 'irresponsible' too, plus something worse — a hypocrite?

Oh, and I was comparing 2007 models. If you go back just two years, you’ll see that, according to data from the U.S. Dept. of Energy, a 2005 Eclipse’s ‘air pollution score’ was a 2, on a scale of 1 to 10 (higher is better). That’s a TERRIBLE number. Note that my SUV scores a 6. It ain’t a Prius, Kevin, but it’s an order of magnitude better than your environment-wrecking smoke-belcher.

Still want to preach to me about community and responsibility?

In closing: For what it’s worth, unlike some commenters here, I believe that anthropogenic global warming is most likely for real. (In terms of personal responsibility, I don’t beat myself up too badly over it — in part because I didn’t drive and didn’t own a car for the first 35 years of my life, and in part because my current car is more economical than my previous one and the next one will be more economical still.)

That said, I think that improvements in our vehicles’ greenhouse gas emissions will do little or nothing to reverse the ecological bind we’re in. In a global sense, hybrids and the like are just not a winning proposition. The rapid industrialization and the frenetic pace of economic development in China and India, countries that have more than 2.3 billion people between them, will negate the effects of greener-car initiatives in the West, and then some. I think we’re screwed unless we start taking geo-engineering seriously (I’m hopeful that we’ll develop ‘natural’ technologies that will increase, on a global scale, the reflectivity of clouds, for instance). It’s too involved to get into here, but it’s an interesting area.

Best wishes, and keep on truckin’!

Rogier