...4x4's should be restricted to the people who live in the country work on farms ie farmers and the military to help fight climate change and global warming
2007-06-08 06:10:09 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment ➔ Global Warming
Yes, absolutely. Also, have you noticed those commercial office buildings and retail stores that leave all of their lights on past closing hours? They should all be fined for contributing to this sort of problem....
2007-06-08 06:23:40 · answer #1 · answered by SexyLady416 1 · 3⤊ 3⤋
No. What does that solve? Besides, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to have a 4x4 that don't include farming or military. Not all 4x4's are gas guzzling Hummers.
Driving in the snow (& in the mountains) is much safer in a 4x4.
But why do you rant against 4x4s? A Hummer gets the same gas mileage as a corvette, viper, or other sports cars yet can hold SEVEN PEOPLE. There's no need to speed. Why don't you ask why sports cars aren't restricted? They have less usefullness than ANY 4x4.
2007-06-08 06:27:01 · answer #2 · answered by modernneanderthal 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
yes the 4x4 contribute in a way but the major polluters of the environment such as aeroplane and heavy industrial coal burning has significant impact on the environment to a much higher proportion than cars. I think the best way travel is by boats. Like the one used by the PIRATE OF THE CARRIBEAN
2007-06-08 06:56:49 · answer #3 · answered by microspatula 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Rather than outlaw 4x4's the government should provide sufficient incentives (or dis-incentives as the case may be) for people to own them. Things like a gas-guzzler tax have proven insufficient to dissuade casual drivers from purchasing a vahicle much larger than what they actually need. Maybe stricter sanctions are required. In order to convince people not to buy that Hummer, you have to persuade them that it doesn't make economic sense. Trying to legislate that sort of behavior is bound cause resentment, backlash, and result in failure with protests of loss of freedom.
2007-06-08 07:19:54 · answer #4 · answered by the screaming frog 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No because it is unfair that people who aren't in the countryside working on a farm or people in the army are restricted to normal cars although electric 4x4's isn't a bad idea.
2007-06-08 06:17:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anony-mouse 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No, when we lose our freedoms in the name of the environment, why is this any different than when we lose our freedoms in the name of terrorism?
I have no problem with people choosing to not buy a 4x4 but a restriction is wrong and I will never support it.
2007-06-08 06:23:02 · answer #6 · answered by Nickoo 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
No, because gas mileage is more about how you drive, than what you drive.
of course higher efficiency vehicles are going to get better gas mileage, but if you are hard on the accelerator of a regular pick-up, it will eat the gas worse than sensible driving of a 4X4.
just like sports cars, if you drive them sensibly, they'll get pretty decent gas mileage. if you go hot-roding often, they chug-alug the gas like nothing else.
2007-06-08 06:52:09 · answer #7 · answered by jj 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I like the idea. As far as being unfair . . . it's unfair to watch my planet dying because of others choices to not be a responsible citizen. Besides, auto restriction exists. Think about mini-coopers, hummers, even hybrids and electric cars.
That's my 2 cents :o)
2007-06-08 06:45:21 · answer #8 · answered by barbara 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I don't think you shoud restrict what type of vehicle people should drive. I think there should be higher environmental standards on the cars that are being manufactured so it is more environmentally friendly.
2007-06-08 06:18:12 · answer #9 · answered by vancie121 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Hell no!! Global warming is a farce!! How would you like to be told what you can and can't do on your own land? I bet you enjoy a great steak every now and again too! Leave us alone and let us do our jobs!!
2007-06-08 06:45:54 · answer #10 · answered by Starla_C 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋