Yea, but how do you put all the hockey equipment in the Corolla or the model 3? Never mind the x. I Previously owned a large Volvo sedan, it was quite a challenge to get 2 kids sets of equipment in that vehicle. I suppose Canadians will have to start taking up long distance running because its less carbon intensive.
Yea, but how do you put all the hockey equipment in the Corolla or the model 3? Never mind the x. I Previously owned a large Volvo sedan, it was quite a challenge to get 2 kids sets of equipment in that vehicle. I suppose Canadians will have to start taking up long distance running because its less carbon intensive.
There is a reason why people buy SUVs and trucks.
How did families survive through the 80's and 90's without SUV's? Sure, it may not be quite as convenient, but I refuse to believe that more than half the trucks and SUV's on the road today ever get used to an extent that a car wouldn't suffice. And I understand sometimes the need for a large vehicle. But most families would need one such vehicle, and could probably be just fine with a car and a truck, or a car and an SUV(and a utility trailer). Look around when you are driving, and you will see 90%(guessing!) of all vehicles have one person and are way larger than they need to be running for around the city.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
I have no problem fitting my hockey equipment in a Model S. I've done 4 people with 4 sets of golf clubs no problem. My wife has hauled her mountain bike in the back. Of course she has to drop the back seat of the car and remove the front wheel off the bike in that instance. The cars have a lot of storage room. I have yet to use the front trunk.
How did families survive through the 80's and 90's without SUV's?
Station wagons. And later, minivans. Which are still more practical than any SUV for 90% of families. Every time I hear a mom or dad disparage minivans, you know damn well they’re driving an overpriced, underperforming and less practical SUV.
__________________
No, no…I’m not sloppy, or lazy. This is a sign of the boredom.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 81MC For This Useful Post:
Also, cars (and trunks) were just bigger then. In the 70s and 80s, you could throw 4 hockey bags into the trunk of any family car. But those cars were pigs.
The problem isn't trucks and SUVs - some people/families need the space. The problem is a significant percentage of the people driving them don't need the space. If there were half as many on the roads, that would be a positive change.
Also, cars (and trunks) were just bigger then. In the 70s and 80s, you could throw 4 hockey bags into the trunk of any family car. But those cars were pigs.
The problem isn't trucks and SUVs - some people/families need the space. The problem is a significant percentage of the people driving them don't need the space. If there were half as many on the roads, that would be a positive change.
Tons of families have two large vehicles. I get the justification for the one SUV/Truck/Minivan. The second vehicle should be a small car.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Minivans are the greatest family vehicle, and I would never disparage anyone for choosing one over a useless SUV with "7" seats.
But a lot of that comes from the extra length; the Honda Odyssey is about 203.5" long while the Honda Pilot is about 194.5". And the most popular crossovers, like the CR-V and RAV-4 are around 181" long, which really aren't that big; in between a compact and mid-sized sedan.
My Pacifica Hybrid >>>>>>>> Terrain as a family Vehicle
Couldn't ever fold the seats down in the Terrain if was going to bring kids as they need the back seat. As a bonus, if I really need to, I can remove the second row and fold the third row down to fit a 4x8 sheet of plywood in and still course the door.
It's massive, but literally zero gas used unless we go on long trips and even then the fuel economy is outstanding. At over 9000km I've spent about $400 in gas and electricity ($260 is gas)
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
My Pacifica Hybrid >>>>>>>> Terrain as a family Vehicle
Couldn't ever fold the seats down in the Terrain if was going to bring kids as they need the back seat. As a bonus, if I really need to, I can remove the second row and fold the third row down to fit a 4x8 sheet of plywood in and still course the door.
It's massive, but literally zero gas used unless we go on long trips and even then the fuel economy is outstanding. At over 9000km I've spent about $400 in gas and electricity ($260 is gas)
Anecdotally I’ve never heard gear heads rave about a family vehicle more than the Pacifica. Everyone I know just loves the thing.
Lots of "shoulds" and "you don't needs" in this thread.
How about you just let people live their lives without being so judgmental. I'm sure there's dozens of dumb #### you guys choose that other people would find stupid.
Lots of "shoulds" and "you don't needs" in this thread.
How about you just let people live their lives without being so judgmental. I'm sure there's dozens of dumb #### you guys choose that other people would find stupid.
Well, if the thrust of the thread is about climate change and how to solve it, how do you do that without suggesting what should be done or what we don't need?
I had wondered how big an effect hat was having. That's crazy. Get people back in reasonably sized cars, the SUV craze has gone way to far. Plus, they are ugly. Perhaps we need an SUV tax.
LNG from Western Canada is expected to have among the lowest GHG profiles in the world, layering another competitive advantage on top of fast shipping times to Asia.
Right out of the gate with the first major project, Canadian LNG operations will be well below the global emissions average of 0.26 to 0.35 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per tonne of LNG produced. LNG Canada, currently under construction at Kitimat, B.C., is being designed for 0.15 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per tonne per tonne of LNG.
The two projects that may follow over the next decade – Woodfibre LNG and Kitimat LNG – are designed for intensity of approximately 0.06 to 0.08 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per tonne of LNG.
“Liquefied natural gas from B.C will have the least CO2 per tonne of any LNG produced in the world,” said Bryan Cox, CEO of the BC LNG Alliance.
“Not only will B.C. projects have the potential to reduce global emissions by displacing coal, they will also reduce global emissions if they replace LNG produced in other jurisdictions.”
Remember when I said we should export our technology as well as our resources to help other countries?
I bet you Greta and her fellow morons aren't talking about this amazing technology, and how revolutionary the energy sector in Canada has been to lowering emissions and creating a cleaner environment.
I bet you Greta and her fellow morons aren't talking about this amazing technology, and how revolutionary the energy sector in Canada has been to lowering emissions and creating a cleaner environment.
She doesn't want hope and doesn't want us to hope either.
“We owe it to young people to give them hope.” But I don’t want your hope. I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day, and then I want you to act. I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if our house is on fire. Because it is.”
She wants "house on fire" action what exactly is that? And no we are not going to live in fear and panic that's not the state of mind capable of solving problems.
It just blows my mind that this isn't seen as a feasible option. Canada could literally be at the cutting edge of reducing world wide emissions. We have the resources, labor, expertise & ability to make it happen.
Well, if the thrust of the thread is about climate change and how to solve it, how do you do that without suggesting what should be done or what we don't need?
Because you are making assumptions about what people need when you don't know their circumstances
