• Jul 25, 2008
Click above to watch Ryan's call to action

Ryan Mickle, seen above and apparently afraid of no ghosts, has had a change of heart since purchasing his Range Rover Sport new in 2006. Since then, gas prices have shot through the roof and fighting climate change has become a favorite global pastime. Seeing that his SUV gets about 13 mpg, Ryan doesn't want to drive it, doesn't want to sell it and doesn't want anyone else to get behind the wheel -- ever. Trouble is, he's not quite sure how to go about it just yet. So, he wants you to help him decide the fate of his SUV. A few initial ideas: catapult it into the Pacific Ocean, blow it up or convert it to a run on either electrons or biodiesel.

We're hoping that common sense wins out here and the vehicle is somehow saved from such an inauspicious fate as being merely blown to shreds -- after all, that's not very eco-friendly either. While a biodiesel conversion might be fun, we'll put our official vote on the EV idea. Yank the engine, drop in a nice electric motor and some decent batteries in the rear cargo area... presto-chango, problem solved. Well, maybe it's a bit more complicated than that. Watch Ryan's video after the break. Thanks for the tip, everyone!

[Source: One Fewer]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 50 Comments
      • 6 Years Ago
      Trade for an old CRV lying around? Heck, I'll fork out an extra grand if it's in Vesuvius Orange (my favorite color on the RRS).
      • 6 Years Ago
      He says he's all about dropping out of this materialistic race, well if he's willing to let a RRS be destroyed, i'd like to see his house. If he really is trying to help the environment, destroying his truck won't do it if he's living in a multi-million dollar house that "guzzles" electricity like his truck does
      • 6 Years Ago
      Can we add "shove it up your ass" to the list of options? Kthxbye.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Don't friggin kill it, that's insane.
      Selling it would at least help recoup the loss of buying a vehicle that the owner no longer wants.

      I would love to see this and many other vehicles converted to bio-diesel (a Euro spec diesel would fit in the US spec Sport) or EV as the article mentions.
        • 6 Years Ago
        I have a 2008 Range Rover Sport HSE. Structurally identical to his 2006. I average 17.5 mpg in the city and 23 mpg on the highway (set the cruise around 75. I get about 22mpg when it's at 80mph). The point is, it's not what you drive but how you drive it.

        Hybrids and electric cars are not the answer, because they use heavy materials that are non-recyclable, and they are more taxing on the environment because of manufacturing practices. Honda might have something with hydrogen cell, but I don't think that'll happen soon. The Big 3 American car companies are too busy controlling losses, not researching and developing.

        Don't destroy a perfectly great truck. Instead, control your ego and observe the posted speed limits. You will be surprised how much gas you save.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Exactly. He should kill himself, cause his carbon footprint is way worse than the Range Rovers.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Couldn't agree with you more. I love how he justifies his idea by bringing up how "our inefficient approach to transportation is hurting us" and is "messing with our environment," and then saying that if he sells his SUV then "someone else just ends up polluting with it."

        As if destroying a Range Rover for show will solve that--come on!!! If he really cares about the environment, he would do exactly as you say, SPG, and convert it into a green car. With all the publicity he's generating he could actually make a difference by promoting green technologies and encouraging people to look into more efficient transportation.
      • 6 Years Ago
      do you think it's fair that some CEO for an oil company to make a million dollars an hour, even though that guy has never worked an oil drill before?

      Sure it's fair. You think only people who work with their hands deserve compensation? Oil company CEOs have to make billion dollar decisions. That level of responsibility should come with commensurate rewards if they're good at their jobs.

      No. I have no problem with someone making alot of money if they worked hard for it or came up with a design etc. But how much is too much?

      I say "too much" is $1000/yr less than what you're making. Pay up!

      Oh, you mean when it's you deciding someone else is making too much that's okay, but when the shoe is on the other foot, it chafes, don't it?


      The Rich keep getting Richer while the poor keep getting poorer.

      Actually in America, many of the "poor" are homeowners, with cars, microwave ovens, color tvs and cellphones.

      If my neighbor makes more money, that doesn't make me poorer. Wealth is not a zero sum game. While you can only cut a pie into so many slices, the idea of capitalism is that someone can make another pie.

      In the end, how much money do we really need?

      I'm sure you have a higher income and greater assets than I do. Is that fair? Why should you be the one to determine what's an excessive income?
      • 6 Years Ago
      Whatever substance You're abusing ,stop.
      When Your head clears so will Your attitude about Your Range Rover.
      Be grateful.
      • 6 Years Ago
      This whole thing screams "SCAM". First off, I don't believe the guy even owns the vehicle, Land Rovers and bean bag chairs just don't seem to go together.

      Secondly, he knew the thing was a pig on gas when he bought it. Anyone who has the means to spend close to $70,000 on a vehicle has the money to keep gas in the tank, an extra 75 - 100 bucks a month means little if you can afford the vehicle.

      This isn't about him giving up his SUV for a higher cause, it's about making you feel guilty and giving up yours.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Google FTW. Bachelor's Degree, Berkeley -- Economics, affiliated with dotherightthing.com.

      http://dotherightthing.com/users/ryan

      Seems like a pretty liberal, earth loving type. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but why would this guy buy a Range Rover, to climb the big hills of San Francisco. I smell a rat and if this story last more then a day, we will find out the real deal. Promotional stunt. Most likely not his car.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Strip it out, put the skinniest tires you can find on it, do anything you can to make it the highest MPG Rover on the road.
      • 6 Years Ago
      hey MORON, why not try using your head for more than just a hat rack.

      Let me guess, you just bought that Rangey because it was fashionable before you got green religion, right?

      Here is what you do.

      Donate that Range Rover Sport to Jerry's kids, or something. Write it off of your taxes, if you want... but a good liberal like you probably likes taxes, so go ahead and pay them anyway...

      The Charity can auction that vehicle off to someone generous who can also use that truck properly, and enjoy it. And at least the kids get some charity money. Obviously you don't need or want it.

      A Range Rover Sport represents a lot of man hours of design and manufacturing. It also represents more money than most american households see in a year.

      If you think that is worth wasting that value, because you are empty headed enough to think that the entire planet can be affected by an SUV, or even ALL SUVs, or even ALL the activity of human kind, then you should just let someone else use that vehicle, and let someone else benefit from it's sale.

      Obviously you take for granted the resources that you have that have granted you the fiscal capability to afford to buy an expensive item, and now you want to just completely dissolve that entirely. Nice to see that economic resources are so "easy come, easy go" with you.

      What next, idiot, are you going to go plug up a volcano somewhere? One good eruption spews out more particulate and gas matter than the whole of human history's industrial activity.

      Go buy a bicycle and take a few good bounces down the pavement. Moron.
        • 6 Years Ago
        mk:
        You have the typical distorted view of capitalism common among the modern crop of Gordon Gekko disciples.

        The core point of capitalism is not to enrich a few, it's to enrich us all.

        The theory is that groups, by competing for our dollars, will make better and better products (including services) which serve to increase the quality of life for us all.

        As long as this theory holds, capitalism works and we all make out well.

        Unfortunately, there are myriad ways to make money which don't involve competing at all. For example, Enron's methods to sell electricity to California through lines that could not carry it, thus wasting the electricity and leading to shortages that would greatly enrich traders (and Enron). This was a strict "whatever the market will bear" system but it follow the core principles of capitalism.

        So, our government is needed to regulate the greedy in this country. Every time the greedy find a way to enrich themselves in a way that doesn't lead to a better life for the rest of us, we have actually deviated from the capitalistic principles and the government must step in to correct it or else face a situation where capitalism ceases to work in the way it was supposed to.

        It's too bad our government isn't better at it. When the government fails to prevent problems and then later chooses to just say "Wall Street got drunk", it shows not only a massive failure in the system, but a callousness which makes many of us wonder if our well-being even enters into the equation anymore.

        I am a capitalist, and proud of it. But I'm not a conservative, at least not with what masquerades as conservatism in our system right now. I'm also not at all afraid to care about my fellow man and to work for the betterment of us all, even when it means giving up something for myself. The mere existence of the EPA and what it did in the 70s shows that social programs can bring us things that companies never would if left on their own.
        • 6 Years Ago
        @Jay
        Hell yes, I scorn confiscatory taxation. If taxes were lower, wages would increase, and more people could do more business, and generate MORE value. That is economic growth, that is prosperity for all who participate.

        Most taxes get WASTED to the tune of 70%, compared to if those same tax dollars were used for the same purposes in private commerce, including private schools, and commercial healthcare. Government is the LEAST efficient and effective manager of funds.

        Why are you upset with the administration? could you not spend your money more wisely for yourself than ANY administration, including investing for retirement, and charitable giving? Hard to imagine that this country survived the first half of it's history WITHOUT income taxes. I would rather control ALL of my hard earned income, rather than having it CONFISCATED and spent irresponsibly by ANY politician, R or D.

        BTW, governmental functions and discretionary spending, including the defense budget and military action, make up less than 30% of the current 3.1 TRILLION dollar budget. 68% of the budget is fixed as social welfare spending that automatically grows without further government intervention. THAT part of the budget will bankrupt this country to the point where 100% taxation of 100% of the people won't pay back the fiscal obligations and interest. Does that sound responsible to you?
        All according to the former GAO Comptroller General of the United States.

        I am a conservative and a capitalist. Proudly so.

        Capitalism's core principle depends on freedom for people to make as much money as someone else will pay them.

        The minute you go down the road of regulating what people can and can't make for compensation, you drive the economy underground, foster REAL corruption, and destroy the free market. It may not always be fair, and it may not always be what we think is right, but it is FREE, and it is required to be that way. Equality of result is even MORE systematically unfair.

        It is better for you, and everyone else, to be free and unequal, rather than for everyone to be regulated by some sort of overlords determining what pay you are worth. You would not be happy with that.

        The world is unfair, but worrying about the top .5% of income earners doesn't put a single dime in your pocket. And you, nor anyone else have EVER been employed by a poor man.

        Penalizing and reducing the resources of the wealthy does not help the less well off, it makes opportunity harder to come by when the wealthy have less resources to re-invest. Wealthy people don't just sit around and count their money. They make it work for them, and the economy work for everyone.
        • 6 Years Ago
        mk, I respectfully disagree with your take on capitalism and free markets. I find it immensely disenchanting to see the CEO's of companies making millions and billions of dollars, while there are those whom sleep on the streets at night, and wonder where their next meal is going to come from, or those who can't afford to heat their homes. The Rich keep getting Richer while the poor keep getting poorer.I do not wish to live in a dog eat dog world, while I realize life can be unfair, we have to at least try and help. We can accomplish more if we work together rather than try to make a quick buck. Why do we need more money anyways? Sure we have hobbies, we all have collections there's nothing wrong with that, but explain to me why I need to make so much more money than my neighbor? I don't, sure I wouldn't mind having a secure future, but I do not need diamond encrusted sunglasses. Money is paper, and the best things in life are free and while hard-work should earn you more money. In the end, how much money do we really need?
        • 6 Years Ago
        @ LS7 who wrote: [i]The core point of capitalism is not to enrich a few, it's to enrich us all.[/i]

        Capitalism IS enriching us all. The poorest people in america have two televisions, AC and Heat, a car, fridge, microwave, and more and more have personal computers and electronic devices. That is pretty well enriched, compared to non capitalist countries.

        [i]Unfortunately, there are myriad ways to make money which don't involve competing at all. For example, Enron's methods to sell electricity to California through lines that could not carry it, thus wasting the electricity and leading to shortages that would greatly enrich traders (and Enron).[/i]

        That would be collusion, fraud, and prosecuted. Ideally by non corrupted prosecutors.

        [i]So, our government is needed to regulate the greedy in this country. Every time the greedy find a way to enrich themselves in a way that doesn't lead to a better life for the rest of us, we have actually deviated from the capitalistic principles and the government must step in to correct it or else face a situation where capitalism ceases to work in the way it was supposed to.[/i]

        NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!
        Regulation impedes freedom. It impedes EVERYONE for the sake of potential of a few being immoral. They will be immoral anyway.

        It is like the myth of gun control. It only controls the guns of the law abiding citizens. The criminals aren't affected either way, because they are committing crimes!

        Passing laws to make breaking laws illegal is redundant and pointless. and usually tyrannical. The government has no mandate to do that, they are actually limited against it.

        People are presumed innocent until proven guilty through due process. Legislation that assumes the guilt of the entire population is tyranny. FLAT OUT.

        [i]It's too bad our government isn't better at it. When the government fails to prevent problems and then later chooses to just say "Wall Street got drunk", it shows not only a massive failure in the system, but a callousness which makes many of us wonder if our well-being even enters into the equation anymore.[/i]

        Government ALWAYS gets it wrong, and they always pass blame, that is why they should not be entrusted with any more than they are designed by the constitution to handle.

        [i]I am a capitalist, and proud of it. But I'm not a conservative, at least not with what masquerades as conservatism in our system right now. I'm also not at all afraid to care about my fellow man and to work for the betterment of us all, even when it means giving up something for myself. The mere existence of the EPA and what it did in the 70s shows that social programs can bring us things that companies never would if left on their own.[/i]

        How nice. You are a capitalist when it suits you, but not when you think someone else might be guilty of something you have no proof of.

        You denegrate conservatives freely with snarky comments, but then say you care about your fellow man. How tolerant and self defeating of you.

        Your "giving up something" usually makes NO LASTING DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER to someone else, it only makes you feel magnanimous, without solving any endemic problems. Compassion with no results is not anyone's benefit.

        What exactly have you given up that has been more than a temporary band aid to someone who needed the tools to truly solve a problem?

        Give a man [your] fish, and they eat for a day, and you go hungry. Tomorrow they still need another fish. Teach them to fish, and they become your colleague fisherman.

        Sometimes consequences teach compassionate lessons that make people better. Diminishing consequences through legislation only prolongs irresponsibility and immorality.

        @Jay @ Jul 25th 2008 10:43PM
        mk, I respectfully disagree with your take on capitalism and free markets. I find it immensely disenchanting to see the CEO's of companies making millions and billions of dollars, while there are those whom sleep on the streets at night, and wonder where their next meal is going to come from, or those who can't afford to heat their homes. [/i]

        That is an emotional response that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Sure it isn't fair, Life is not fair.
        Rich people in this country give more charitably by percentage of income than ANYONE ELSE ANYWHERE.

        IF you are talking about GOVERNMENT managing that "equitable distribution of wealth", you are talking about communism. It doesn't work, and it is antithetical to freedom.

        [i]The Rich keep getting Richer while the poor keep getting poorer.I do not wish to live in a dog eat dog world, while I realize life can be unfair, we have to at least try and help. We can accomplish more if we work together rather than try to make a quick buck. Why do we
        • 6 Years Ago
        It's funny how you scorn liberals for using taxes and then talk about how most people can't afford cars like this. Believe it or not taxes do help, and even though people can't afford a range rover at least our taxes help them get an education, healthcare, etc. The only reason I'm upset with paying taxes right now, is our current administration has no idea how to spend it properly or at least spend it in a way to actually help the people, rather than try to achieve their own goals. If they want to spend a trillion dollars on the military, and 12 million dollars a day in Iraq, they shouldn't also give out a ton of tax cuts, simple addition and subtraction.

        So lets assume you're conservative and you don't want the government to have alot of control and you don't want to pay taxes, you want to rely on capitalism. Well capitalism is the reason why we are in the hock now. do you think it's fair that some CEO for an oil company to make a million dollars an hour, even though that guy has never worked an oil drill before? No. I have no problem with someone making alot of money if they worked hard for it or came up with a design etc. But how much is too much? This is where the government needs to step 30,000 dollars to a billionaire is pocket change, 1000 dollars to 30 people, lets them keep their house for another month. End rant.

        Back to the OT, Convert the SUV to biodiesel or fully electric, if you have the means, and THEN donate it. dont pollute the ocean.
        • 6 Years Ago
        According to the site you referenced...

        "Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons)"

        Volcanoes have been releasing 145-255 million tons of C02 into the atmosphere each year for, um... 4.5 billion years? Humans have only been tossing up our 30 billion tons for about 100 years... I'd say volcanoes as a whole are one hellava lot worse for the environment.

      • 6 Years Ago
      So...he wants to show how green he is by destroying a $60K SUV and adding to our landfills. I-r-o-n-y!!!!!

      But as further reading shows, he even says he wants a method that brings fame to himself. This proves he is nothing but a pathetic little wannabe socialist-greenie who fails to realize the consequences of his actions. He has no idea how a modern automobile works. He believes that it "pisses gas out the exhaust." Perhaps the saddest fact is that he fails to realize that it would be a lot greener and socially responsible to toss the pink slip to a homeless man who could restart his life/live in it.

      Perhaps he'd like rainbows and 900 M.P.G., but unless we enter the 3rd dimension where physics don't apply, he'll get nothing but shame and disgust from those in the know.
      • 6 Years Ago
      So stupid
        • 6 Years Ago
        Couldn't agree more.

        What I don't get is, if this is about the RR's pollution and having one fewer SUV out there and all this altruistic crap, WHY THE HELL DID HE BUY THE THING IN THE FIRST PLACE?!

        Since he's not selling it, he clearly can afford $5 gas, so that's no excuse for suddenly wanting to get rid of it either.

        He's just a fame-seeking idiot, taking advantage of popular public concern to create this self promotional stunt.
        • 6 Years Ago
        If he destroys his Range Rover, he should make sure he's in it. Moron.
    • Load More Comments