Forum menu
Mine is an apples to apples comparison of why an SUV is bad vs an estate car. Yours is a totally random comparison between two entirely dissimilar vehicles based purely upon their broadly allocated class. I actually answered the question.
But that’s the point you are intentionally missing. The OP and the actions his post linked to were targeted at vehicles purely because they were in the same broadly allocated class. Stigmatising all SUVs is stupid if some suvs are actually better than the direct comparison alternative. So if the action has its intended effect I’ll feel awkward getting another suv when this one’s time is up - but rather than buy the greenest vehicle all I’ll care about is not getting one with the stigma - a Jag XR sounds like a good option, unfortunate that it puts out a wee bit more co2 than my current car but, it must be better because nobody was letting down the tyres on estate cars and sticking signs on the window!
Modern engines have made great gains in efficiency so a 50MPG SUV is feasible, but the point is that for the same outlay - or more likely alot less- the driver could have gone for something like a Volvo V40 2.0 Diesel which real world give more like 60+MPG (discontinued but similar, you know what I mean). Its that difference multiplied by the tens of millions of the things on the road that makes such a huge difference to our collective consumption and emissions. One would like to think that anyone who has taken on board the ramifications of what's been discussed at Cop in the last few weeks, that if one's in the enviable position to purchase new cars in the future- then they will be better informed, if not pressurised, into making more considered choices. Anyone who's adamant that they need one can pay a 30% premium in a tax that could be directed at compensating the parts of the world where the impacts will start to be felt. The usual tired old excuses, the same ones we've been hearing for decades, are gong to get boring pretty quickly.
Look. SUVs are less aerodynamic and heavier - for the sake of looks and style. That's all there is to it. Getting bogged down comparing cars is pointless. If you drive one you're using more fuel than you need. End of.
There are lots of other ways to use more fuel than you need, of course. But that does not change the first fact. There's really nothing to argue about.
Stigmatising all SUVs is stupid if some suvs are actually better than the direct comparison alternative.
Name a single one.
And no, saying your personal choice is more efficient than some big sporty estate isn't a direct comparison.
A direct comparison would have been to pick the equivalent hatch/estate from the same manufacturer.
The big sporty estate is an environmentally poor choice too. We're talking about the fac that people walk into dealerships and are deliberately buying cars that are bigger and less fuel efficient than they could be.
That's a different argument to banning cars entirely, banning sporty cars, banning personal car ownership in cities or anything else. It's simply saying people could have reduce their carbon footprint by ~2% simply by making a slightly better choice at no cost to them.
a Jag XR sounds like a good option, unfortunate that it puts out a wee bit more co2 than my current car but, it must be better because nobody was letting down the tyres on estate cars and sticking signs on the window!
If people are really going to be so childish about the whole thing then god help us.
This thread is a real whaboutery fest isn't it.
I have a genuine question for those who are decrying SUV drivers: do you consume animal products?
It has been shown by multiple studies and research bodies that meat and dairy contribute far more in terms of emissions than plant-based food sources. It is known that it is perfectly possible to survive on a 100% plant-based diet (as many plant-based foods are supplemented with B12, or you can personally supplement).
If you are criticising anyone driving an SUV (in your opinion) unnecessarily, yet you consume meat and dairy (also unnecessarily), then you're a hypocrite of the highest order.
It is known that it is perfectly possible to survive on a 100% plant-based diet (as many plant-based foods are supplemented with B12, or you can personally supplement
A B12 supplement isn't necessary. As a vegetarian I get it from eggs. A vegan obviously won't, and it can't be got from ants but there's loads in fungus, so mushrooms, yeast, marmite, whatever,vegans don't need to miss out on anything.
.
[edit] it can be got from ants but that's meat. Plants.
If you are criticising anyone driving an SUV (in your opinion) unnecessarily, yet you consume meat and dairy (also unnecessarily), then you’re a hypocrite of the highest order.
That’s not really how that works I’m afraid. All someone then has to do is compare themselves with a meat eating SUV driver and we’re back as we were.
Or, as mentioned above, it’s just more whataboutery
It's not whataboutery at all - if you criticise someone over a personal choice that they have made, that is contributing more environmental harm than the valid alternative - yet you yourself are unwilling to take an equally valid alternative to something you do in order to reduce your environmental harm, then that is hypocrisy.
Do the best that you can, with what you are able, and don't be a dick about it. Is that really so hard?
Ok, so your small estate driving enemy is also a vegetarian. Does that now make their argument more valid? Otherwise you are just shouting “but what about the meat?!”
I have a genuine question for those who are decrying SUV drivers: do you consume animal products?
I have a good answer for you. My grandfather was a farmer who over 60 years ago recognised that the model of agriculture at the time was unsustainable. He switched to a more sustainable life-style and brought up his entire family from that point forward as vegetarian. I've been vegetarian my entire life, so 46 years, the last 3 practically vegan...though I have a penchant for the occasional cheese. Have been aware of the need to minimise consumption in everything for well over 20 years, and my footprint through my life and currently will be minuscule compared to what some people on here have normalised. Do I get to tell you what to do yet? no - you'll probably find another excuse, and I'd settle for just a huge tax rebate. I should probably get to drive whatever I want on those metrics, but I'd never drive an SUV 'cause they're crap.
I think we need to get away from the mindset of, 'I do X, therefore I am entitled to Y.'
We're beyond the point of calculating our carbon footprint and saying things like, 'I've looked at our carbon footprint, therefore the four flights we've taken this year are fine.'
If you want to drive an SUV drive then drive an SUV. If you want to eat meat every day then eat meat every day. If you want to live in a huge difficult to heat house then live in a huge difficult to heat house. If you want to fly round the planet every year then fly around the planet every year.
However, you can no longer expect anyone to endorse any of these choices and just because you drive an electric car don't expect to be let off the hook for eating meat every day, living in a big poorly insulated house, or your next flight to Madiera.
From now on we all have to do what we can in every aspect of our lives. I am in no way perfect but in everything I do now I'm trying to minimise my impact.
A point that I haven't seen mentioned is the impact of the reduced safety on our roads caused by SUVs (or at least the perceived reduced safety).
We know that many people drive their kids to school rather than let them walk because they are worried about their safety. People are worried about safety ratings so they buy SUVs in order to keep their families safe.
By driving around in an SUV, even if you are the safest driver in the world, you are discouraging people from walking, cycling, and from buying smaller cars.
It's not as simple as just looking at mpg figures. I would really like to see an end to this arms race to have the biggest heaviest car possible in the interests of 'safety',
The simple solution is not to have and kids. You will then have a lower carbon footprint than anyone who has. The bit I don’t understand is if as all the protesters say, quite rightly, that the planet is going to hell in a handcart from the perspective of human life why do they want to bring new life into the planet to enjoy the ride into oblivion?
You have to admit, ending the human race is a fairly drastic solution to the climate crisis.
Maybe we should go further and all just kill ourselves at the same time.
Or maybe we could see if it's possible to alter society so that we can live in a stable ecosystem first. We can keep the worldwide seppuku solution as a backup plan.
The bit I don’t understand is if as all the protesters say, quite rightly, that the planet is going to hell in a handcart from the perspective of human life why do they want to bring new life into the planet to enjoy the ride into oblivion?
Because having kids is one of the most important things to many people. The idea is that if we do radically change our lifestyles the planet won't get destroyed and we can still have kids.
But what really is the difference between one person wanting a child and someone else an suv? Both are objectively unnecessary both are bad for the environment. In fact having a child is about the worst thing you can you from a climate change perspective.
Personally I would rather keep my lifestyle and not have kids which is exactly what we have done.
I’ve got a 3l petrol SUV, I like it.
Personally I would rather keep my lifestyle and not have kids which is exactly what we have done.
Agree. Having children is still on the sliding scale of choice for the majority of people.
The whole debate falls apart when you just target one type of vehicle which in itself is not really one type of vehicle. An SUV can be many different shapes, sizes, weights, ages and engines.
It's not one thing.
If we're really really bothered then stop tinkering around the seems and reconfigure society so people don't have to travel so far to work! Another lovely by-product of neolibralism.
I've a kodiaq - it's got 2000 litres of space for my job to carry kit. My miles are reduced as much as I can to about 6000 PA. With the rest on a cycling commute.
I'm happy that my footprint is tiny compared to a family, with or without an SUV.
I'm pretty sure I could find issues with non-suv driving families lifestyles too if I really wanted to.
Hmmm, while I'm sure there are some people who choose not to reproduce entirely on environmental grounds, I don't think it's the overiding reason is it?
Some people just like their life child free, and enjoy the quality of life that comes with not having all the extra costs and considerations that inevitably follow with children. Which is fine, especially in a world where having kids is an often the unchallenged norm. But don't fool yourselves that it was for entirely unselfish reasons.
The people I know who've opted out of kids mostly talk about the relative freedom they see themselves having compared to their child rearing contemporaries. I really don't think any of them would be claiming they did it to save Mother Earth, in fact a good chunk tend to exploit that freedom by consuming/polluting a fair bit extra in their own right, more (plane) travel, more powerful cars (purchased more frequently), using that disposable income to buy more stuff...
I do wonder just how true the "family footprint" point is, it's trotted out every time one of these discussions comes up, but in all honesty I've no idea if it's science based or just something that seems logical in the context of environmental impact...
I'm sure someone will put us straight.
chrismac
Full Member
But what really is the difference between one person wanting a child and someone else an suv?
I suppose the fact it doesn't meet the basic definition of sustainability?
Also, whataboutism and the fact it's doesn't have to be either/or.
We will need children in the future, if only to pay our pensions and wipe our bottoms when we're too old to do it ourselves, if we collectively make it that far. The best thing to do if you've got them is to educate them to not grow up to become another generation of mindless consumers, amongst other things. The most reassuring thing from the whole Cop thing has been how switched-on the young generation are, eloquent, informed and angry. They may get angrier if change doesn't come fast enough, and that may not just stop at letting your tyres down.
@endoverend:
No need. Plenty of migrants.
In general, this thread reinforces our need to re-establish a train link between Glasgow and the Trossachs.
Some people will say “och, there’s only a handful of pharmacists who would utilise that line”.
But the potential demand from tourists…phew!
I can understand the pharmacists need to get there under his own steam. But, not to deliver prescriptions. He’s a bit overqualified for that kind of donkey-work, and he’d be better off sub-contracting that work to some kid named Deliveroo so that he/ she can pay off their e-bike.
As for the perceived safety angle of suv sales. With rising prosperity, once every road user owns one, any advantage is diminished and we’re all back to square one. Ford escort mk2 vs 1968 Mini Cooper, etc.
It’s been said that if the weather is really that bad, then a motorbike and side-car will get through almost anything.
If the people who own the SUV’s have the space in their garage, why not own a ‘regular’ (light) car and a quiver of motorbikes, e-bikes, e-scooters, etc?
Can't the robots wipe our arses? Someone must be working on it.
We will need children in the future, if only to pay our pensions and wipe our bottoms when we’re too old to do it ourselves
We could re organise ourselves but I take your point But that has nothing to do with the environmental impact.
do wonder just how true the “family footprint” point is, it’s trotted out every time one of these discussions comes up, but in all honesty I’ve no idea if it’s science based or just something that seems logical in the context of environmental impact…
It’s simple logic reall,y which is going to generate a bigger carbon footprint 80+ years life a new baby born now is likely to live versus one that is never born?
The simple solution is not to have and kids. You will then have a lower carbon footprint than anyone who has.
If you're that bothered about your carbon footprint then there is a simple way of reducing it.
I’ve got a 3l petrol SUV, I like it.
I've got a child. I like it.
We have an SUV and looking at our emissions we generate about 1.7 tonnes of CO2 per year. We don’t do a lot of miles in it now as our circumstances have changed.
As used prices have risen so much and there is no equivalent model on sale at the moment, I could sell it and easily pay off the loan we have for it and have reasonable excess.
I can also lease an electric car through work as I’m higher rate tax payer the equivalent payment to our current car would allow me £600 per month that should get a nice electric car.
So i could be better off have lower emissions and lower fuel bill and have a nice new car. However I’d create at least 20 tonnes of CO2 in make the switch by creating a new car. So although its financially for me to switch it makes no sense environmentally to change unless I’m missing something.
So do i deserve my tires let down for doing the right thing even though it’s costing me money, if our mileage were higher it would be different.
LET HIS TYRES DOWN! You could sell it and buy a second hand non-suv which is more efficient? Buying a new ev isn't the only option.
But what really is the difference between one person wanting a child and someone else an suv?
Excellent point. Anyone fancy a swap?
("Now kids, we need a new twitmobile, so one of you needs to volunteer...")
You could sell it and buy a second hand non-suv which is more efficient?
Read what he wrote
Children have no inherent carbon footprint whatsever.
You only assume they have one because
- we've already built world which uses fossil fuels
- people assume children will live the same as the generation before
Children have no inherent carbon footprint whatsever.
Well, only unless they are brought up as beasts and would effectively be sub-human. Since the Neanderthals and fire, we've been creating a carbon footprint. Not to create one would make us the same as gorillas.
Raising children as sub-human beasts, now there's an idea!
Its not like there's enough information out there on the subject, all the analysis points in the same direction... here's a great report from Transport & Environment
I like this quote from above:
It is tempting to blame car-buyers for the rising CO2 but the market for SUVs has to a large extent been created by carmakers’ skilful marketing and pursuit of higher profits. Carmakers have been aware of 2020/1 CO2 targets since 2009 and could, and should, have factored their growth into their compliance plans ensuring a higher proportion of these vehicles were equipped with hybrid systems that would greatly increase efficiency. Instead carmakers have benefited from strong sales in this market segment without taking responsibility for their greater environmental footprint and higher emissions. The lack of progress in recent years in reducing emissions as a result of the shift to SUVs is therefore carmakers’ own responsibility due to their own poor planning.
or if TLDR from the Gruadrian:
How SUV's conquered the world- at the expense of its climate
Some people just like their life child free, and enjoy the quality of life that comes with not having all the extra costs and considerations that inevitably follow with children. Which is fine, especially in a world where having kids is an often the unchallenged norm. But don’t fool yourselves that it was for entirely unselfish reasons.
Does the reason matter? If they aren't having children then they are doing much less damage to the environment than some who does, regardless of why.
The analogy here may be being an epileptic who can't drive, he is doing much less harm than someone driving about in the SUV even though he isn't not driving for environmental reasons.
You could sell it and buy a second hand non-suv which is more efficient? Buying a new ev isn’t the only option.
Yeah, but the suv doesn’t magically disappear in that scenario. Someone else doing more mileage could buy it and we’d be worse off. I’ll admit I’m kind of in that same position. I have one because I liked it at the time and I also have a frontline nhs job that I HAVE to get to in rural parts of Scotland. It may only be one week a year when it’s really needed but when it is, it’s vital. Having said that, my driving habits and social attitude have changed since I bought it and not sure I’ll replace it. Had it 5 years and only done 44000 miles. Needed nothing done at mot, so decided to keep it. Thought about buying a smaller car for everyday but real world I’d save 60 gallon of fuel a year. I accept all the evidence about suv excess inherent co2 but the car is built now and that can’t be change. Better to properly maintain a single car and use it as responsibly as possible.
As for future sales, that either needs to be legislated against or make them more difficult to buy. Same goes for Hot Hatches, M series BMW, AMG Mercs etc. I’ve had fast cars in the past and loved them but their time has come. I’d like to see a ban on PCP and lease deals on more polluting new car sales. IMO it’s the rise of these that have made cars in those bracket more achievable. Small increases in monthly payment can get you much more in terms of full cash price. It also reinforces the cycle of you “needing” a new car every three years.
Yeah if you don't do a lot of miles then I agree there's little point changing. My older petrol focus only does 38mpg but I do so few miles it wouldn't make financial sense to buy something more efficient. LET MY TYRES DOWN!
So i could be better off have lower emissions and lower fuel bill and have a nice new car. However I’d create at least 20 tonnes of CO2 in make the switch by creating a new car.
Not necessarily. A new EV will come into the world, and at the bottom of the chain an old possibly inefficient ICE will leave it. So you could still be contributing to reduced emissions overall, after the 3-4 year payback period. And you'll be contributing the economies of scale that are driving down prices which will lead to more cheaper EVs.
I’d like to see a ban on PCP and lease deals on more polluting new car sales.
TBH there should be a ban on that sort of credit altogether – they make shiny new cars so much more affordable to so many more people. In fact I was out walking my dog yesterday and went past some new build houses – all quite small 2 and 3 bed semis or townhouses (ie, terraced). Almost all of the houses had very new (and often very high value) cars parked outside. It struck me as a bit odd as I was thinking 'why are they buying such modest houses when they can afford such cars' then it occurred to me that they will most likely be on leases with relatively low monthly repayments and I can see the attraction for many people.
For example, borrowing £10,000 over 24 months costs £431 a month (HSBC current rate) and what can you get for that? A four year old Fiesta. Alternatively, you could get a brand new shiny BMW 2 Series Gran Coupe M235i xDrive 4dr Step Auto Pro Pack on a lease for very similar money. And two years later? Just get another brand new shiny thing.
I read somewhere that the CO2 produced in making a new car in some cases is as much as the CO2 the car emits over its lifetime - is it therefore better to keep running an old car than buy a new EV? I also hear that once EVs are widespread, and because the running costs are so much lower - it is expected that people will be driving literally everywhere - much more so than currently, so we'll need more roads and infrastructure to fit all this extra driving in - all of which will be CO2 footprint heavy. Our complete inability to give up the car for all of our even most basic mobility requirements means we are, as a race, are ****ed and cooked - hot planet here we come. So the argument about SUV vs normal car is fairly inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. It should be a question of reducing how much we drive significantly to the point of exception rather than norm, regardless of what we drive.
This is the best image to answer the above question:
One would hope that the switch to EV's will lead to less unnecessary journeys as drivers will need to think about the range more carefully. But I don't underestimate peoples capacity to do the wrong thing.
Does the reason matter? If they aren’t having children then they are doing much less damage to the environment than some who does, regardless of why.
I'm Greta Thunbergs dad & I have issues with that statement.
Our complete inability to give up the car for all of our even most basic mobility requirements means we are, as a race, are **** and cooked – hot planet here we come.
Add in the inability to give up meat, stop going on holidays, buying a continuous stream of shit from all over the world and yes we are indeed ****ed.
Worrying about SUVs vs slightly more efficient equivalent cars seems futile to say the least.