IMO when it comes to reducing an indivuals impact on the environment we as a species are never going to turn into carless childless vegans anytime soon. However in the context of transport, making an environmentally conscious choice of car without impacting your ability to travel is the best way to minimise your impact while the government (hopefully) guides industry towards sustainable and efficient public transport and the roll out of electric cars (and the required renewable energy).
I do struggle to see the point of an SUV, safety wise there's plenty of hatchbacks that tick every safety requirement under the sun, and as mentioned before they're more expensive to run and have no more space inside. I also have a shattered tib/fib at the moment and have no problem getting into the passenger seat of my ford focus so I can't really understand how they're easier to get into unless you're comparing with a Porsche.
Admittedly, my 14 year old focus returns about 38-40 mpg on average, but I've owned the car for 10 years and will be keeping it until it's scrapped. Then I imagine I'll have to purchase one more ICE car before EV's really becomes affordable and it'll be another hatchback with an efficient engine for sure.
IMO much of the concerns around the newer efficient engines not lasting as long are from when they first came out and there was teething issues as with anything. Realistically it's rare to see a car with more than 150k on the clock before it's scrapped and often it's other parts that go before the engine does.
Average CO2 emissions for the construction of a car is 17 tonnes for a medium-large, non-premium saloon. Average emissions of same car per 10k miles is 3 tonnes, so keeping it and driving it for 10 years means that the emissions through use are 3 times those for production.
Total emissions for 10 years = 47 tonnes
Average CO2 emissions for a construction of a premium SUV are closer to 40 tonnes and its emission are closer 5.5 tonnes. Meaning that the breakeven point for a PSUV is 8 years.
total emissions for 10 years = 95 tonnes.
In-use emissions for SUVs are bad enough, but production is ludicrous...how much extra tax is paid for all this? £4k flat. Mental.
Interesting stuff Daffy. Considering the mining involved for lithium I wonder what this would look like for a Tesla/Leaf/other EV.
In an ideal world, I think I’d ban private ownership altogether
I'm sure Jeremy Corbyn would love that idea. Fortunately we didn't elect him
So what's the general STW view on people that own SUV's and tow caravans?
I've had diesel pick ups for a few years and now a discovery. They are used for work, so that's my excuse. However - I tow a 2t caravan around at times - mpg down to around 20.
Now, I could use b&b's for work, or for short family breaks. I could even camp sometimes. However, I choose to caravan.
What about the other caravaners - justified pollution, or evil bastards (forgetting what you think about being stuck behind one 😂)?
Good points molgrips, daffy, enimgas!
Climate change ain’t going to be solved by middle class guilt.
Well actually it might, because if a lot of people with a lot of buying power and influence care then things will get done. It'll be middle class people who pay the extra for local solar generation or who lobby those in power to make changes.
Have you seen the state of a lot of council and student houses? When no-one owns anything, no-one cares about its condition.
That's a nasty little piece of Tory thinking that is. Demonise the poor a bit more why don't you? It's also total bollocks.
The majority of people I know who rent houses keep them spotless, and people's lease cars are also spotless due to the possibility of penalties at the end of the lease. My house and cars are both owned, and they are shitheaps.
I drive a 2008 Vauxhall Vectra 3.0 v6 cdti estate and my wife has a Kia Piccanto. Am I going to hell? I used to have a 2006 Kia Sorento 2.5 litre diesel-fume-belching-monster. Both cars I had/have because rather than jetting off abroad with Fazzini clan we tow a caravan. If I could afford an EV that would also tow the van I would get one. I consider myself to be fortunate to be able to afford what I can and have great adventures/holidays with the wife and kids. Would I like to do more for the sake of my children? Yes. But car-wise, only, its too expensive. Unless EVs become affordable for 'all' uses I'm not sure what more I can do. Not on my wages anyhoo.
Interesting story in today's Times about the pollution given off by car tyres. Didn't reflect too well on the SUVs.
And on top of this who makes choices that are beyond their immediate needs? NO ONE
Me.
I could have just installed an electric immersion heater but went to the trouble of making a solar panel and instaling a second hot water tank. I use about a third of the electricity for domestic hot water over the year.
I could have just replaced the gas boiler but spent a lot of time insulating the house so it doesnt need much heating. I could have left the old windows in but fitted triple glazing instead. The PV panels weren't an immediate need.
The Zoé means journeys require some planning and it needs careful packing to get two people and two 27.5 MTBs in with camping kit. Some journeys it doesn't work: four people with four pairs of skis/boots/ski kit, snow board and luggage for a couple of weeks won't go in - that's one trip a year, Renault do a special hire deal for EV buyers and guarantee a rental even if they have to rent you a brand new car from the showroom.
It's all a question of how much effort you're prepared to make for your kids and the conditions you're going to live in in later life. If you've no kids and you're 70 then from a totally selfish point of view "**** it" is a reasonable choice. Most people are screwing up their own and their children's futures, if you are comforatable with that then again - just **** it.
It's not that hard to divide your carbon footprint by at least three, so I have.
This thread kind of raises the question, just what (exactly) are we personally prepared to do in the face of the global climate emergency?
I have some extenuating circumstances in that I don’t have any kids (and being 55, single and grey pretty much zero percent of having any), I haven’t taken any flight for 7 or 8 years, only had 2 intercontinental trips in my life, and recently my holidays have consisted of bikepacking trips reasonably local (one literally left from the backdoor). I am planning a summer Camino del Norte trip and the intention is to drive/ferry (covid-19 dependent now I guess).
I do currently overconsume (see any Cotic or guitar thread for proof) and I have recently bought a baby-killer diesel Berlingo van (getting ~52mpg indicated) as well as having a 1.2 tsi Skoda roomster (~42mpg) as a ‘daily’ drive with a 23-24 mile total commute. I’ll have had my car 5 years start of May and it’s done just under 56k in that time.
I don’t eat much meat but I seem to accumulate a hell of a lot of plastic containers in my ‘recycling’ bin which does bother me. As a single person I only have to put out the bin bin about 5 or 6 times a year and recycling 3 or 4 times.
In that sense (another Thunberg family quote) ‘But everyone is a climate change denier. Every single one of us’ (see Our House is on Fire p97 for context).
I’d find it difficult to argue with that in practice...
You are talking total shit. NO ‘environmentalist’ is telling you ditch your current stuff. This amazingly insightful point you make has been around for decades, most people who’ve given this any thought are well aware. And yet, you use this false allegation in your defence. Just in case you haven’t worked it out – the point about buying more efficient stuff is for when your current stuff wears out.
Except that's not the case is it? What was that whole scrappage scheme then sold as replacing cars with environmentally friendly new ones designed to fail? (sold by people claiming to be environmentalists)
or http://www.t2c.org.uk/chilling/chilling-questions/
Is it greener to hang on to my old fridge?
Definitely not. Fridges and freezers have a low ’embodied energy’. This means that about nine times as much energy is used running the appliance as is spent making it in the first place. So it makes ecological sense to take advantage of the huge improvements in energy efficiency and replace old fridges with new high-performance ones.What about the Greenhouse Gases?
Old fridges use CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons) which are highly damaging to the ozone layer and were banned in the mid 1990s. HFCs (Hydrofluorocarbons) replaced them but had a high global warming potential if released into the atmosphere. These again were phased out and since 2000 almost all chilling appliances use HCs (Hydrocarbons) which are far less damaging to the environment.Recycling
Refrigerant gases are only damaging if they are released to the atmosphere. If you buy a new appliance you will normally be given the opportunity to get your old one taken away — where it will be recycled in controlled conditions. Alternatively most Local Authority recycling sites will accept appliances, which will be treated in the same way. Around 80% of the material in a modern unit can be recycled.
But my fridge doesn't have CFC's and where is the audit showing this 9x ... how come it doesn't include transport? Does in include the mining and transport of the raw materials?
How does dumping the fridge with my local authority to have it shipped to the 3rd world help? Sure some kid will burn off the plastic on the wiring whilst breathing in toxic fumes and dump anything not valuable in the sea but how does that help?
Why don’t you have an electric car? Why don’t you have a Skoda Citygo? Why don’t you have something made in this country to avoid shipping? Why are you supporting VAG who make plenty of hugely polluting vehicles including, shock horror, luxury SUV’s?
Of course, taken to a logical conclusion no one would have a car in the face of climate change and all companies would be held to account by a strong government or their own ethics. But while that's not the case, driving a car (as little as possible) that has the lowest possible emissions while remaining practical for use had to be best practice. Most 4x4 SUVs far exceed any level of arguable practicality 98.5% of the time (unfounded, non-researched figure for demonstration purposes only).
What was that whole scrappage scheme then sold as replacing cars with environmentally friendly new ones designed to fail? (sold by people claiming to be environmentalists)
That was a green washed con to meet emissions targets and boost the car industry. It was widely criticised at the time in the mainstream media and also on here.
As for your quote, so what? Not everyone who writes an environmental article is right. In fact, many articles are wrong. Are you criticising the entire concept of environmentalism just because someone writing on the topic is incorrect? So everything's now fine is it, we can do what we like cos that guy is wrong? Honestly not sure what your point is other than to try and smear the people you don't like cos they're telling you you bought the wrong car.
OP – can you give us a detailed account of how you live your life/house/holidays/leisure pursuits before [...]
This sentiment neatly encapsulates why we're doomed - so many people are unwilling to do anything, or even accept criticism of their choices, until everyone else in the world has made the changes they're unwilling to contemplate.
However, the key thing is that we can't change our trajectory towards extinction until we fundamentally change the way our societies work. Why would we expect people to avoid buying SUVs when they are effectively so heavily subsidised by our governments?
Wow does it really take 6 pages to point out that the owners are dicks.
This sentiment neatly encapsulates why we’re doomed – so many people are unwilling to do anything, or even accept criticism of their choices, until everyone else in the world has made the changes they’re unwilling to contemplate.
Yes. If you say to someone "that car is inefficient" they say "oh but you flew on holiday last year and blablabla" well yes, true, but that does not change the fact that their car is still inefficient. Your carbon footprint has nothing to do with me. This isn't a personal squabble to be the best. I'm pointing it out cos it still needs pointing out, apparently. I'm not doing it to try and make myself out better (I'm not). But people still can't get their head around this.
I'm not here to defend SUV's. But how many people on STW who are arguing against anyone driving SUV's, actually own a house that is way bigger than their needs or have an extra large man cave/garage because they think they need or deserve the extra space?
Should owning an bigger property than one actually needs be met with the same resentment as someone owning an SUV?
Larger properties have a greater effect on the environment than a smaller property of equal build quality. Larger properties take more energy to heat them and generally need more electricity to meet the lighting and power requirements. So they have a greater damage to the environment.
So people with houses or garages bigger than what they actually need are very similar to people driving SUV's. They want the extra convenience that the bigger size gives them.
Do all the SUV haters on STW live in the smallest most eco-friendly buildings??
Before anyone asks, no I don't drive a SUV or large uneconomical car. I'm lucky if I average 20 miles a week in a car that does nearly 60mpg. And sometimes I can go weeks without driving at all.
Dragging it back to the first page somewhat, I am totally perplexed by the proportion of t5/t6 lifestyle vans that apparently can't fit bikes inside them - wtf are people dragging around with them!? Re: FOD carpark any Sunday of the year
Do all the SUV haters on STW live in the smallest most eco-friendly buildings??
Does it make someone's SUV any more justifiable if I live in a big house? (I don't)
No, it doesn't. That's just diverting blame or trying to wriggle out.
SUVs are bad, end of. What you do with this fact is up to you.
They want the extra convenience that the bigger size gives them.
They really don't give you anything. If you want more seats get an MPV. If you want to carry stuff get an estate. For every job an SUV can do there's a more economical vehicle that does it better EXCEPT for full-on off-roading, and a very small number of people really need that.
Mmm, I think hypocrisy does have a big impact tbh
People making noise about the environmental impact of suv's while they personally choose to fly around the world makes me switch off quite quickly
It doesn't make suv's any more efficient of course but if those that are passionate about protecting the environment will not commit then the people who are less passionate are very unlikely to listen.
but if those that are passionate about protecting the environment will not commit then the people who are less passionate are very unlikely to listen.
Nail on head. A bit like preachy celebs talking green while having gigantic personal carbon footprints. If you are going to criticise the behaviour of others then you better lead by example.
SUVs? 99% of us could get by with a Ford Fiesta. We drive bigger cars because they are convenient and not much more expensive. The majority of the population are happy to reuse carrier bags and recycle their bottles but they won't be driving small cars of stopping flying on holiday any time soon.
Sbtouring, exsee and irc still not getting the point.
Oh look, a squirrel!
Molgrips, I didn't say it was justifiable. For around 90% of SUV owners it is not justifiable to have one of those vehicles at all. But they want to drive them. That doesn't make it right.
But that is the same as owning a bigger property than what you actually need, that is not justifiable either. But that seems to be ok as nobody complains about that!
The fact is the majority of people don't actually care or try to do something to reduce carbon their carbon footprint. They just want the biggest house or SUV because they can afford it. As many people are selfish and don't care that their choices affect the environment.
They just want the biggest house
Of course, as regards houses, they've also been taught that bigger / more expensive is better for "investment" purposes. Quite different from the depreciating asset that is a car.
That was a green washed con to meet emissions targets and boost the car industry. It was widely criticised at the time in the mainstream media and also on here.
Like every other greenwashed con ... cutting down millions of trees and digging up peat bog to build wind farms. Again the same environmentalist maths ... knock down clean gas powered power and instead of spending the money making it cleaner and carbon capture cut down and dig up a huge CO2 trap but forget to put those figures into the agenda.. along with access roads and trees cut for them and the environmental costs of building, shipping and maintaining windfarms right up top the next environmental agenda where windfarms are evil and all need to be destroyed to be replaced with something else more damaging.
And yet we cut down millions of trees and dig up a as yet undisclosed amount of peat bog in the middle of a climate emergency!!!
As for your quote, so what? Not everyone who writes an environmental article is right. In fact, many articles are wrong.
They are not even trying to be correct or take a correct approach.
Despite me owning neither (though I used to own an accord for 200k) I put a comparison of fuel use in an Honda Accord and Honda CRV both with the same engine. The difference in fuel is miniscule but lets just pretend you didn't see that as it doesn't fit your environmentalist agenda of forcing everyone with a SUV to scrap it and buy a NEW car that you decide they can have. Let's all mine lithium and the associated REE's, ship the stuff round the world and send all the crap can't be melted down to a 3rd world country where some kid has to breath toxic fumes before chucking the stuff without even the value to buy them some clean drinking water into the sea.
Every environmental article is the same IGNORE point blank the full picture ... and apply environmentalist maths.
Are you criticising the entire concept of environmentalism just because someone writing on the topic is incorrect?
It's not a single article... but lets use it as an example. Just show me the calculations that came up with 9x. If this was published by a company rather than an environmental pressure group they would need to show their calculation, you can't just say 9x because a bunch of environmentalists decided "10 sounds too high let's say 9".
And .. even if it's a company then if that company is a recycling company they are exempt from pollution, they are exempt from the monitoring that other companies have, so we can't even assess the damage these companies are doing pumping toxins and pollutants into the environment. This is even assuming they recycle at all... and don't just tick boxes then ship the toxic crap off to 3rd world nations because .. guess what no-one checks.
So everything’s now fine is it, we can do what we like cos that guy is wrong?
Everything is far from fine ... unless you hadn't noticed the planet is fast turning into something won't sustain life as we know it and the environmental lobby is at the forefront.
Only yesterday someone complained about cyclists on our local forum... "Why did the council spend millions on unused cycle lanes" .... the answer is it DIDN'T it got a big fat grant and a loan, it took the loan at <0.05% and loaned it to developers to build tower blocks on a flood plain that aren't needed for which it then applies for another grant for building flats that aren't required (according to it's OWN study), concreting over the run-off and dumping the run-off into the river.
Do I need to point out the cycle paths are unusable?
Their ONLY criteria was overall length in order to meet the grant requirements and get a loan to then use to build more tower blocks?
Honestly not sure what your point is other than to try and smear the people you don’t like cos they’re telling you you bought the wrong car.
How do you even know I bought the wrong car? Other than you know it's got over 180k on it hence I must have the wrong car because environmentalist cars are designed to fail 100k before that so we can all "benefit" from scrapping the cars already built and build new ones?
Really, it's about time the environmentalists woke up and realised there is a climate emergency instead of campaigning for what they are told to campaign and presenting deliberately misleading figures so their sponsors can get rich.
The hypocrisy of green politicians is illustrated by the imposition of a carbon tax (APD) to reduce flying followed by demands that something must be done when it is a factor in an airline going bust.
Reducing internal UK flights which can be done (more slowly) by train is a huge step towards the 2050 zero carbon target. Rejoice!
If there really was a climate "emergency" we would be seeing public figures welcoming the demise of FlyBe.
The hard choices like restricting travel are made for an immediate emergency like COvid 19.
"SUVs were the second largest contributor to the increase in global carbon emissions from 2010 to 2018" / "If SUV drivers were a nation, they would rank seventh in the world for carbon emissions".
Figures in the UK for 2019 are closer to 45% of sales being SUV's...consumers can use any excuse from the big book of excuses but it doesn't change the impact of those collective figures.
I don't think absolutism is the answer. It's just a convenient excuse not to listen to criticism unless the the person criticising is near perfect. The point is to except that the choice you have made is not the best choice. We all make selfish choices but an important part is to recognise and except your choices. To do deny or claim you can be criticised unless questioned by perfection is to use an excuse of only God can question me.
I'm happy with my personal choices and not looking to make any excuses for driving an SUV. I have all sorts of personal reasons and the op isn't talking about people like me anyway but with a small sacrifice or 2 I could use something more efficient. I choose not to. I rarely worry about recycling either.
I have more important things to worry about. I don't say that to offend anyone who is more passionate about this style of enviro protection, those bits are just not as important to me as they are to you.
or to put it another way don't be offended but i'm going to let my dog shit on your lawn, as I don't care.
Hypocrisy has a big impact though, I'm not claiming people need to be perfect but if a passionate environmentalist is yelling from his plane seat YOU NEED TO STOP POLLUTING THE PLANET, I'm likely to ignore tbh.
Hot topic of the day analogy- person carries 500 bog rolls out of supermarket while shouting 'fact is panic buying is bad'
Silly answer... I’m trading in my Prado for an S4 estate so no one hates me anymore.
Proper answer... perhaps the rate of change with which we’ve learnt to assess our climate impact is faster than our ability to respond? My kids generation will only buy the property size they need (30 years). Her job won’t require flying to meetings or to do business (20 years) My next car will be more appropriate to my needs (5 years). Maybe I staycation rather than flying to Bali (1 year).
Congrats to the early adopters. Work out what you need to do to bring the rest of us with you.
staycation
I feel queasy
Klunk, that's an interesting leap and I would be interested in your workings there. Are you jumping to conclusions because of my imperfect choices?
Now about that pet dog of yours? What is the environmental impact of pet dogs in the UK? :0)
Having read that Guardian article I now feel much happier about my Jag estate #doingmybit 😁
It's amazing that, when it comes to climate change, so many people think it better to be consistently unethical than inconsistently ethical.
passionate environmentalist is yelling from his plane seat YOU NEED TO STOP POLLUTING THE PLANET, I’m likely to ignore tbh.
A hypocritical messenger doesn't invalidate the message.
I put a comparison of fuel use in an Honda Accord and Honda CRV both with the same engine.
Which, as pointed out, repeatedly, is stupid because they're not comparable. Now if you were to compare a 2004 [url= https://www.parkers.co.uk/honda/cr-v/estate-2001/20-i-vtec-se-5d-(01)/specs/ ]CR-V[/url] with a 2004 [url= https://www.parkers.co.uk/honda/civic/hatchback-2000/20i-vtec-type-s-5d/specs/ ]Civic Type S[/url], which the CR-V is based on, the results are very different (31mpg @ 216g CO2/km vs 37mpg @ 178g CO2/km).
gain the same environmentalist maths … knock down clean gas powered power and instead of spending the money making it cleaner and carbon capture
I think you're confusing gas and coal. To my knowledge no gas plants have been decommissioned that weren't already due but plenty of coal has.
f this was published by a company rather than an environmental pressure group they would need to show their calculation, you can’t just say 9x because a bunch of environmentalists decided “10 sounds too high let’s say 9”.
Actually, no, you're getting that arse backward again. Companies can publish whatever the hell they like, so can fringe groups but the ones that want to be taken seriously take their findings from peer reviewed research and make sure people know it. You can't just publish what you want (in real journals anyway) without decent evidence to back your findings.
environmentalist cars are designed to fail 100k before that so we can all “benefit” from scrapping the cars already built and build new ones
You're confusing environmentalism with capitalism now.
Do you actually have any ****ing idea what you are talking about?
The hypocrisy of green politicians is illustrated by the imposition of a carbon tax (APD) to reduce flying followed by demands that something must be done when it is a factor in an airline going bust.
Yeeeeeeah.
Meanwhile, Green MP for Brighton Caroline Lucas said on Twitter: “Addressing #Flybe problems by reducing #APD on all domestic flights is utterly inconsistent with any serious commitment to tackle #ClimateCrisis.”
How does that fit then?
It’s amazing that, when it comes to climate change, so many people think it better to be consistently unethical than inconsistently ethical.
It's just the folk that never grew up. It's the sort of behaviour you would expect from a small child tbh. Even if God suddenly popped up and commanded it they would still come back with "yeah but floods", "Egyptian plagues" or some other reason to slopey shoulder it.
Sirromj, a hypocritical messenger may not invalidate the fact of the message in theory but the more hypocrites there are the more the message is ignored.
Ignoring this is just making excuses for the hypocrites.
It’s amazing that, when it comes to climate change, so many people think it better to be consistently unethical than inconsistently ethical.
I don't think that has been thought through, there is a line where they can be viewed as the same thing.
There really isn't.
To put it another way, doing the right thing some of the time is not the same as doing the wrong thing all of the time.
In the context of environmental impact, If your 'doing the right thing' sometimes is outweighed by your occasional slip ups then the line gets blurred depending on your point of view.
Driving an electric car and recycling ticks some boxes but if you are racking up airmiles regularly or having a large impact through other choices then one man's inconsistently ethical becomes anothers consistently unethical
I believe I'm consistently ethical in my choices but I drive an SUV and barely recycle so I accept others may view that differently
I know the op isn't talking about people like me so might be drifting the thread slightly with my musings
I'd say from that the OP is talking about people exactly like you.
*shrugs*
It’s just the folk that never grew up
Good point, well made.
Klunk, that’s an interesting leap
Perfect analogy, I thought.
Driving an electric car and recycling ticks some boxes but if you are racking up airmiles regularly or having a large impact through other choices then one man’s inconsistently ethical becomes anothers consistently unethical
That's true: with carbon emissions in particular, one ethical choice can easily be offset by an unethical one elsewhere.
What I'm getting at with that though are the people that say "Oi, you're suggesting I fly less, but the farm that supplied the hemp for your socks uses fossil-fuel-based fertilizer, so f-you, I can still fly as much as I want."
