Tyred of SUV’s

^^^ and that mentality shows exactly why we are **** as a species.

People not understanding that it’s happening isn’t the same as it not happening

I don’t see any evidence of that.

I’m not saying we’re there, I’m not saying we’re doing enough, but we are doing some.

For starters:

It is changing, and it’s changing because of people like Thunberg and thousands of others before. It’s not really fast enough though, which is why people are still unhappy.

that’s an argument for more Greta’s not fewer.

Of course that is only part of the picture. Electricity. If we look at total energy use then oil, gas, and coal still account for 76%.

https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2021-uk-insights.pdf

And I don’t have an answer to jondoh about who should be the figurehead. The potential candidates might all be getting on with driving policy, quite glad that wee Greta is taking the flack and being the butt of all the jokes.

And giving back intelligent, smart, funny answers that show the original commenter to be an idiot.

I was just talking about the reactions to her that people I have spoken to recently have had.

Give us an idea of just how big a sample that is of the general population, and then we might be able to see just how valid a point you’re making.

SUVs were the second largest cause of the global rise in carbon dioxide emissions over the past decade, eclipsing all shipping, aviation, heavy industry and even trucks, usually the only vehicles to loom larger than them on the road. Each year, SUVs belch out 700 megatonnes of CO2, about the entire output of the UK and Netherlands combined. If all SUV drivers banded together to form their own country, it would rank as the seventh largest emitter in the world…]
[…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.

Conjoining two quotes – define an SUV, because as the latter quote says, SUV’s can be all sorts of sizes, a Panda 4×4 is an SUV, so is an Audi Q7, a Suzuki Jimny is an SUV, so is a Mercedes G-Wagen with an engine putting out 500bhp.
It’s term that was originally used to describe certain types of 4×4, like the HiLux, and is now a catch-all term to describe any vehicle that’s a bit taller than an average saloon, and is, quite frankly, completely meaningless.
Except as a way of demeaning certain car owners, probably by people who own far more polluting* vehicles that aren’t ’SUV’s’.
Like T4’s…
*By which I mean the overall CO2 expended in their manufacturing, as well as amount of materials used.

@CountZero except you completely miss the point that the issue is not just with the 1% buying 500bhp G-Waggons. It’s also the 99% buying a Panda 4×4 when there also existed a Panda.

Or a Skoda Kodiak instead of an Octavia
Or a Puma instead of a Fiesta

All are based on the same manufacturer platforms, but require more resources to manufacture, and more fuel to run.

If all those drivers had bought the “car” which does exactly the same job their carbon footprint would be a few percent lower. It’s not the ~50% we need to achieve in the next decade or so, but it’s at least better than nothing and is illustrative about how in denial some people are over their own carbon footprints.

And yes, if someone drives a G-Waggon they should take a look at themselves too. But SUV’s have become the most commonly bought cars in the UK, not G-Waggons.

… the “car” which does exactly the same job

It might not be *exactly* the same job.

The Puma provides more utility (load space) than a Fiesta. If you need the load space of a Focus, a Puma might be a viable alternative, especially in a cities where taking up less road space is better.

The Puma provides more utility (load space) than a Fiesta. If you need the load space of a Focus, a Puma might be a viable alternative, especially in a cities where taking up less road space is better.

thats an interesting point. So really, all city dwellers should favour SUVs as the utility to footprint ratio is better.
And those more rural who will spend more time travelling on faster roads and have little issue with parking would favour a more aerodynamic low body type.
Range Rover for nipping about town, and S class for weekends out to the country pile?

Or a Skoda Kodiak instead of an Octavia

Had both, kodia”q” has more litres of space in the back. 300 more. Two full bikes. Inside, rather than on the roof.

Can I come around to your house and make sure you couldn’t have got away with a smaller and more efficient one?