You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
How does the same engine in a SUV produce 30-40% more emmisions at 30 mph???
Weight.
Aerodynamics.
You could read the thread
Is it not a case of;
If they don’t make it, we won’t buy it.
Want to make a difference to global warming, stop the F1, Moto gp, WRC, Touring Cars,
Are not the modern, low emission engines not a direct result of a small number of cars taking place in these events?
what about the media energy usage, drivers getting there, fans getting there, vehicles getting there, training, testing and development, prototypes, body panels, shipping raw materials, tyres used and on and on.
So much more to it than just the engine.
We could do so much more to combat it than just pointing the finger at the masses
The worst contributor to pollution are shipping – something like 20% of global pollution involving the shipping of stuff from one side of the world to the another. If you want to get serious about reducing it, stop buying cheap plastic crap from half-way around the world. It would be great if you could buy responsibly made stuff from neighbouring countries, but hell know, lets abandon the notion and import junk from elsewhere.
OOhh but what if instead of buying junk specifically designed to fail and not be repairable we bought/made goods that are repairable? Oh... yep we can't actually make even a thermos flask any more...
richmtb
But from an engineering perspective they have that drivetrain and shape for a reason, they are designed to do things like tow a horsebox across a muddy field. The have additional utility compared to a normal car. You can certainly argue about intended use versus actual use but their designed capabilities do serve a purpose..
Of course the underlying drive train serves a purpose, but the topic is about buying more car than you need isn't it?
If you really needed that capability, surely you would have a Jimny, Land Cruiser etc rather than a luxury car costing upwards of £80,000 ? It makes no sense at all to tow a horse box with a range rover, you'd weep every time a rock got kicked up and scratched the paint.
richmtb
You can’t really make the same argument about Jukes, Quasqais, Karoqs, Sportages, GLCs, Q3s, Q5s, Tiquans ad infinitum. They offer no additional utility over the normal height vehicles they are based on, just more weight and often compromised handling and safety.
? Surely better comfort and visibility is something they offer than a hatchback cannot? Besides they all have raised ride height and most are available with haldex-type AWD.
For example this is the SUV equivalent of an octavia. I have an octavia and would be fairly sure it would be scraping it's bumper here like a snow plough, and most likely get stuck with a single wheel spinning... (yes it's on winters!)
I'm sorry I'm not trying to have a barney about it, but it's not the first time I've heard similar things said I just can't understand at all why Range Rover = fine, Qashqai = bad
Weight.
Aerodynamics.
You could read the thread.
I have read the thread. Unless I have missed something, I don't see any facts. Just people making sweeping statements.
From a quick google:
Ford Mondeo weight - 1,696 to 1,826 kg
VW Passat weight - 1,350 to 1,770 kg
Nissan Qashqai weight - 1,300 to 1,580 kg
Ford Kuga weight - 1,493 to 1,773 kg
Skoda Karoq weight - 1,344 to 1,658 kg
Digger90
Member
And… how many flights will you be taking this year?
Personally I declared 2020 a ‘No flight year’ on Jan 1. It’s ridiculous that somehow civilisation has evolved to the point where people believe that taking 4 cheap flights to Spain (or wherever) each year is ok.
Yes, we all need to stop driving so much – and switch to more fuel-efficient, zero carbon based forms of transport. But until we’ve each personally changed our own habits, then who are we to criticise others?
It’s not Government, it’s not companies, it’s not cruises, it’s not airlines, it’s not car manufacturers and it’s not Extinction Rebellion. It’s us.
It is the government though... They have the ability to change and steer behaviour, control stuff such as the motor industry. Left to our own devices we'll always opt for the easiest which is the car.
Life revolves around work and travelling to work. Until ICE vehicles are priced off the road and a suitable alternative network exists the situation we have at the moment is the de facto.
The individual is told they must do x and y and the onus is on them to fix everything, yet all these industries that could effect change offer their products to the market without much barriers. And that is why the governments need to lead.
FWIW the other half has just brought a duster for a farm track... 🙁 Doesn't seem any worse than the out going astra in terms of fuel and VED. Just hope she doesn't run anyone over.
I’m sorry I’m not trying to have a barney about it, but it’s not the first time I’ve heard similar things said I just can’t understand at all why Range Rover = fine, Qashqai = bad
I prefer sensible discussion to barney.
Anyway I'm not trying to stick up for Range Rover and horrible things like the RR Sport or the Evoque (it was a Disco I used as an example). How about 4 x 4 (if you have a need) versus jacked up "Urban Crossover".
Maybe I just really hate the Juke!
Why are children so popular amidst a climate emergency?
Since I have no children am I allowed to drive an SUV, even though its just one sad and lonely bloke in it?
And… how many flights will you be taking this year?
I’ve flown twice in the last 8 years that was last year. 😁
Why are children so popular amidst a climate emergency?
Getting rid my kids isn’t an option. Changing my car is.
I have read the thread. Unless I have missed something, I don’t see any facts. Just people making sweeping statements.
Facts? you can prove anything with facts!
Ford Mondeo weight – 1,696 to 1,826 kg
Yep a Mondeo is quite a big saloon car
Ford Kuga weight – 1,493 to 1,773 kg
A Ford Kuga is based on Focus
I wonder how much they weigh?
Ford Focus: 1,235 kg - 1,518 kg
richmtb
Maybe I just really hate the Juke!
That's fair enough to be honest, rumple fugly little turd of a car.
Maybe I just really hate the Juke!
I don't think this is an unpopular opinion.
Same category as the X6 and the Evoke, pointless jacking up of vehicle, no added utility over a hatchback.
A Ford Kuga is based on Focus
I wonder how much they weigh?
Ford Focus: 1,235 kg – 1,518 kg
Yes, but a Kuga has a similar internal volume to a Mondeo...
Some fun reading from Which, for those (selectively) comparing SUV to other classes…
Yes, but a Kuga has a similar internal volume to a Mondeo…
Interesting, I wasn't sure about that so a bit more googling shows...
Kuga boot 456 litres, with the seats flat it is 1653
Mondeo boot is 500 litres and with the seats flat it is 1605
Those stats seem to be up to the luggage cover, the Kuga is taller so could in theory take more luggage if you stack it up to the roof line as it is taller?
For that internal size, external sizes in mm as follows:
Kuga - 4,524 L x 1,838 W x 1,744 H
Mondeo - 4,867L x 1,852 W x 1,482 H
Isn’t it the case that our consumption of meat and the effects of that industry is more of an issue than our transport emissions?.
No.
Yes, but a Kuga has a similar internal volume to a Mondeo
Who needs all this internal volume all the time? If people actually think carefully about what they use a car for, they'd probably realise that they don't. And if they do, they probably need to think more carefully about their lifestyle choices.
My car's a Skoda Fabia. I can get a bike in it (three). I don't really see the need to wreck the planet just because I can't be arsed to take the back wheel off. It also seats five, a thing that I do about three times a year. When I do that, bikes and/or a roofbox go on the roof.
If, for whatever reason, I needed to move five of us with bikes in one vehicle, or cart so much stuff on holiday it wouldn't fit in the car and the roofbox, I'd rent a bigger car for those few days, not drag a huge SUV (or estate) around day in day out, burning more fuel. This is a thing that the owners of bigger cars could also do, allowing them to drive a more environmentally friendly car the rest of the time.
In the future, people are going to have to make compromises to help the environment and taking the back wheel off your bike to fit it in a smaller car and using a roofbox to put all your excess crap in when you have a weekend away rather that driving a bigger car the other 363 days of the year are probably going to be two of them.
Who needs all this internal volume all the time? If people actually think carefully about what they use a car for, they’d probably realise that they don’t. And if they do, they probably need to think more carefully about their lifestyle choices.
Ah! VW T5 it is.
Who needs all this internal volume all the time?
I do.
It also seats five, a thing that I do about three times a year.
My car seats seven, a thing that I do about ten times a week.
Different people in having different requirements shocker.
jimdubleyou
SubscriberYes, but a Kuga has a similar internal volume to a Mondeo…
True, but it's mostly added at the top, where it's not much use. Extra clearance above the already more than adequate clearance above your head, extra space on top of the stuff you've put in the back. Actually loading up a load of stuff into an SUV or tall car is way less practical than a longer flatter car.
My car seats seven, a thing that I do about ten times a week.
Different people in having different requirements shocker.
perchy, stay out of this with your facts and logic.
True, but it’s mostly added at the top, where it’s not much use. Actually loading up a load of stuff into an SUV or tall car is way less practical than a longer flatter car.
Cobblers and poppycock.
My boot has in the past, housed two dogs in one side and a week's luggage, piled floor to ceiling, on the other.
Granted, I had to go the astonishing extra mile of buying a dog guard and boot divider.
Space is space. If you want a big long flat space for big long flat things, buy an estate.
Family luggage for a holiday, fits fine in a tall space.
How does the same engine in a SUV produce 30-40% more emmisions at 30 mph???
rich
Weight.
Aerodynamics.
You could read the thread
I have... I don't see how 300 kg and a slightly different profile is going to make 30%-40% difference in town.... and
Yes, but a Kuga has a similar internal volume to a Mondeo…
Which does away with the 300kg.
For reference my saloon (I hate SUV's) gets maybe 10% difference (45 vs 50 mpg) with the full suss bikes on the back sticking up above the roof line but perhaps 5% with hardtails and that's at @70 mph
Just randomly selected by google....but 28mpg vs 30 mpg (so less than 7% difference)
in its most fuel-efficient non-hybrid configuration, the Accord gets 30/38/33 mpg city/highway/combined with the 1.5-liter engine and a CVT in LX, EX, and EX-L trims.
On the other hand, the most fuel-efficient CR-V is the front-drive model with the 1.5-liter engine, which gets 28/34/30 mpg.
Source
https://www.motortrend.com/news/2018-honda-accord-2018-honda-cr-v-car-compare/
This thread reveals the worst excesses of STW virtue-signalling, self-flagellating asceticism. It’s just a replacement for religious zealotry for atheists.
JP
perchy, stay out of this with your facts and logic.
My SUV was a compromise, instead of a much larger, much heavier, less aerodynamic people carrier that was worse on fuel.
When is the witch hunt against automatic gearboxes?
I'm looking forwrd to that.
it’s mostly added at the top, where it’s not much use. Extra clearance above the already more than adequate clearance above your head,
Taller cars allow for taller seats, the head room isn't much different than a saloon car but the higher seats require less legroom which means you can fit more seats in to the same floorplan.
It's like the difference between sitting on a kitchen chair against sitting on a beanbag on the floor with your feet stretching in front of you.
Perchy, while I know you're a nice chap and all that, you have different requirements for unsound reasons when it comes to reducing your carbon footprint. In environmental terms, you need a big car because you have too many children. If you had the number of children required to replace yourself, or even better with regard to the envrionment, less than that, you'd not need such a big car.
However, I know that this really is an argument that's not going to win any friends. It's the equivalent of XR members glueing themselves to trains. Or dressing in harem pants and playing with poi whilst trying to win over Daily Mail readers to their cause. It highlights a problem, that lots of new humans are probably the worst thing for the environment, but it's not one that anyone except China will ever do anything about. And I'll also cut you slack since I assume you had kids before the climate crisis thing REALLY kicked off, so didn't feel obliged to have fewer kids.
you need a big car because you have too many children
I shall go home and murder two of them immediately.
It's the ethical thing to do.
Well if it’s Brexcat then it’ll deserve it.
Silver linings and all that.
I read a post about how an X3 was better for the environment than an old T5 or a transit. The better thing for the environment is to run an old car rather than buy a new one in a lower tax band.
Who needs all this internal volume all the time? I
I don't need it all the time. But it is useful when I do. I drive a Superb estate. Ownership cost isn't that much more than a small car. When required the estate carries 4 adults and 2 dogs. Or last night 3 adults and a bike without taking the back wheel off. Or doing runs to the dump. A big car is just more useful.
Driving a Ford Fiesta instead won't save the planet. The worlwide CO2 growrth is not coming from the UK anyway.
Looking up and dowm my street at the number of 2, 3 or 4 car households I'm not alone.
I don’t need it all the time. But it is useful when I do. I drive a Superb estate. Ownership cost isn’t that much more than a small car. When required the estate carries 4 adults and 2 dogs. Or last night 3 adults and a bike without taking the back wheel off. Or doing runs to the dump. A big car is just more useful.
Driving a Ford Fiesta instead won’t save the planet. The worlwide CO2 growrth is not coming from the UK anyway.
Looking up and dowm my street at the number of 2, 3 or 4 car households I’m not alone.
The world's ****ed. 🤦♂️
Driving a Ford Fiesta instead won’t save the planet. The worlwide CO2 growrth is not coming from the UK anyway.
Ah! I’ll go and burn some old tyres then as it’s U.K. isn’t the issue.
Who needs all this internal volume all the time? If people actually think carefully about what they use a car for, they’d probably realise that they don’t. And if they do, they probably need to think more carefully about their lifestyle choices.
My car’s a Skoda Fabia. I can get a bike in it (three). I don’t really see the need to wreck the planet just because I can’t be arsed to take the back wheel off. It also seats five, a thing that I do about three times a year. When I do that, bikes and/or a roofbox go on the roof.
If, for whatever reason, I needed to move five of us with bikes in one vehicle, or cart so much stuff on holiday it wouldn’t fit in the car and the roofbox, I’d rent a bigger car for those few days, not drag a huge SUV (or estate) around day in day out, burning more fuel. This is a thing that the owners of bigger cars could also do, allowing them to drive a more environmentally friendly car the rest of the time.
In the future, people are going to have to make compromises to help the environment and taking the back wheel off your bike to fit it in a smaller car and using a roofbox to put all your excess crap in when you have a weekend away rather that driving a bigger car the other 363 days of the year are probably going to be two of them
I don't see how scrapping a perfectly good car and reimporting one with parts shipped from around the globe is a good compromise to help the environment. Especially if what I buy is one of those eco car things that is designed to fail and die long before my current car would (that has barely over 180k on the clock)
mrmonkfinger
MemberMy boot has in the past, housed two dogs in one side and a week’s luggage, piled floor to ceiling, on the other.
Great. Your luggage would have been much easier to pack and access had it not been piled floor to ceiling, and you'd have been able to see out the back. And that's just when it's a specific short thing like a holiday, day to day stacking stuff up like that is a pain. Source: I had a mondeo, and at work we had a Kuga and a Skoda Roomster. Without fail if we had a lot of stuff to shift it went in my car not the work cars, because even though you could get just as much stuff in either of those it was a pain in the arse and the thing you needed was always at the bottom.
Ah! I’ll go and burn some old tyres then as it’s U.K. isn’t the issue.
Well it certainly isn't the issue for plastic pollution.
Your luggage would have been much easier to pack and access had it not been piled floor to ceiling, and you’d have been able to see out the back.
And the dogs would have been climbing all over the luggage?
Well it certainly isn’t the issue for plastic pollution.
Ah that’s Ok then I’ll go and throw some plastic in the sea then.
If you had the number of children required to replace yourself, or even better with regard to the envrionment, less than that, you’d not need such a big car.
So why do you have a 5 seater car? Assuming you have a partner and one or two kids. I'm hoping you've gave up driving with a bike in the car now too, surely driving anywhere to partake in a leisure pursuit is the height of decadence.
The thought has clearly never occurred that a family can consist of more than just parents and children.
Well it certainly isn’t the issue for plastic pollution.
Whilst our population is tiny ... but I think more relevant is if those countries mis-managed plastic waste is their own or we (and others) are shipping it to some of these countries to tick our boxes?
The 'Friends of the earth' chap giving a talk at a recent local environment meeting said: Little Tabitha and Ollie are not going to thank you in years to come, just because you drove them to their local school in a SUV or 4x4.
I'm not a fan of SUV's because the women I see driving them feel extra safe, then have no clue what it's like to be close passed (because the thing is too big for the road) when riding a bike or a horse, or in some cases being on a narrow pavement as a pedestrian.
So why do you have a 5 seater car?
Ours can go to 7 seats. We have 2 kids. There are also 3 grandparents. And, importantly, we can shove loads of either friends or relatives into one car, rather than take two, on trips.
Mine has 7 seats too, used several times a week. Extended family and kids friends all get a run. It's just according to some folks if you have a 7 seater* you're polluting the earth with your spawn.
*And it's an SUV
What about all those people who don’t drive economically all the time ? Have we had a go at them yet ?
My Nissan is 17yrs old and has 8 seats, it has a 3.5ltr petrol engine and does 20mpg. But it’s made so surely it’s better than having a new car that isn’t yet made ? But I only do 7000 miles a year in it and it’s used for family stuff and the mtb. It’s not used during the week as I use my new 4wd auto Kuga for that lol, guess I failed the test. I’m my defence I install electric car chargers so I’m helping people that want to save the planet, if building a new car with batteries is saving the planet ?
Why are SUV's popular? Americans.
The main reason for SUV's becoming so popular is that there was and still is a massive drive across most manufacturers to produce car models that will sell in all markets. The big problem has always been America is a completely different car market to everywhere else. They want cheap massive SUVs and don't car about fuel consumption because gas is so cheap. Normal sized cars don't really sell in the US so they have been trying, quite successfully to market SUV's in Europe (don't know about other markets).
The marketing campaigns tap into peoples insecurities of feeling intimidated on the road, or needing to be the perfect family so they us a feed a load of nonsense to convince us an SUV is better.
Have you noticed pickups are becoming more common.....
Interestingly, I've seen a couple of car mag articles over the last year that suggest SUVs are reaching peak selling and what people really want is hot estate cars. Maybe there is hope yet, especially as an estate has lots of wheel base for batteries.
Who needs all this internal volume all the time? If people actually think carefully about what they use a car for, they’d probably realise that they don’t. And if they do, they probably need to think more carefully about their lifestyle choices.
My car’s a Skoda Fabia. I can get a bike in it (three). I don’t really see the need to wreck the planet just because I can’t be arsed to take the back wheel off. It also seats five, a thing that I do about three times a year. When I do that, bikes and/or a roofbox go on the roof.
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?
The comments suggesting smaller families ignore the fact that UK birth rate is already below replacement level.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49192445
Rather than criticising their choice of cars we should salute those who do their bit. Some sort of discount on large family cars would seem in order paid for by higher taxes on the childless.
The comments suggesting smaller families ignore the fact that UK birth rate is already below replacement level.
If only there was some way that could be offset.
My Nissan is 17yrs old and has 8 seats, it has a 3.5ltr petrol engine and does 20mpg. But it’s made so surely it’s better than having a new car that isn’t yet made ? But I only do 7000 miles a year in it and it’s used for family stuff and the mtb. It’s not used during the week as I use my new 4wd auto Kuga for that lol, guess I failed the test. I’m my defence I install electric car chargers so I’m helping people that want to save the planet, if building a new car with batteries is saving the planet ?
Amazingly the answer is always the same... in order to save the planet we need to scrap our current car/computer/fridge and send it to someone that ticks a box it's been recycled then sticks it in a shipping container to send to a 3rd world country where anything of no value can be chucked into the sea.
Meanwhile we can mine some more raw materials from round the world and ship it anywhere and everywhere and create a new more efficient product that can be scrapped in 5-10 years as sson as the environmentalists find another reason to scrap this product and their friends can make more money and destroy more of the planet making and shipping the replacement product.
There will be no future bangernomics coming from today’s super efficient cars.
Is this a bad thing? I’m not sure our 2008 Kuga actually has a DPF. After 12 years of school runs and twice a month long journeys, I don’t think I’ve ever experienced a noticeable DPF cycle
, and give it the beans and it pours black smoke. I often wonder that the cost of replacement is better for the environment than the cost reduction of keeping the Kuga is for me.
Here's a 'nice' review of the new BMW X5M / X6M - sensible 600Bhp+ family run-arounds?
https://www.driving.co.uk/car-reviews/first-drive/2020-bmw-x5m-x6m-competition-review/
Was thinking the same applies from last Top Gear with the M8/M5 with 600Bhp+ with performance that would get near a Ferrari F40 from a few decades ago....just about justifiable in an extremely limited use engineering masterpiece exercise but utterly contemptible in an 'everyday' car.
How does the car industry get away with this with what we know now... I especially like this bit from the X5M/X6M...."But you can’t get over the fact this is a 2.3-ton machine, and slowing from a high speed requires careful planning in advance — these are not cars that can stop on a dime." - stay safe out there...hmmm.
The conclusions I've drawn from this threat are that the type of people who drive SUV's have zero priorities beyond their own immediate needs. I find the justification pretty much comes down to how it's slightly easier for themselves i.e 'I have to bend down slightly less' or by comparing it to something worse - 'it's not as bad as driving a 10 year old tranny' etc. or just outright denial - 'it's China's fault', etc.
I also think while individual's preferences clearly make sense on that level, as my disabled relative needs a diesel van to get around, the wider trend towards heavier, inefficient and bulky vehicles on a global level is just unforgivable. It's like Peak Car wasn't bad enough so they doubled the size, weight and cost of it.
I suppose people are on the money when they say the blame really lies with governments and (lack of) regulation, because if you leave individuals to their own devices, enough of them to cause a problem with always prioritise their own convenience without awareness/concern of the costs they are externalising onto the next generation or the planet in general or how they put other people's lives at greater risk. Maybe you should drive the car you would most want you or your child to be ran over by.
The conclusions I’ve drawn from this threat are that the type of people who drive SUV’s have zero priorities beyond their own immediate needs.
What a ridiculous conclusion.
You have a car I don't like so you're selfish.
Yeah I have a car you don't like - an EV SUV and 1L SUV. We do about 10,000 miles year combined. I mostly ride 13 miles to work. We have no children.
How on earth can you analyse anybody's impact on the climate without knowing all of their footprint?
And on top of this who makes choices that are beyond their immediate needs? NO ONE.
Can someone bring up some sort of footprint calculator that measures their selfishness versus their footprint and see who wins?
I reckon even with an SUV - I'd be close to the top.
Oh and I voted Labour and gave money to a homeless man this morning.
I suppose people are on the money when they say the blame really lies with governments and (lack of) regulation
Totally agree. Any government with any balls (which we're never likely to have for the foreseeable future) would nudge the car industry through legislation to divert their substantial investment in unnecessary performance and vulgar status symbols towards a healthier marketplace where we focus on producing the most efficient and environmentally conscious mass transport options possible...can't help but think that if they did so we could already have sensible simple, light ICE Golf type things that could do 80-100mpg, and be affordable. Instead we get 120k runabouts....but look they say, it has massaging seats and everything....for 120k I'd want more than just a massage on the motorway, I'd want the full....
Rather than wanting to think what car I'd rather be hit by...It'd be nicer to think we could choose the sort of thing that will limit our children/ grandchildren's suffering on an planet we've selfishly and blindly ruined.
I should add, my main rap beef is with performance SUV's...not the sensible weedy engined type for those who need them for their backs etc..
I don't get why people drive SUVs either, I guess everyone has their reasons so it must make sense to them or they'd have got a car right? In my experience for their size on the road an SUV is not as spacious as an estate and due to their aerodynamics and sheer bulk they'll never win in an MPG contest.
In reality most people buy SUVs because the marketeers told them they need it and it was a way of car companies making a bigger margin because if they make it more expensive, it must be better right?
But most of the greenhouse gasses related to a car are generated in its manufacture. If we really want to have an impact we need to stop treating them as a disposable item, stop the culture of 'I must have a new car every three years' and focus on keeping the things going for longer.
Time for the rebirth of the peoples car comrades - it's all you're getting so suck it up!...
[img] 
[/img]
...and that'll be ten years wages - thank you very much.
Why are SUV’s so popular amidst a climate emergency?
Probably cause abstinence isn't going to solve climate change, when a wholesale shift in the production of energy is required.
I guess endoverend is right - a distinction needs to be made. SUV's for me are large, oversized 4x4 with supercharged engines, not a 1lt raised sedans, or whatever.
The conclusions I’ve drawn from this threat are that the type of people who drive SUV’s have zero priorities beyond their own immediate needs.
What a ridiculous conclusion.
And on top of this who makes choices that are beyond their immediate needs? NO ONE.
Hi Rone - that's a contricition right there!
selfish |ˈsɛlfɪʃ|
adjective
(of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure : I joined them for selfish reasons.
At risk of being holier than yaou, I do try to think about my impact on other people - whether it's not talking loudly on a train to certainly not driving a polluting monster truck around when a 1lt city car would work etc. I don't own a car as borrow someone else's when needed, but if I did buy one I think how much space it took up, efficiency and low environmental impact would be top of my priority. I also went mostly vegan but I still fly time to time. I guess my Co2 print would be little less than average, but it measuring an individuals co2 isn't really an effective strategy - but certainly, how we get around and what we eat are areas where we can make relatively large impact despite being a point zero of a percent of world population.
Amazingly the answer is always the same… in order to save the planet we need to scrap our current car/computer/fridge and send it to someone that ticks a box it’s been recycled then sticks it in a shipping container to send to a 3rd world country where anything of no value can be chucked into the sea.
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.
You have a car I don’t like so you’re selfish.
Yeah I have a car you don’t like – an EV SUV and 1L SUV. We do about 10,000 miles year combined. I mostly ride 13 miles to work. We have no children.
How on earth can you analyse anybody’s impact on the climate without knowing all of their footprint?
You've missed the point. We don't have a quota of emissions; it's not a competition where the top 10% win a smugness prize. The Earth does not care if you are better than your neighbour. Everyone has to MINIMISE their emissions wherever possible. That includes me and it includes you. Regardless of how few miles you drive, an SUV is a poor choice because it always uses more fuel and materials than a saloon or hatchback. If you have no specific need for a large 4x4 then you are simply in the wrong and you need to admit that to yourself.
This isn't personal - my carbon footprint isn't small, but that does not invalidate what I say because it's not about winning against each other. It's a hard truth, regardless of who says it.
But I'm sure you and stevextc know this, you simply feel attacked, and this makes you feel bad so you fight back. But you are still in the wrong, as most of us are to a greater or lesser extent. I am.
Many of our choices are constrained by the difficulties of our everyday lives. It often just isn't possible to avoid driving to work, for example, given the lives we've found ourselves in or been forced into. But for most people, not buying an SUV is of absolutely no disadvantage, and is extremely easy to do. And usually cheaper too. So why do they do it? Because they like the damn things. Hell, I'd like one too. But I'm not getting one cos it's a complete waste.
stop the culture of ‘I must have a new car every three years’ and focus on keeping the things going for longer.
Now that many cars are galvanised they can physically go on for many many years. People will make spares as long as people are buying spares. The only reason they get replaced is because repairs 'aren't worth it' just because the market value, set by the desirability of an old car, is less than the cost of the repair. Well, so what if it is? That's no good reason to scrap a perfectly repairable car.
In an ideal world, I think I'd ban private ownership altogether, and you'd just lease cars off the government, long term. The government then simply adjusts prices to ensure that old cars are kept on the road wherever possible. Of course there'd still be a large purchase of cars needed each year, and manufacturers would compete to win supply contracts. But the government could put stipulations on emissions or simply specify EVs or whatever, so the manufacturers would have to comply.
Life would continue as normal for most of us, but emissions and resource usage would be slashed. Ok so there'd be a fair bit of economic upheaval at first.. but hey, they did it for Brexit and no bugger's benefiting from that. At least if we're going to shag the economy it should be for a good reason.
Everyone has to MINIMISE their emissions wherever possible.
Climate change ain't going to be solved by middle class guilt.
molgrips +1. we all need to do better.
In an ideal world, I think I’d ban private ownership altogether,
Have you seen the state of a lot of council and student houses? When no-one owns anything, no-one cares about its condition.
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?