4 ms·

It's bad and yes, the world would be much better off without SUVs, but with headlines like these it's important to put things in perspective. Road transport rel

by rsp1984 4y ago

It's bad and yes, the world would be much better off without SUVs, but with headlines like these it's important to put things in perspective. Road transport related emissions are just 12% of total emissions [1]. Emissions from SUVs are a fraction of that. If we want to get climate change under control the biggest impact would be from countries transitioning away from coal and gas [2] to other sources of energy. Most other things are a drop in the bucket compared to that. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector [2] https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-fuel https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-fuel

mrpopo 4y ago
You can always cut something into smaller parts. First transitioning away from coal and gas is actually not a small feat, the best transition so far from a developed country is the UK that stopped coal almost completely but now relies a lot more on gas and imports. Second, a single country doing so will only be a single-digit percentage of total emissions, so by your logic why should they?
- sokoloff 4y ago
  It looks like SUVs emit between 14% and 25% more than a passenger car. If you replace SUVs with passenger cars, you haven't moved the needle much (except for changing the headline from "SUVs emitted more CO2..." to "cars emitted more CO2...") Transitioning away from SUVs and cars is also not a small feat.
  - DoughnutHole 4y ago
    The problem is that not only are we failing to transition away from SUVs and cars, drivers are actively transitioning from passenger cars to heavier, more emitting vehicles (SUVs and trucks). The only traditional car that Ford still sells in the US and Canada is the Mustang. Whatever about moving the the needle in a positive direction, I think it's worth pointing out trends and personal decisions that are actively making the situation worse.
    - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
      The majority of new car buyers will not settle for less than four doors and a hatchback and they don't really care what regulatory bucket it's in as long as it does what they want at a price they want. The fact that the myriad of "crossovers" that satisfy this requirement are classified as SUVs is mostly a figment of regulatory oddities and corporate box checking over the last 40yr. They're more descendant of the compact hatches and station wagons of the 80s and 90s than they are of SUVs. Look at the Ford Flex and tell me that's not a station wagon.
      - orwin 4y ago
        Crossovers are still more deadly than traditional, lighter cars that have visibility of what's in front. In fact, crossovers and SUV killed more children in the past 5 years in non-traffic accidents than regular cars did since the 70s. Now, the drivers often kill their own children, so it's delayed darwinism, but still. And that's why you now have front camera on SUVs.
        dsfyu404ed 4y ago
        >And that's why you now have front camera on SUVs. No. It's not. Kids are in front of your car how often? Not often enough to make an effective sales pitch for the feature. Front cameras are a thing because people think they're useful in mundane parking and low speed maneuvering circumstances. The more offorady themed vehicles also sell them as being useful in that context.
        Retric 4y ago
        The statistics for SUV’s are really bad overall and can look even worse depending on the age range you call “kids.” “The study, published in The Journal of Safety Research, found that passenger cars were the striking vehicle in 62% of accidents involving pedestrian or cyclist children but resulted in only 19% of fatalities. In comparison, SUVs were the striking vehicle in only 16.9% of crashes involving children but were responsible for 40% of fatalities.”
toomuchtodo 4y ago
The world is moving to renewables swiftly due to cost and energy security issues. China and India are still building coal plants. China's coal plants emit ~70 percent of their CO2 emissions. They must be discouraged from doing so, and encouraged to rapidly decarbonize with the rest of the world, while their population is still young and productive (China specifically in this regard). Everyone needs to get off of fossil fuels asap, regardless of your development level. https://www.iea.org/news/renewable-power-s-growth-is-being-turbocharged-as-countries-seek-to-strengthen-energy-security https://www.iea.org/news/renewable-power-s-growth-is-being-t... https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-six-times-more-new-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-... https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/indias-booming-economy-stretches-coal-power-supplies-limit-kemp-2023-03-07/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/indias-booming-econo...
- lm28469 4y ago
  Then we should relocalise everything back to US and EU ;) https://www.productivity.govt.nz/assets/BlogImages/2835c5ad2f/US-imports__ScaleWidthWzkwMF0.png https://www.productivity.govt.nz/assets/BlogImages/2835c5ad2...
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    Absolutely, and this is in progress with rapid deglobalization occurring. Emissions should not be exported. https://gcaptain.com/china-deglobalization-usa-factory-boom/ https://gcaptain.com/china-deglobalization-usa-factory-boom/
lm28469 4y ago
> Road transport related emissions are just 12% of total emissions If you split everything far enough they all are a single digit % of the total. It's a good way to rationalise the idea of not doing anything Also, looking at your own graph, road transport is the largest sector in the third layer
- Supermancho 4y ago
  Without judgement as to intent, mentioning ~12% of total is a subtle whataboutism. The inherent question is, what overall % is actionable vs reasonable to dismiss?
  - scoofy 4y ago
    I think the main point of the metric though is that SUV's are mostly fashion more than anything else. You can achieve effectively all of the functions of a standard SUV with a lighter, more fuel efficient hatchback. That said, even the term SUV is a misnomer. We should be referring to vehicles as by weight class. A small hybrid SUV is going to do better than many cars. A god damned Escalade or Expedition has no real reason for being a modern commuter vehicle aside from signaling and preferences.
    - snapplebobapple 4y ago
      This kind of thinking mosses the point (its not just you, its most threads on here). It is not relevant whether an suv is a fashion item or not. What is relevant is whether gas prices capture the total cost of using gas and if they don't then is there enough tax on gas to cover the externality? If the gas price is right then it is correct for people to make their own choices about what vehicle they drive amd if the gas price is wrong then fix the gas price.
      - scoofy 4y ago
        Asking a populous to raise taxes on itself is not normally a winning strategy.
_Microft 4y ago
Actually, Hannah Ritchie of Our World In Data just tweeted today that „negligible emitters“ can matter. She gave the example of countries that are emitting less than 2% each but combined they emit more than China does. It’s many drops that fill the bucket. https://mobile.twitter.com/_HannahRitchie/status/1633802370789388290 https://mobile.twitter.com/_HannahRitchie/status/16338023707...
waboremo 4y ago
There's always bigger fish to fry, but by constantly shifting focus away to the bigger and bigger fish, we lose the opportunity to improve things that are exceptionally easy fixes in comparison.
Retric 4y ago
That chart is both wildly misleading and from 2016. Many of those sources listed aren’t net CO2 producers the way fossil fuels are. Also, Tailpipe emissions are only a fraction of total road transport related emissions. Refining the oil to create gasoline directly releases CO2 as does building the infrastructure to do so. Add up everything from oil extraction, flaring, transportation, refinement etc and using oil for ground transportation is a lot more than 11.9% of total net emissions.
fulafel 4y ago
This is one of the main ways we fool ourselves. We splice the emissions pie to as small slices as the argument requires and then remark on how small each of those is. Next you might say that energy use in residential buildings is just 10% of all energy use and your kind of residential building is still a much smaller part of that. Or that you live in X part of the world and X is only respoinsible for a small percentage of global emissions, so your actions don't really matter...

mrpopo 4y ago

You can always cut something into smaller parts. First transitioning away from coal and gas is actually not a small feat, the best transition so far from a developed country is the UK that stopped coal almost completely but now relies a lot more on gas and imports. Second, a single country doing so will only be a single-digit percentage of total emissions, so by your logic why should they?

sokoloff 4y ago
It looks like SUVs emit between 14% and 25% more than a passenger car. If you replace SUVs with passenger cars, you haven't moved the needle much (except for changing the headline from "SUVs emitted more CO2..." to "cars emitted more CO2...") Transitioning away from SUVs and cars is also not a small feat.
- DoughnutHole 4y ago
  The problem is that not only are we failing to transition away from SUVs and cars, drivers are actively transitioning from passenger cars to heavier, more emitting vehicles (SUVs and trucks). The only traditional car that Ford still sells in the US and Canada is the Mustang. Whatever about moving the the needle in a positive direction, I think it's worth pointing out trends and personal decisions that are actively making the situation worse.
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    The majority of new car buyers will not settle for less than four doors and a hatchback and they don't really care what regulatory bucket it's in as long as it does what they want at a price they want. The fact that the myriad of "crossovers" that satisfy this requirement are classified as SUVs is mostly a figment of regulatory oddities and corporate box checking over the last 40yr. They're more descendant of the compact hatches and station wagons of the 80s and 90s than they are of SUVs. Look at the Ford Flex and tell me that's not a station wagon.
    - orwin 4y ago
      Crossovers are still more deadly than traditional, lighter cars that have visibility of what's in front. In fact, crossovers and SUV killed more children in the past 5 years in non-traffic accidents than regular cars did since the 70s. Now, the drivers often kill their own children, so it's delayed darwinism, but still. And that's why you now have front camera on SUVs.
      - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
        >And that's why you now have front camera on SUVs. No. It's not. Kids are in front of your car how often? Not often enough to make an effective sales pitch for the feature. Front cameras are a thing because people think they're useful in mundane parking and low speed maneuvering circumstances. The more offorady themed vehicles also sell them as being useful in that context.
        Retric 4y ago
        The statistics for SUV’s are really bad overall and can look even worse depending on the age range you call “kids.” “The study, published in The Journal of Safety Research, found that passenger cars were the striking vehicle in 62% of accidents involving pedestrian or cyclist children but resulted in only 19% of fatalities. In comparison, SUVs were the striking vehicle in only 16.9% of crashes involving children but were responsible for 40% of fatalities.”

toomuchtodo 4y ago

The world is moving to renewables swiftly due to cost and energy security issues. China and India are still building coal plants. China's coal plants emit ~70 percent of their CO2 emissions. They must be discouraged from doing so, and encouraged to rapidly decarbonize with the rest of the world, while their population is still young and productive (China specifically in this regard). Everyone needs to get off of fossil fuels asap, regardless of your development level. https://www.iea.org/news/renewable-power-s-growth-is-being-turbocharged-as-countries-seek-to-strengthen-energy-security https://www.iea.org/news/renewable-power-s-growth-is-being-t... https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-six-times-more-new-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-... https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/indias-booming-economy-stretches-coal-power-supplies-limit-kemp-2023-03-07/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/indias-booming-econo...

lm28469 4y ago
Then we should relocalise everything back to US and EU ;) https://www.productivity.govt.nz/assets/BlogImages/2835c5ad2f/US-imports__ScaleWidthWzkwMF0.png https://www.productivity.govt.nz/assets/BlogImages/2835c5ad2...
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Absolutely, and this is in progress with rapid deglobalization occurring. Emissions should not be exported. https://gcaptain.com/china-deglobalization-usa-factory-boom/ https://gcaptain.com/china-deglobalization-usa-factory-boom/

lm28469 4y ago

> Road transport related emissions are just 12% of total emissions If you split everything far enough they all are a single digit % of the total. It's a good way to rationalise the idea of not doing anything Also, looking at your own graph, road transport is the largest sector in the third layer

Supermancho 4y ago
Without judgement as to intent, mentioning ~12% of total is a subtle whataboutism. The inherent question is, what overall % is actionable vs reasonable to dismiss?
- scoofy 4y ago
  I think the main point of the metric though is that SUV's are mostly fashion more than anything else. You can achieve effectively all of the functions of a standard SUV with a lighter, more fuel efficient hatchback. That said, even the term SUV is a misnomer. We should be referring to vehicles as by weight class. A small hybrid SUV is going to do better than many cars. A god damned Escalade or Expedition has no real reason for being a modern commuter vehicle aside from signaling and preferences.
  - snapplebobapple 4y ago
    This kind of thinking mosses the point (its not just you, its most threads on here). It is not relevant whether an suv is a fashion item or not. What is relevant is whether gas prices capture the total cost of using gas and if they don't then is there enough tax on gas to cover the externality? If the gas price is right then it is correct for people to make their own choices about what vehicle they drive amd if the gas price is wrong then fix the gas price.
    - scoofy 4y ago
      Asking a populous to raise taxes on itself is not normally a winning strategy.

_Microft 4y ago

Actually, Hannah Ritchie of Our World In Data just tweeted today that „negligible emitters“ can matter. She gave the example of countries that are emitting less than 2% each but combined they emit more than China does. It’s many drops that fill the bucket. https://mobile.twitter.com/_HannahRitchie/status/1633802370789388290 https://mobile.twitter.com/_HannahRitchie/status/16338023707...

waboremo 4y ago

There's always bigger fish to fry, but by constantly shifting focus away to the bigger and bigger fish, we lose the opportunity to improve things that are exceptionally easy fixes in comparison.

Retric 4y ago

That chart is both wildly misleading and from 2016. Many of those sources listed aren’t net CO2 producers the way fossil fuels are. Also, Tailpipe emissions are only a fraction of total road transport related emissions. Refining the oil to create gasoline directly releases CO2 as does building the infrastructure to do so. Add up everything from oil extraction, flaring, transportation, refinement etc and using oil for ground transportation is a lot more than 11.9% of total net emissions.

fulafel 4y ago

This is one of the main ways we fool ourselves. We splice the emissions pie to as small slices as the argument requires and then remark on how small each of those is. Next you might say that energy use in residential buildings is just 10% of all energy use and your kind of residential building is still a much smaller part of that. Or that you live in X part of the world and X is only respoinsible for a small percentage of global emissions, so your actions don't really matter...