3 ms·

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 deve

by 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.”
        sokoloff 4y ago
        SUVs were over 30% of sales in the US by 2010 and over 50% by 2020. If they’re responsible for only 40% of fatalities, it seems likely that they’re quite comparable as safe as cars for pedestrian/cyclist children. (If the base rate of vehicles on the road matches the share of fatalities, there isn’t a spread in fatality risk.)
        Retric 4y ago
        Your intuition is wrong here because vehicles are kept around for a long time (~25years) and the study covered a longer period. The definition used in this study places the percentage of the vehicle fleet as SUVs from 13% in 2000 to 21.5% in 2019 while causing 40% of all children’s deaths over the study period. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Pedestrian-deaths-and-large-vehicles-Tyndall/ca171138528df0cf05f8300e85394cfb4a0735f9/figure/2 https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Pedestrian-deaths-and-... Thus on average a SUV was more than 4x as likely to kill kid than a car.

by mrpopo 4y ago

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.”
        sokoloff 4y ago
        SUVs were over 30% of sales in the US by 2010 and over 50% by 2020. If they’re responsible for only 40% of fatalities, it seems likely that they’re quite comparable as safe as cars for pedestrian/cyclist children. (If the base rate of vehicles on the road matches the share of fatalities, there isn’t a spread in fatality risk.)
        Retric 4y ago
        Your intuition is wrong here because vehicles are kept around for a long time (~25years) and the study covered a longer period. The definition used in this study places the percentage of the vehicle fleet as SUVs from 13% in 2000 to 21.5% in 2019 while causing 40% of all children’s deaths over the study period. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Pedestrian-deaths-and-large-vehicles-Tyndall/ca171138528df0cf05f8300e85394cfb4a0735f9/figure/2 https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Pedestrian-deaths-and-... Thus on average a SUV was more than 4x as likely to kill kid than a car.