This is just insane. Not only are cars themself mostly unnecessary, if the right infrastructure is provided, but SUVs also use more resources to run and be produced then small cars, without any advantage over them. So an obvious waste, which could easily be cut to reduce emissions.
Source IEA: https://www.iea.org/commentaries/suvs-are-setting-new-sales-records-each-year-and-so-are-their-emissions
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding this but weren't the SUVs already calculated in the countries' bars? Of course something globally combined that burns fuel is going to be significant. I imagine sedans and coupes wouldn't be very far behind. This smacks of a "Statistically, everyone has one testicle" type of thing.
Are we just picking out things that we can add to the graph? Like, can I choose farts or barbques?
Can we show the emissions from industries like plastics?
Agreed. I'd love to also see how this was calculated, but the graph doesn't make me want to click on the link tbh.
My (and hopefully most other's too) hatred for SUV's is already maxxed out anyway.
*Edit: ok, my curiosity won and I clicked it and saw that it was done by IEA... Literally one of my favourite organisations that don't tend to come up with junk data or conclusions. It's a good read.
Say you remove SUVs from the other countries' calculations. That would make SUVs look even worse.
Or perhaps you begin arbitrarily counting other things twice in your calculations. Then they look better.
My point isn't that item X doesn't pollute, just that the graph in question is less useful in it's nature and aimed at being alarmist.
Examples?
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding this but weren't the SUVs already calculated in the countries' bars?
I was responding to this comment. If you remove the SUVs' calculations from other bars then the others get smaller relative to SUVs and make SUVs look worse.
Or perhaps you begin arbitrarily counting other things twice in your calculations. Then they look better.
They either kept SUVs in or they didn't. If they kept them in (counted twice) It makes SUVs look less polluting (see above). If they didn't count them twice then it would be more accurate and make SUVs look more polluting.
Therefore, it doesn't matter whether they counted SUVs twice or not because it doesnt make their calculations "look better".
I don't see it as alarmist at all. Rather, it's demonstrating how much emissions come from SUVs. As seen by other comments on this post, it sparks dialogue about less carbon intensive alternatives to SUVs which are exceedingly common.
Good point. I wonder how big of a bar "meat production" would be. If you include shipping and all other ways it contributes to emissions I wouldn't be surprised if it outweighs consumer vehicles.
That would be my uneducated guess as well. Taking everything like processing, shipping, storing, growing the feed and all it requires into account for meat production, I would be shocked if it weren't higher than passenger vehicles combined.
That's kind of the point. People naturally imagine that there are much greater contributions and that there's no way a minor choice like an SUV over a compact has major consequences. But this graph does demonstrate that such a decision matters.
Now do it with container ships
Bunker fuel burns clean I swear!
SUVs also use more resources to run and be produced *than small cars, without any advantage over them.
Says someone who has never needed to haul cargo to and some a venue before.
Other than hauling an actual SUV full of cargo, I agree it's mostly a waste.
Edit: lol, down votes and ghosting even though an advantage was given. Good job Lemmy, you're acting just like the redditors.
I would argue an SUV sucks even for that purpose. And SUV has less cargo space than even a minivan, and is typically less fuel efficient. In general, the majority of SUVs fail to live up to the Sport or Utility functions of their name. They're just a grossly inefficient oversized sedan.
As an example, I just moved someone out of a dorm yesterday and ended up having to haul a sizeable portion of my daughter's roommate's belongings in my van on top of my daughter's stuff because her roommate's SUV couldn't do the job. And my daughter has more stuff. And from the conversation we had, my van gets 5mpg more than her Ford Edge.
I don't disagree with you there, but my intention wasn't to compare SUVs/CUVs to other cargo carrying vehicles so much as to point out that sedans and coupes are not nearly as well suited to hauling gear/equipment/boxes.
I am curious which minivan you have, I'm considering getting back into my moonlighting gig and having options for a more fuel efficient vehicle would be good to keep in mind.
Dodge Grand Caravan. Stow and Go is a life saver. Fuel economy is decent if you keep up with maintenance.
Yeah that looks like a really killer feature. would significantly help with the pelican case and (future) roadcases. I have a similar feature in my nissan rogue, but the "stowing" of the seats feels a little hinky.
Mine stow completely flat, the anchor points for the seats are in recesses so they are flush with the floor. I've got pretty much the same storage space in my van as I had in my old Ranger with the truck cap on. Maybe a few inches less vertical space, but no fender humps.
Nice alright, yeah with mine, the seats will fold and you have these moving platforms that you can raise to match the seat back level but you can't put much if any weight on the platform. It's a cool idea but wasn't particularly well designed.
Both your comment and edit were snarky. Let's just be nice.
Downvoting and ghosting someone who is giving valid information based on being the first to arrive and the very last to leave for dozens of shows often times getting home around 6am or 10am in the morning the next day is pretty dickish.
I'm not forcing anyone to like what I'm saying, I simply ask that the experiences being acknowledged for what they are which only one or two people seem to be doing.
You are attempting to refute data with an anecdote. The assertion isn't that no SUV is useful, it's that they are disproportionately wasteful for their level of popularity.
without any advantage over them
This is a direct quote. Taken at face value, this sentence is saying "everything cars can do, SUVs can also do but SUVs are limited to exactly those capabilities and nothing else." If we take a logical step, it's reasonable to go from the quote and it's breakdown to "SUVs have no real use" because they merely duplicate the capabilities of a car and having a redundant yet unique style of vehicle with no advantages of it's own makes it pretty not useful.
This is the longer quote
SUVs also use more resources to run and be produced then small cars, without any advantage over them.
How are you getting from
without any advantage over them
to
assertion isn’t that no SUV is useful
? Cause I see nothing that directly supports that claim and implication + the internet is a pretty bad combo given the general lack of subtlety of blank text on a screen.
Edit:
You are attempting to refute data with an anecdote
I reread this, yes I'm using personal experience to refute a point. I won't deny that, but neither will I deny the validity of this statement. "I was hauling gear that was simply too much for a sedan to handle. I own and haul a Pelican 1660 which is measured at 31.59 x 22.99 x 19.48 in (80.2 x 58.4 x 49.5 cm). That thing wasn't fitting in a honda civic's backdoor, let alone safely into the backseat. Then add a folding table 2 plastic tote boxes and my stagelighting bag? No way.
While the "without any advantage over them" is an exaggeration, the point is that SUVs are using a disproportionate amount of resources. A fraction of SUV drivers routinely use them for the unique situation you describe, or for any jobs that a car couldn't do. I don't begrudge anyone using the right tool for a job, though rental often would work for infrequent exceptional needs. But the OP is an important point about wastefulness, and focusing on minor semantics or individual use cases is a distraction.
You're making an assumption that it's an exaggeration. I actually touched on this earlier but we're on the Internet and unless someone goes to lengths to make it clear they are exaggerating or being sarcastic or whatever, that kind of stuff does not convey.
Example, I fucking hate all ice cream.
Am I exaggerating or do I actually hate all ice cream?
Intentional or not, it's an exaggeration. Only a sith deals in absolutes!
Whole lotta sith out there in the Internet. Oh well this has been fun, have a good one
This is just insane
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/07/un-expert-human-rights-climate-crisis-economy
Outgoing special rapporteur David Boyd says ‘there’s something wrong with our brains that we can’t understand how grave this is’
Discussions about degrowth and all sorts of related topics. This includes UBI, economic democracy, the economics of green technologies, enviromental legislation and many more intressting economic topics.