- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
There’s easier, more effective battles to fight. People aren’t giving up their SUV’s, and they are a symptom of a bigger problem anyway. Good public transportation could eliminate millions of cars, roads, and road maintenance.
A few other ideas:
- Coal power is disgusting and doesn’t even make sense economically anymore.
- Cruise ships and mega yachts should flat out be banned. They use a ton of energy and dump sewage right into the ocean
- Heavily tax gas powered lawnmowers. They have a surprisingly large environmental impact because they have no pollution controls and often burn a mixture of oil and gas.
The increase in SUVs isn’t driven by people’s natural preferences; it’s driven by automakers being incentivized by stupid CAFE standards to push SUVs on them. Those bad regulations are what we need to fix.
Also bunker fuel being burned in ocean shipping. Since there very little regulation they burn some of the worst sulfur-emitting fuel. A single container ship emits the equivalent of something like a few hundred thousand cars, as I recall.
The biggest container ships produce more emissions than every car on the planet. Granted, I think there’s at most a half dozen of those in operation, but that’s still 6x more than every car on Earth.
I remember hearing that during COVID lockdowns the first year, an estimated 50% of cars were off the road and total annual emissions dropped 2%.
Is there a souce for that?
It doesnt seem consistent with this one
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-transportbut this is limited to CO2 emissins, so i’m wondering what type of emissions are being counted is there any data on that.
I had a quick look at the “all GHG” data in EDGAR and that also seems to shows road transport quite a lot larger than shipping.
But I’d need to spend a bit longer looking at the data to figure out if i’m using it correctly.Could it be based on Particulate matter emissions??
PM emissions don’t do much if anything to directly intensify climate change - not like GHGs
Cruise ships and mega yachts should flat out be banned. They use a ton of energy and dump sewage right into the ocean
This entire article is quotable, but this one stuck with me: “The analysis, by the International Energy Agency, found that the rising emissions from SUVs in 2023 made up 20% of the global increase in CO2, making the vehicles a major cause of the intensifying climate crisis.”
Gas too cheap?
Public transport too shitty.
Waking out the door 90 minutes before bus arrives, then having to jog in work clothes after arrival to get to shift on time, and waiting an hour after work because the closest scheduled bus leaves 10 minutes before shift end. All of this being a good day with no delays.
Biggest fucking gift to the oil companies. Impossible option for many who aren’t a single person with no kids.
It’s not a gift TO the oil companies, but FROM them.
Probably. I remember during a price spike a few years back, it seemed like fewer SUVs were on the road.
Can we add The Guardian to a tabloid ban? These articles are shit. They can’t even cherry pick their own data consistently.
-
the graph in the article shows SUV sales are still less then cars. Fine print: only in rich countries
-
to even come close, they have to lump in EV SUV’s, which doesn’t add to the CO2 they are complaining about.
-
ahhhh it takes more effort to counter bad journalism which is why it’s so prevalent but here a rundown:
• 20% CO2 production is for conventional SUV’s. This doesn’t include electric which has the highest adoption rates.
• More EV vehicles are classified and built as SUV’s due to weight, limiting adoption of electric cars, but is still increasing at 55%
• Carmakers don’t necessarily want bigger and heavier cars; that is more material to buy. They want to make what sells and bigger, heavier cars have better crash test ratings.
Just more churn from the incite and radicalize machine: The Guardian.
-
perceptions that they are more comfortable
I gotta say, as a big and tall guy who’s developing bad knees, SUVs are more comfortable. So nice not having to bend my knees so much while struggling to find extra joints in my neck and back to get in. Same with the wider thing - so happy to no longer knock heads getting in at the same time as a passenger - so happy not to knock shoulders. So happy to have adequate leg room (I think it was a Volvo C30 I tried where my shoe literally didn’t fit. My feet aren’t even all that wide but I literally could not press the gas without also pressing the brake) and have that leg room in front of me rather than off to the side somewhere. That might be just me though
Unless you’re talking full sized truck-based SUVs. Then no
Most car based SUVs and Sedans are built on the same platform. The interior dimensions on both will be virtually identical.
so happy to no longer knock heads getting in at the same time as a passenger
I’m legitimately struggling to understand this. Do you get in head first? How are you getting your head that far into the car getting in that you can hit the passenger? Do you hold onto the roof, stick your head/torso in, then maneuver your butt into the car?
Somewhat the opposite but when the door opening is too small to contort enough to get in sort of vertically, something has to go first. It’s almost funny that a human spine is all joints, but there’s just no way to bend my neck or back enough to get in some cars “normally “. Anyway, butt in first, all the way to the far bolster so there’s room to get my neck and head in, lift and shift to straighten out, bonk heads. It doesn’t help when the car is narrow enough to come close to touching shoulders when sitting normally. I didn’t entirely realize how many adjustments I made to get into some cars until now got my Forester, and suddenly everything was so much easier - a car for adults instead of a Fisher-Price Mobile. Suddenly a door opening tall enough to enter vertically, wide enough so the seat is not behind the B pillar, and enough ground clearance to make it much easier on the knees. It’s still a bit narrow but at least there’s shoulder space
The thing is I’m not that big or tall. So many people are so much bigger and taller and I just don’t understand how they do it. I blame a combination of safety regulations making the B pillar bigger and more central and front door opening smaller, and evolving design more exactly fitting whatever a standard human is. Older cars were definitely more forgiving
It’s not like most of the population can fit inside a generic hatchback…
I get that bigger cars make sense for some people, but definitely not majority.
