SUVs make up more than 40% of new cars sold in the UK – while fully electric vehicles account for less than 2%

[editor]

For fuck's sake. Unless they have some vaguely justifiable reason for buying these ridiculous polluting status symbols, they should tax the fuck out of them. People driving them around crowded city streets should be made to feel as uncomfortable as people wearing fur.

SUVs make up more than 40% of new cars sold in the UK – while fully electric vehicles account for less than 2%. Globally, there are more than 200m SUVs, an increase of 35m in 2010, accounting for 60% of the increase in the global car fleet since 2010.

The report, Upselling Smoke, found the global trend of rapidly increasing sales of bigger and more polluting SUVs was jeopardising climate goals.

It calls for a tobacco-style advertising ban on cars with average emissions of more than 160gCO2/km, and any cars exceeding 4.8 metres in length. This would cover the dirtiest third of cars sold in the UK, the report says.

Ban SUV adverts to meet UK climate goals, report urges

High-polluting cars are threat to public health, says New Weather Institute thinktank

www.theguardian.com

 

[editor]

And punish the selfish manufacturers recklessly pushing this shit on the public:

The size, weight and drag of SUVs means they consume more fuel and emit more carbon dioxide than the average car. But manufacturers are spending millions advertising the vehicles and increasing their share of the UK car market, according to the report by the New Weather Institute thinktank and climate charity Possible.

In the UK last year more than 150,000 new cars sold were over 4.8 metres long, too large to fit in a standard parking space.

The report says the money spent on advertising by car companies – £1.2bn in the UK last year and $35.5bn (£26.6bn) across the world – is increasingly focused on pushing SUV vehicles. In the two years from September 2016 to 2018, Ford went from a roughly 50/50 split in its US advertising spend between cars and SUVs/pickup trucks, to allocating 85% of its ad spend to the latter.


The report draws parallels between smoking and SUVs: “Tobacco causes damage to the consumers, and tobacco companies benefit from the way that they hook their most loyal customers … SUVs are marketed as providing protection for drivers, [but] their physical size, weight and pollution levels create a more dangerous and toxic urban environment for both drivers and pedestrians.”

SUVs second biggest cause of emissions rise, figures reveal

If SUV drivers were a nation, they would rank seventh in the world for carbon emissions

www.theguardian.com

 

[platinumsage]

Large estate cars can be just as bad. The SUV-targeting makes little sense, especially when popular models like the Toyota RAV4 have better emissions than a Ford Fiesta.

 

[platinumsage]

If it's necessary to ban or punitively tax certain cars, how about doing it based on the actual harm they cause? SUVs are great for people with kids, older folks and those with mobility problems because they're much easier to get in and out of.

 

[editor]

Large estate cars can be just as bad. The SUV-targeting makes little sense, especially when popular models like the Toyota RAV4 have better emissions than a Ford Fiesta.

And the rest of the SUVs?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Ironically enough people often get these things cos they make them feel safe. Not so safe for the rest of us, though...

Study Says SUVs Are More Deadly Than Cars When Striking Pedestrians

Combo of extra momentum and shape causes a lot more fatalities.

The sample determined that SUVs cause seven percent more serious injuries to pedestrians than passenger cars when struck at speeds quicker than 19 miles per hour. At speeds between 20 and 39 mph, 30 percent of pedestrians struck by SUVs died, compared with 25 percent who were hit by cars. One hundred percent of pedestrians in SUV collisions at speeds of 40 mph or greater died, versus 54 percent who were struck by cars.

US study, but probably the same here - cars are the same weight and shape.

 

[platinumsage]

And the rest of the SUVs?

Tax cars based on mpg (and other measures of pollution/harm), not on their shape.

 

[Cid]

I’m not sure how much this is manufacturer driven... it reflects a shift in consumer demand that has been going on, particularly in the US, for a while now. Sedans etc slumped, and no manufacturer is going to try and push designs that people just aren’t buying. I mean obviously it is a bit of a chicken and egg thing, but yeah.

 

[pesh]

And the rest of the SUVs?

you can do London to Durham on a single tank in a Landrover these days

 

[platinumsage]

I swapped my Volvo V40 hatchback for a Volvo XC40 SUV. It has the same size petrol engine (1.5L) but better MPG. My mum can now get out unaided without embarrassing herself, being a newer car it also has superior pedestrian and cyclist detecting auto emergency braking. By what logic should it have been punitively taxed compared to say a Volvo V90 estate, a heavier car with 20% worse mpg?

 

[editor]

Tax cars based on mpg (and other measures of pollution/harm), not on their shape.

Surely we should be striving for smaller cars on the road, not ones that get bigger and bigger and don't even fit in car parking spaces any more. And, of course they bigger they are, the more materials and energy that goes into their construction, and the less efficient they are.

 

[platinumsage]

Surely we should be striving for smaller cars on the road. not ones that get bigger and bigger and don't even fit in car parking spaces any more. And, of course they bigger they are, the more materials and energy that goes into their construction and the less efficient they are.

Sure, tax cars by size or weight, but not on how high the seats are.

 

[editor]

I swapped my Volvo V40 hatchback for a Volvo XC40 SUV. It has the same size petrol engine (1.5L) but better MPG. My mum can now get out unaided without embarrassing herself, being a newer car it also has superior pedestrian and cyclist detecting auto emergency braking. By what logic should it have been punitively taxed compared to say a Volvo V90 estate, a heavier car with 20% worse mpg?

You seem to be basing your argument entirely around your own personal concerns. How many top of the range Range Rovers are do you think are bought with the concerns of elderly parents in mind? Far batter to work on quieter, smaller electric vehicles that solve that problem.

 

[editor]

Sure, tax cars by size or weight, but not on how high the seats are.

I don't recall making any mention of the height of a car's seats.

 

[platinumsage]

I don't recall making any mention of the height of a car's seats.

You wont find any SUVs with seats lower than in an estate car or hatchback. The defining characteristic of a SUV is ride height.

 

[platinumsage]

You seem to be basing your argument entirely around your own personal concerns. How many top of the range Range Rovers are do you think are bought with the concerns of elderly parents in mind? Far batter to work on quieter, smaller electric vehicles that solve that problem.

People buy SUVs largely because they are more practical. If small electric SUVs are obviously better than large diesel estate cars, why the whole anti-SUV argument?

 

[Spymaster]

I swapped my Volvo V40 hatchback for a Volvo XC40 SUV. It has the same size petrol engine (1.5L) but better MPG. My mum can now get out unaided without embarrassing herself, being a newer car it also has superior pedestrian and cyclist detecting auto emergency braking. By what logic should it have been punitively taxed compared to say a Volvo V90 estate, a heavier car with 20% worse mpg?

It's just a silly "report" in the Guardian by an outfit called the New Weather Institute ( who?) who seem to be a bunch of climate change hippies.

It's an opinion piece based on not very much.

Basically, it's mostly bollocks masquerading as a news item.

 

[editor]

People buy SUVs largely because they are more practical. If small electric SUVs are obviously better than large diesel estate cars, why the whole anti-SUV argument?

It's like you're just refusing to read what's in the opening post.

"The size, weight and drag of SUVs means they consume more fuel and emit more carbon dioxide than the average car "

" It calls for a tobacco-style advertising ban on cars with average emissions of more than 160gCO2/km, and any cars exceeding 4.8 metres in length. "

and - importantly -

“...there’s a problem: we’ve been switching to buying SUVs even faster, and as a result the average carbon emissions of a new car sold in the UK have been going up instead of down for the past four years.”

 

[editor]

People buy SUVs largely because they are more practical. If small electric SUVs are obviously better than large diesel estate cars, why the whole anti-SUV argument?

So you think personal 'practicality' always trumps the environment and carbon emission targets?

And I don't see anyone arguing for more 'large diesel estate cars.' I'd be happy to see the back of them.

Diesel ban? The future of diesel cars in the UK and beyond | Auto Express

We look back at diesel’s problems and forward at the future for diesel cars. Will they be banned or is there life in the black pump yet?

www.autoexpress.co.uk

Ban on petrol and diesel car sales brought forward

Boris Johnson unveils the plan as he launches a "year of climate action" alongside Sir David Attenborough.

www.bbc.co.uk

.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's just a silly "report" in the Guardian by an outfit called the New Weather Institute ( who?) who seem to be a bunch of climate change hippies.

It's an opinion piece based on not very much.

Basically, it's mostly bollocks masquerading as a news item.

What about SUVs killing pedestrians? Is that mostly bollocks as well?

 

[platinumsage]

It's like you're just refusing to read what's in the opening post.

"The size, weight and drag of SUVs means they consume more fuel and emit more carbon dioxide than the average car "

" It calls for a tobacco-style advertising ban on cars with average emissions of more than 160gCO2/km, and any cars exceeding 4.8 metres in length. "

and - importantly -

“...there’s a problem: we’ve been switching to buying SUVs even faster, and as a result the average carbon emissions of a new car sold in the UK have been going up instead of down for the past four years.”

Great, let's target Skoda Superb taxis! As Spymaster says it's just silly.

People are switching to SUVs because they're more practical. If the average carbon emissions of new cars are going up, let's tax carbon emissions more.

 

[platinumsage]

What about SUVs killing pedestrians? Is that mostly bollocks as well?

Yes, that research was a small sample of OTR SUVs in the US, and the article even mentioned they didn't account for pedestrian safety measures on new cars in Europe like active bonnets.

Thanks to tech advances, a new SUV sold here is going to be much safer for pedestrians than most cars just a few years old.

 

[platinumsage]

We could start by undoing the recent VED changes. The tax was based on CO2 bands but is now a flat rate with an extra tax for cars over £40k.

 

[Doodler]

People are switching to SUVs because they're more practical.

You might have done so, but that doesn't guarantee all other SUV buyers will have the same motivations as you. Since SUVs do vary a lot in size (as you point out), cost, appearance and features, people will surely buy them for a range of reasons.

fwiw Ford Predator-style pickup trucks seem more risible. They nearly never have anything in the back except a pristine black tarp cover which looks like it never gets removed.

 

[editor]

From a SUV driver

A massive carbon footprint

According to a summary analysis of a report by the International Energy Agency that was released on November 13, SUVs are the second-biggest cause of the rise in global carbon dioxide emissions during the past decade. Only the power sector is a bigger contributor.


The analysis, which surprised even its own authors, found a dramatic shift toward SUVs. In 2010, one in five vehicles sold was an SUV; today it’s two in five. “As a result, there are now over 200 million SUVs around the world, up from about 35 million in 2010,” the agency reports.


The preference for heavier SUVs is offsetting fuel-efficiency improvements in smaller cars and carbon savings from the growing popularity of electric cars. “If SUV drivers were a nation, they would rank seventh in the world for carbon emissions,” reported The Guardian.

And:

People often buy vehicles for reasons that have very little to do with functionality. For many people, an SUV is a status symbol. And that is also true—perhaps even more so—for people who drive hybrid or all-electric passenger cars. A 2007 survey of Toyota Prius buyers found that more than half said they purchased a Prius because “it makes a statement about me.” Some of them are now incensed that Toyota is siding with the Trump administration against California’s efforts to improve fuel economy.

“Excessive consumption” is an apt description for the glut of SUV sales worldwide. SUV purchasing has been called an “arms race,” in which people are buying bigger vehicles mostly for one reason: Everyone else is.

SUVs Are Worse for the Climate Than You Ever Imagined

But if you drive one, you can still reduce your carbon footprint—and you can vote for climate change policies with even bigger impact.

www.wired.com

 

[Spymaster]

What about SUVs killing pedestrians? Is that mostly bollocks as well?

That's not what the piece in the OP is arguing. It's arguing from an emissions perspective stuff like this:

"The size, weight and drag of SUVs means they consume more fuel and emit more carbon dioxide than the average car "

Which is pure bollocks. Plenty of SUVs have better fuel consumption and lower emissions than cars. And how do they define an "average" car?

This is just made-up silliness for climate twats to get aerated about.

 

[platinumsage]

You might have done so, but that doesn't guarantee all other SUV buyers will have the same motivations as you. Since SUVs do vary a lot in size (as you point out), cost, appearance and features, people will surely buy them for a range of reasons.

fwiw Ford Predator-style pickup trucks seem more risible. They nearly never have anything in the back except a pristine black tarp cover which looks like it never gets removed.

People buy Ford Predator-style pickup trucks because they get ludicrous tax benefits thanks to HMRC:

Double-cab pick-up truck tax explained | Auto Express

The inside line on HMRC’s VAT and Benefit-in-Kind tax rules for those using double-cab pick-ups as company vehicles

www.autoexpress.co.uk

 

[nogojones]

You might have done so, but that doesn't guarantee all other SUV buyers will have the same motivations as you. Since SUVs do vary a lot in size (as you point out), cost, appearance and features, people will surely buy them for a range of reasons.

fwiw Ford Predator-style pickup trucks seem more risible. They nearly never have anything in the back except a pristine black tarp cover which looks like it never gets removed.

I think they're more of a tax dodge than anything. If you have a small business/self employed and you can argue a case for needing a van/ truck, then these beasts can be written off as an expense

 

[Doodler]

People buy Ford Predator-style pickup trucks because they get ludicrous tax benefits thanks to HMRC:

Thanks for the link.

 

[Johnny Doe]

I think they're more of a tax dodge than anything. If you have a small business/self employed and you can argue a case for needing a van/ truck, then these beasts can be written off as an expense

They are a sensible motor for some occupations that also make decent vehicles for personal use. I got a new Nissan Navara in 2013, to support my drainage business meaning I could make equipment deliveries to my sites myself. Fast forward to 2015 and it was excellent for carrying two buggies and holiday suitcases for a family of four.