The number of SUVs and pickups sold in the US shows that gasoline is way too cheap there. Sure, a select few, maybe even a more significant portion, use pickups for work. But the SUVs are simply a waste, weighing several hundred kg more than necessary to do the job and less aerodynamic than a normal car. And I'm pretty sure a lot of the pickup owners use them mainly because of their image. I rarely see tradesmen in pickups here, stuff like VW Caddy is really popular though.
Very few people actually need an SUV. They like being in this large heavy thing because they feel safer and see further, so they buy it instead of a station wagon. If fuel was more reasonable priced to better reflect the external cost they would have to decide if the added cost of driving an unnecessarily thirsty vehicle was worth it.
Meanwhile the last time we had as much CO2 in the atmosphere as we have now were several million years ago, with sea levels about ten meters higher than they are now, we have severe droughts, wildfires, melting polar ice, rapidly diminishing glaciers, melting permafrost, and so on. And the American people not only elects a president that doesn't even believe the white house commissioned climate report, they continue to buy large vehicles that burn too much fuel.
I'm pretty sure we will see more and more conflicts and climate refugees in our lifetime when people are driven from their land by floods, droughts, or similar.
Even within the limited segment that does actually 'need' a truck, American trucks are unnecessarily large. I drive a pickup every day at work, I was still shocked when I went to Texas seeing a half-ton pickup truck be the default vehicle everywhere.
The Toyota Hilux, probably the most common working pickup truck in the world, would look like a toy in a suburban American mall parking lot.
Blame emissions standards. They effectively killed everything in the Ford Ranger, Chevy S10 size range, and pushed the survivors up into the size parameters of what an 80s or 90s half-ton pickup used to be, if perhaps not the weight, due to steel vs aluminium/plastic construction. Notably, modern Toyota Tacomas dwarf their predecessors.
Cars aren’t the primary green house gas issue. Animal agriculture and energy are. Plus, America only accounts for about 15% of greenhouse gas emissions.
So even if all of us hedonistic Americans drove tiny little cars the current global warming trend would continue.
You make decent arguments but the fact of the matter is it’s a drop in the bucket.
Transportation accounts for 28% of USA's greenhouse gas emissions. And the point is that instead of increasing your carbon footprint because other sources are greater, you should try to decrease it. Of course there are other issues of equal or greater importance, like mass consumption of cheap stuff manufactured in Asia and transported around the world, but choosing a Ford Explorer instead of a Ford Focus doesn't exactly help.
Literally everything is a drop in the bucket. All those drops have filled the bucket but any time you point one out someone will cry "But thats only x% of the problem"
I actually find it a bit sickening when I hear people like Trump say that they don't want to stop polluting because China is polluting, and increasingly so. China have more than four times as many inhabitants, most of them live nowhere close the same lifestyle as the average or even most of the poorest Americans (or Europeans, I'm not putting all the blame on the US). A lot of western manufacturing is outsourced to countries like China, meaning that some of their pollution is actually ours. We in the west have also had a lot of time building our economy using fossil fuel, so we have a pretty significant climate debt. But the argument "others do it too" isn't a valid argument.
Is it better to look at per capita or per unit of economic growth? One of my central complaints of the Left is that they tend to find the later unimportant whereas for me it's the former that doesn't matter. Per country is not even on the table I think.
> Is it better to look at per capita or per unit of economic growth?
Per capita IMO. Not all economic growth (assuming you're talking about GDP) is created equal, and not all of it is desirable. You can grow the economy both by drilling oil and by installing solar panels, but one of them helps the problem and the other hurts it. If we start pricing carbon externalities into both activities, the panels would make more sense financially.
Economic growth exists to serve people and make lives better - it's not an end in itself. And emissions per capita is an indicator of how carbon-efficient the economy is in providing whatever lifestyle it provides to its participants.
Per country means nothing. We could just subdivide the world in to hundreds more countries and all celebrate how none of us has more than 1% of the global emissions.
Were they advocating for "tiny little cars" or just suggesting something more appropriately sized for a subset of people?
Ideally, people would have easier access to a certain type of car when they needed it, rather than buying that type of car for all activities so they felt prepared.
The optimistic outlook is that 'Detroit' (Ford, GM, etc.) will either become a collection of new software companies or go extinct within ~10-20 years. That is, the first wave of autonomous vehicles (whenever that will occur) will be green-friendly in design.
> I'm pretty sure we will see more and more conflicts and climate refugees in our lifetime when people are driven from their land by floods, droughts, or similar.
I'm worried now. In France there's been some pretty intensive protesting over past two weeks, and from what I read it's about (or at least started as being about) increased petroleum tax. If this is in any way representative, then we can kiss proper emission taxing good-bye. The general population doesn't seem to appreciate the magnitude of the problem, and thus attempting to actually mitigate it seems a political suicide (and/or invitation for civil war).
There's no way to make gas expensive enough that the wealthy are deterred from buying gas guzzlers but the poor are able to drive something (and thus get to work, etc). When you have some groups with far more income and wealth than others, controlling behavior with taxes becomes difficult to impossible.
The only way to achieve fuel economy in American cars is by regulation.
The obvious solution is to tax automakers based on their overall fuel economy instead of breakout by cars/trucks. The problem is that it pretty much kills the US auto industry since they're almost always the least fuel efficient in every segment and bias heavily towards making large vehicles.
The regulatory system that was in place, a requirement that automakers increase the average fuel economy on their vehicles, worked for the last forty in that fuel economy rating steadily increased. The requirements could and probably should have been tweaked early to apply to all sold to be used as personal transportation - ie, everything but actual work trucks.
Only in the sense that no one needs good food, fashionable clothes, entertainment, cool gadgets, large houses, etc. Take it away from them, and you'll find yourself a very unpopular leader.
If you prefer to be one with nature, go ahead, there's still plenty of places where you can do that. It's not something most people will choose though.
I'm not talking about leadership, I'm talking about culture, morals, and personal accountability. People are making the wrong choice, and it's selfish. There's a middle ground between being one with nature and driving a 4x4 between the suburb and the city.
Much of the other things you describe as necessities to be happy with your leadership are also big problems. Overconsumption of clothes, meat, gadgets, too big houses, etc. Overshoot day took place on August 1 this year. Hurry up and consume as much as you can, hopefully we'll both be dead before famine strikes the rich parts of the world, but at least we got ours.
IIUC, you're sharing your personal preference. Specifically, you would like people to indulge in luxuries only to a modest degree, and put a good effort into improving the environment, quality of life for other people, etc.
I didn't mean to disrespect your preference.
I was just saying that most people, I think, don't share your preference. And so the world will not evolve in the direction you wish.
The error in this argument is that preferences are static. Preferences change all the time. The question is how to make people change their preference. (Which is something that most people do only unconsciously.)
A lot of modern SUVs aren't like the SUVs of yesteryear. The Honda CR-V, Toyota RAV4, Ford Escape and the like are basically tall hatchbacks - they're not built on truck chassis like the GM Suburban or the Ford Expedition used to be.
If you're not driving aggressively, where you need minimal weight and a low CG, a modern SUV is generally more versatile than a car, and more stylish than a minivan, while still offering a ride and gas mileage that's on par with equivalent cars.
At over 1.6 tons a RAV4 is still hundreds of kg heavier than a sedan and has significantly more wind resistance and higher fuel consumption. It's not as bad as even bigger SUVs but it's hardly efficient. It's not difficult to find more efficient sedans with more legroom or equivalent trunk size.
Like a Camry hybrid from which the RAV4's platform is based on? 44city/47hwy/46combined.
The Camry only weights 10% less though. 20% reduction in fuel economy for far more cargo space, AWD, and higher ground clearance seems like a reasonable tradeoff to me.
You might have a different opinion if your fuel costs priced in the negative externalities of that 20% additional fuel consumption. It might not seem like much at $2.25/gal. What about at $4? I'm paying about $4.25 USD/gal now in Canada and that's still lower than many European countries. At $5/gal you might start asking whether you actually need AWD or how many times you've actually needed higher ground clearance driving on developed-country quality roads.
I'd like the higher ground clearance daily just to avoid scraping up my bumper on the dips on my commute home on the residential streets. Instead I just take the 30% longer/slower route around.
Even if gas were $6/gal, at the typical American 12k miles/year, that's still less than $300/year extra to run the CUV over the sedan. That's less than the cost of a rental for a weekend trip.
Please. The Camry has 5.7 inches of ground clearance. The RAV 4 has 6.1 inches of ground clearance. That's not getting you over any fallen logs any easier.
It's more the difference of a ~29° approach angle on the RAV4 vs the 15° on the Camry. Neither will get you over logs, but one does far better on steep driveways.
The last generation RAV4 (2005-2017) used Toyota's 'New MC' platform which is shared with the Prius and Corolla. The current generation RAV4 uses the 'TNGA-K' platform which is shared with the Camry and Avalon. Since we're comparing 2019 models, the comparison of the RAV4 with the Camry is appropriate.
I believe Toyota is moving all their FF vehicles onto the TNGA-K platform.
Thanks, I hadn't caught that change to the 2018+ models. That also explains why I'm not a fan of the current model as they drive differently to me... I'm keeping my old XA-30 ;)
Yes, modern 'crossover' SUVs are more efficient than the truck-based ones, but they're also not any more functional than a station wagon or minivan. Many of them actually have very little cargo capacity unless the 2nd row is folded down. Although some can be sold with true 4WD it's usually a significant cost add-on that most people don't buy. The change in styling has eaten up a good portion of the fuel efficiency gains from more efficient modern drivetrains for nothing except vanity.
>The change in styling has eaten up a good portion of the fuel efficiency gains from more efficient modern drivetrains for nothing except vanity.
TBH, I think a lot of people like the crossovers mostly because they feel like they're sitting higher off the ground. For whatever reason, that creates a feeling of safety.
Sure, Americans are buying fewer sedans but they're definitely buy way fewer American sedans. Domestics ones just haven't been as good as imports for a long long time. Why buy a Chevy Cruze when Toyota Corollas and Honda Civics exist? Add in Hyundai, Kia, and Volkswagen's offerings and it's no contest.
Thing I and two friends noticed about newer cars, the wide low sloped A pillars create blind spots making it difficult to see pedestrians in crosswalks.
Modern crossovers (marketed as SUVs) can pretty much do everything well enough. It can haul people and cargo just as well as a car/wagon or minivan; wagons are generally not offered in the US so that's one less option for a cargo hauler. Poor road quality and consumer preference favors the higher ground clearance than a minivan. AWD is still a rare option on cars, but optionally available on every crossover on the market. Gas is cheap and crossovers are really close to cars in fuel economy. The biggest crossover drawback of increased rollover risk has pretty much been eliminated by modern stability systems.
The worst thing about other people's SUVs is they obstruct your vision. I suspect there's an arms race going on with more and more people picking up SUVs to see around other cars.
My coupe completely fits below the window line of most crossovers. Driving is terrifying sometimes. I suspect part of the CUV trend is just an arms race to keep up height wise with the general vehicle population.
SUVs have moved into the role of the default family car. We are seeing a reduction in people without children owning cars. Trucks are preferred in more rural areas.
Therefore, this appears to be the effect of less new automobile purchases by people without children who live in urban areas. I wouldn't draw too many dramatic conclusions outside of that.
The US (and probably Europe) are arguably ceding their ICE automobile manufacturing to China, who will manufacture future government controlled EV transportation. The authorities will decide what vehicle you are allowed to travel in and where to or not.
Related article:
Can Germany survive the ‘iPhone moment’ for cars?
I think the sentiment here is not acknowledging the full picture of shift in car ownership in US.
While it is true that more families are opting for SUVs, but that is because more families are opting to share a car (preferably an SUV from utility perspective) rather than owning two or more cars/sedans. The increase in availability of rideshare (Uber/Lyft) is also playing a part in this gradual shift.
(I can't seem to find the study which stated above, but will keep looking and update this comment when I find it)
Detroit automakers have for some reason been unable to complete with foreign carmakers in the US for some time now. Chevy sold about half as many Malibu’s as Honda sold of the Accord, same goes for Cruze vs Civic. What I don’t understand is how selling 180k vehicles (Cruze and Malibu) isn’t enough to consider them viable?
At the same time, am I crazy to think these companies won’t find themselves in or on the edge of bankruptcy again when the market changes?
That's OK, because I've had it with Detroit's cars. In 2014 I went from an Impala to a Mazda 6, and this year from the 6 to a fully loaded Passat assembled in Tennessee. The closest thing from Detroit cost more, had lower fuel economy, a lower warranty, fewer features, and was less comfortable.
How about small trucks, not the behemoths that are what most car makers are selling. Like even Toyota's pickups are bigger than I remember and seem to keep getting bigger. Almost all the trucks in the US are made for the US market because of a 25% tariff. It's really annoying.
They're not good at it, and even if they were, there's not as much profit in it. And GM's approach of making a dozen cars that fill the same ecological niche stopped making sense many years ago.
Americans don’t buy cars anymore. They buy SUVs and pickups.
OK, that isn’t strictly true: Sedans, station wagons, hatchbacks and the like were selling at a 5.5 million-vehicle annual rate in October. But that’s half the pace of three decades ago.
Only a slice of the overall vehicle market worth tens of billions of dollars. No big deal.
My family has one vehicle, an SUV. I'm a newish dad and I don't understand how you do parent stuff without an SUV. I would have to have multiple vehicles if I had a sedan.
I'm also a newish dad. Our only car is a Honda Fit and we're doing fine, I don't recall ever running out of space. I'm not sure what we'd need a SUV for as long as we don't go off-road.
Of course that'll change if we have a second child, but even then a minivan seems much more practical than a SUV.
A Honda Fit is like a Tardis - it seems larger on the inside than the outside and you can fit in an insane amount of stuff due to the flat floor plan. I used to own one (a Honda Jazz) and used it to shift fridges and other items you'd normally need a ute for.
Super reliable as well.
SUVs have been around since the 70s. Maybe earlier.
Here in Europe many, probably most, parents do parent stuff without an SUV just fine. If you have more than average number of kids an estate (stationwagon), or people carrier (minivan, I think) seems to work perfectly well.
An estate drives just as nicely as any car, SUVs and people carriers often don't.
This. An SUV is just a station wagon or minivan with more cosmetic appeal.
Not a bad thing. Kind of clever really. Car manufacturers figured out how to deliver a vehicle that has the benefits of a minivan with an external appearance free of the "I just traded my cool car for a minivan, my life is over" negative association.
It's hard getting a minivan with AWD, but every crossover/SUV has it available as an option. Wagons just aren't commonly offered in the US. The higher ground clearance a crossover typically has compared to a minivan is also quite nice for both increased visibility and less scraping against curbs and driveways.
It's not clever marketing, it's just a better product for most people.
Those old heavy front-wheel drive minivans drove like tanks in snow. Especially with a cheap set of studded snow tires, there was very little need for AWD.
Even a Miata can handle snow with modern snow tires until it's ground clearance isn't high enough anymore.
Most people don't like maintaining two sets of wheels for summer and winter, nor do they get enough snow to justify having a full set of winter tires. For light snow and plowed roads, AWD and all season tires work well enough.
Yes, people are lazy and don't want to shell out $500 for a second set of tires and $100 a year to swap them on and off. They'd rather be out in the puckerbrush off the road because they try driving in snow and slush on "all-weather" tires...
The first snow storm of the year is a great day for the wrecker companies.
That's assuming you're willing to run winter tires on your summer wheels, which you probably aren't given the trend of big wheels, narrow sidewalls. You're probably going to want a set of smaller steel wheels for the winter.
AWD is usually a <$1500 option which makes it really competitive against a second set of wheels and tires.
I think most people just want the AWD to get in/out of their driveway, then you're on plowed roads and the AWD doesn't really make a difference anymore.
Plus, AWD+snow tires is still better than FWD/RWD+snow tires. It's not always an either-or situation.
I suppose but I find that AWD is generally a crutch that most people don't need at all, and those that think they do just don't want to use proper winter tires and endanger others on the road as a result.
The amount of people who actually need AWD in addition to proper equipment, is probably a minuscule fraction of the people who think they need it.
I specify winter tires instead of snow tires because it's not just about snow, it's about temperature as well. All-season tires are generally pretty good about this, compared to summer tires, but once you get to 10F or less, most all-season tires (maybe all of them?) are about as good as driving on rocks.
But they make some terrible compromises. The crossover-type have less boot space than my old UK Ford Focus hatchback, same with the rear seats down. A real station wagon has gallons of space. It's all cosmetic style without a huge amount of substance, and you pay a premium for it as well!
I'll grant that they have good riding position and front visibility. But rear visibility is truly dire. The Qashqai I test drove had a rear camera (actually 360°) with front display just so you could reverse without hitting something due to the poor visibility.
Ride quality is reasonable. Fuel economy as well, though still not as good as a lower, smaller body.
But in no way does it compete with a minivan. I'd go for a Ford Transit Connect or VW Caddy if I actually wanted some space. And the dimensions aren't much different to the SUV!
I still drive a Mazda 5, even though they've been out of production for several years. Seats 6 (if two are small children) on the wheel base and drive train of a Mazda 3 hatchback. It was our only family car for several years with pets and kids and sports and all the normal family bullshit people do.
Our other family car is a Subaru Outback. It has much better ground clearance than the Mazda and seats 5 adults. You can lay the seats down and put a lot of crap in there if you need to move a bunch of shit around.
Neither of these are SUVs. We never came close to needing an SUV for everyday driving.
Depends on which generation Outback, based on your description of better ground clearance, I think it's 4th of 5th generation which is marketed as and considered an "SUV". That's the exact vehicle type that is replacing cars.
Even real SUVs (Tahoe/Expedition/4runner) are becoming replaced by CUVs.
This. Same boat. Have a Mazda CX-5. No clue how one functions without an SUV. That said, my wife has a Honda Accord - she is always driving my SUV and is actively looking to trading into some sort of SUV especially as we start thinking second kid.
I'll also just wrap that whole thing up and say Tesla seems to be selling sedans just fine. Let's not forget that GM is the company that willfully killed people to save money on a $0.25 ignition switch.
What can an SUV do that something like a Volvo V60/V90, Audi A4/A6 or similar cant? Do you really need the extra ground clearance because you have a kid in the car? A Honda Accord should work just fine for three kids, at least the estate version.
V60/90 is considered an "SUV" since the term has become synonymous with crossover. A6 isn't offered in wagon form in the US, nor is the Honda Accord. The Accord also can't be optioned with AWD.
Limited practical options in the US definitely helped push the move to CUVs.
edit: whoops, was looking at the "Cross Country" variant of the V60/90, which is a raised wagon. The normal V60/90 wagon I'll concede to be sufficient for most people's needs, but it's only been available in the US market since 2014.
V60 and V90 are station wagons, you're thinking of XC60 and XC90. The reason wagons aren't offered in the US is because the consumers didn't buy them, which is my point. When given the choice, they chose the bigger, heavier option because the extra cost of using more resources weren't high enough.
I actually believe hatchbacks are making a comeback. Toyota just introduced the Corolla hatchback in response to the new Civic hatchback. Jaguar has a new XF wagon. Porsche made the Panamera Wagon.
I'd like to believe all these automakers aren't going through the trouble of safety testing and certifying wagons without demand being there. The hatchback version of the Golf/Mazda3/Impreza seem to be selling well enough.
Honda tried valiantly to sell the Crosstour but couldn't give it away and finally gave up on it. Looked like a raised Accord wagon. I've been searching for a used one but so few were sold I've about given up.
The Crosstour was such a dorky thing. It had a fastback instead of a proper hatchback which really limited it's utility. For comparison, Honda's CRV had the same engine, more cargo room, and better fuel economy for $5k less.
I live in Chicago. We had a foot of snow land on us this morning. Our 300-foot driveway was not cleared this morning, so my wife took the 2007 Mercury Mariner (Ford Escape). She made it to the road without any issues. It took me two hours in a 1994 BMW 525 to get to the end of the driveway; go two feet, shovel, backup, shovel, then just shovel a path the whole way.
We have three kids in car seats. Getting a baby carrier out from the middle of the BMW is a mess. It's simple in the Mariner.
I frequently need building materials for things around the property. Where do I load a car with shovels, 2x4s, plywood, and hardware cloth?
I live in Sweden, we get some snow from time to time as well. What we do is put winter tires on all cars (it's mandatory in winter conditions and after December 1).
I'm pretty sure getting car seats in and out of cars have improved in the last 24 years. A baby carrier is probably more convenient in the front passenger seat, don't forget to turn off the airbag.
Most people around here just put a trailer behind the car if the stuff doesn't fit in the back with the back seats folded.
I'd also like to point out that of course some people need 4x4 with higher ground clearance. But do the majority need it?
Many states in the U.S. require car or booster seats to be placed in the rear seat, as well as seating any child 8 years or under in the back seat. Even where it might not be required, it's considered irresponsible to do otherwise and there's a lot of cultural pressure to conform.
Shovels go in the trunk or back seat. Plywood gets strapped to the roof. Just like millions of people did for the nearly hundred years before SUV’s existed.
Very few people actually need an SUV. They like being in this large heavy thing because they feel safer and see further, so they buy it instead of a station wagon. If fuel was more reasonable priced to better reflect the external cost they would have to decide if the added cost of driving an unnecessarily thirsty vehicle was worth it.
Meanwhile the last time we had as much CO2 in the atmosphere as we have now were several million years ago, with sea levels about ten meters higher than they are now, we have severe droughts, wildfires, melting polar ice, rapidly diminishing glaciers, melting permafrost, and so on. And the American people not only elects a president that doesn't even believe the white house commissioned climate report, they continue to buy large vehicles that burn too much fuel.
I'm pretty sure we will see more and more conflicts and climate refugees in our lifetime when people are driven from their land by floods, droughts, or similar.
https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/gasoline_prices/