Last week’s poll: SUVs and CO2 emissions

It is interesting that the rise of the SUV coincides with all the traffic humps being installed, plus all the extra potholes in neglected roads. Fix the potholes & remove the excessive obstacles in the road & SUVs become less attractive.
Not all SUVs are the same. You should not say a 1.3 litre, sub 4 metre long, mini SUV is the same as some 6 litre, 5 metre+ mega SUV.
A very clean Euro 6+, mini SUV may well be greener, cradle to grave, than some electric, mega SUV, with all sorts of battery issues from production to disposal.
After a decade of trickle up economics, any rise in fuel duty, which will hit low paid shift workers the hardest, is not a good or fair idea.

1. SUVs are more suited to the ever more challenging road surfaces. Filling in potholes might solve the problem, but would we want to ‘encourage’ road use overall?
2. Perhaps increasing bus lanes and bus only routes (and opening them to cycles, motorcycles, electric or ‘small’ cars) would tempt people away from SUVs.
3. Impose a ‘Congestion Charge’-type of tariff on large vehicles (including SUVs) entering or using roads in the towns and cities. This might stop the ‘kensington tractors’ being used for the school run. If this was run locally, arrangements could be made for local buses, emergency vehicles and essential deliveries (perhaps nudging busnisses to pool vehicle usage?).

In my view, the fad for SUVs is largely a status thing – I live near several public schools and it’s noticeable that pretty much every car doing the school run is a SUV. They also park on the pavements and grass verges of the narrow road to my house sometimes blocking it BTW. The argument about traffic humps and potholes is specious – my Astra copes well with these. Hopefully growing awareness of the impact of climate change will end this.

I think John Hartley has a point. Why are SUV’s more popular than ever? Consider that most SUV’s are really only 2WD “cross-overs” and not real 4×4 SUV’s. It’s not the “go anywhere” capabilty of a true SUV that’s the attraction. The increased ride height is partly what its all about – better over our shockingly bad roads and also gives a feeling of security with improved visibilty. In fact, the SUV body style allows more space for batteries, so I expect to see more rather than less SUV’s in the same vein as Jaguar’s i-Pace and now Ford’s Mustang Mach-E along with Tesla huge Model X. Tax isn’t going to be popular (it never is) but actually will not solve the problem whilst imposing extra costs on those who really do need an SUV – farmer’s for example. Perhaps at this point I should declare that I have a Jeep and a V8 Mustang… both of which cost the same to tax, insure and use about the same amount of fuel. In fact, on a long journey, the V8 Mustang uses less petrol than the diesel Jeep.

I’m inclined to agree with Raymond Westcott, that tax is the answer to reduce the numbers of SUVs on the roads, which will inevitably serve to cut down emissions. I would add the caveat though that this should be dependant on use. For example, if the owner can show that the vehicle is essential for their business (farming, construction work, vehicle towing etc.) then an SUV may be the optimum answer. Then the increased tax would only be levied on those choosing to use these sort of vehicles for lifestyle purposes.

Overall, it’s shame that small cars are not more popular beyond the needs of the impecunious. They are far more relevant on today’s crowded roads, even before their better environmental credentials are considered (not just fuel-use either: emissions of the production process of a small car vs. a large car, tyres, oil, brake pad wear etc.)

I would recommend anyone to rent a modern city car for a week or two, if you haven’t driven one for a few years. I think you’ll find, as I did, that the usefulness of this class of car has improved in leaps and bounds to such an extent that your bigger car probably won’t get much use during the rental period.

As engineers, I suggest that we can set an example in this area. After all, in our work, we are occupied with ‘getting the most from the least’ every day. Small and right-sized cars are an embodiment of this principle.

Sadly the politics of envy once again, those that want to ban them do not have one themselves. We in the UK are already moderately green. I travel to China and India frequently and it will take 50 years before they get to the same level as us today! 19 million new cars a year and 11 million motorbikes and that is just China!
UK get in the real world, we can do nothing from here.

No obvious ‘fixes’: economics 101. A new Nissan Leaf will lose 76.8% of its value over 3 years / 36,000; compare this to 48% for the best selling SUV Ford Kuga. Ration, limit, tax, ban or otherwise inhibit sales of new SUVs and you bolster the second hand price making them more attractive – and owners will hang onto the older, more polluting models for longer …

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/best-cars/94305/fastest-depreciating-cars-top-10-worst-motoring-money-pits
https://www.themoneycalculator.com/vehicle-finance/calculators/car-depreciation-by-make-and-model/FORD/KUGA/

would the SUV haters like to comment on this?

What isn’t helping is the demonisation of Diesel and the skewing of hybrid emission outputs.
Hybrids are reported as having very low emissions and very high mpg values which are only valid for short journeys. If I drive a car for 200 miles then a diesel at 60mpg actually has a much lower CO2 output than a hybrid which only achieves 35mpg on a long run.
An EU6 diesel has lower particulate emissions than an EU5 Petrol car which is why petrol cars are now having to be fitted with particulate filters. If we continued to drive (EU6) dieses then the CO2 emissions would be lower than it now is.

John Merrill
Perhaps at this point I should declare that I have a Jeep and a V8 Mustang… both of which cost the same to tax, insure and use about the same amount of fuel. In fact, on a long journey, the V8 Mustang uses less petrol than the diesel Jeep.

The Diesel Jeep doesn’t use ANY petrol!

I also have an SUV a Subaru Forester diesel, for me to enjoy my hobbies I have to travel some distance off road, having had 2 wheel drive cars I know they get stuck. However, whether there is a need for engines of greater than 2.5 – 3L probably not, these I feel, are status symbol.
If electric vehicles that meet my requirements were the same price as the ICE version then I would most likely buy it.

Difficult question. Undoubtedly they are a life-style vehicle for many, but by no means all. They are generally safer, more robust and a more useful vehicle. Small cars often have limited practicality, unless only ever used for local/inner city use. Electrifying them would not work for those that need to use them, so some sort of justificable usage criteria could discourage their unnecessary use.

It’s like smoking cigarettes – SUV drivers will make any excuse that seems to make their addiction sound reasonable. The truth is that all cars allow the features they like about SUVs but just to a slightly less extent! If they had to journey off-road then one could understand their need.
On the other hand I’m quite happy for them to pay so much more in taxes – unfortunately it won’t take long before they wake up to the advantages of efficient/low cost electric cars.

SUV owners can drive ‘guilt free’ if they register with Shell Go+
https://www.shell.co.uk/motorist/shell-select-promotions.html/shop-offers/offer/drive-carbon-neutral-with-shell-go.html
And it doesn’t cost anything extra, all you have to do is scan your Shell Go+ card when you purchase your fuel and Shell will offset all of the emissions from by the production and use of the fuel.

My input would be that any tax levied on a specific vehicle doesn’t do what is expected. The companies just find ways around this and the customer always pays in the end. I would suggest getting rid of road tax as it currently is. Imo it’s not working and the roads are just getting worse as money is funneled elsewhere. If they instead put an increase on fuel say 1p per litre as tax, then you only pay for how much fuel you use by driving your vehicle. The more you drive and use the roads the more tax you pay at the pump. People would then start looking for more fuel economy themselves rather than feeling pressured.

Richard H (Ironic I suspect), the fallacy of offsetting irresponsible behavior really needs to be squashed. We need people to reduce their bad behaviors, not plant a tree and then carry on regardless. – if you pollute, you pollute, that’s the end of it – just stop it !
Any offset offer from a fossil fuel company needs to be treated with the disdain it deserves.

I used to live in an urban conurbation. Most vehicles around were cars with a smattering of lightweight, modern and efficient ‘SUV’s (the SUVs being popular for their ease of access, ease of access to boot space and improved visibility) Now I live in a rural area. A much larger percentage of vehicles are SUV and full blown 4×4. Here, this is out of need rather than desire. I see great issues with a blanket tariff which, while maybe having some affect on reducing the urban population of SUVs, will hammer the folk that really need them.
And anyway, hydrogen is the way to go, either as fuel cell or burnt in a conventional ICE. Battery electric vehicles for all is a smoke screen. Does anyone know if it’s possible to convert an existing petrol or diesel to run on H? How Eco friendly is that! I suspect much, much more than replacing the current vehicle stock with electric ones (but won’t make anywhere near as much profit for the manufacturing and mining moguls)

“How could the increase in carbon dioxide emissions linked to the popularity of large vehicles such as SUVs be countered?”

Fuel rationing. Each DVLA registered keeper is issued with a chip and PIN card ‘ration book’ and an annual, non-transferrable fuel allocation with any unused entitlement expiring at the end of each year. Service stations are required to process the card for each fuel sale, this should take the same time as a loyalty points card and the fuel purchased is deducted from the motorist’s allowance at a central data base, with the transaction declined if the ration entitlement is spent; the penalty to the motorist being the same as if they had filled up without the means to pay. Alternatively – pre-approve with a card reader at the pump. The service station is required to account monthly for total fuel sold against all customers’ ration allocations. Automatic number plate recognition IT systems (designed to deter fuel theft) can be adapted to check for ration card misuse, since each card is associated with the DLVA registration.

The scheme can be introduced gently with a generous fuel allocation initially and then reduced progressively. Motorists can then choose whether they buy a more fuel efficient car, moderate their driving behaviour – or keep the SUV and simply drive less. For high mileage business drivers, companies have an imperative to buy the most efficient cars to keep there workforce on the road. For wealthy individuals that can afford luxury cars and disregard high fuel taxes are affected like everyone else, hard-up motorists are not unfairly hit by tax rates designed to hit the rich

Firstly – where is the poll? It didn’t appear when I logged into this report.
Secondly – Fuel rationing – at what point then will we be told to move closer to our workplace because our fuel allocation doesn’t get us there and back any more?
Thirdly – my disabled wife has a small SUV because she can get in and out easily, without folding herself in two, and because she can see better from a higher seating position. It’s a diesel because it is more efficient than petrol.
Fourthly – there are castles in Wales which sit on hilltops, which when they were built were on the coast – so sea levels have fallen significantly in less than 1000 years, but may be on their way back up. Everything is cyclical. It just depends on where you start and how far back you choose to look.
Fifthly – give more road to bus lanes and cyclists?!! It’s about time cyclists were forced to have registration plates and have insurance, along with paying a road tax commensurate with the road width they occupy. They are not the answer, just another problem.
Finally – half a million protestors – minorities get all the attention, but it doesn’t make them either right or sensible, just one-track sheep.

As the majority of SUV’s with engine sizes above 2l are diesel how does this affect CO2 levels? Diesels produce NOx and very little CO2, is it therefore reasonable to assume that it is petrol driven vehicles causing the problem. The current use of very small highly tuned engines that produce the same power as an engine twice its size could be the problem. CO2 is measured from these vehicles at a defined RPM, at this point they are better at producing less CO” than bigger engines, however, when driving these engines reach very high RPM and generally produce more CO2 than the bigger engines which have more power at lower RPM. There is also the effect of wear, worn engines are more polluting and wear is more likely in a higher revving engine. So maybe SUV’s are not at fault!

Apologies to all for misquoting Bob Dylan: have now got my old LPs out and am enjoying them again thanks to Andrew.

Having had long chats with engineers at many of the engine developers, the frustration is the amount of stop starting and slow traffic which uses more fuel that normal cruising, add traffic lights and all the other methods of stopping and starting vehicles, we have a fast declining MPG on all vehicles, is it time to get cars moving and keeping them moving at a steady speed. SUV’s in the 2,0 ltr range are not that bad if they keep steady movement. i am more than happy to park and ride in to towns if parking is sensible but please please please, give me a motorway that i can use cruise control as my 3,0 diesel does 50MPG at 70 with cruise control, M25 is about 30MPG as it is constantly stop start. tax councils who cant keep traffic moving. task police with adjusting roads to keep movement.

Either limit their sales or limit their speed and acceleration.
These are used by mothers taking their kids to school, instead of walking them there. I have seen a woman living not half a mile from a school, drive from her house to school and back again. These vehicles are a menace, or rather the vast majority of people that drive them are. Making a large vehicle to go on crowded public highways is a recipe for disaster.

If family size is a reason for the 4 x 4 Chelsea tractor growth, then maybe the solution might be to limit family size by law. That would also stop population growth, reduce demand for NHS services, reduce food supply issues. I look forward to seeing which party will pick that up in their manifesto.

I have read with interest the arrival and comments related to it. I I am amazed that the use of public transport is ignored. The average car will travel between 15-20k / year the average bus travels 2x that a year, at speeds lower than 15/mph. And leave the engines running while stationary, which can be as much as 30-40 minutes per hour. We also have commercial aircraft travelling around the world leaving aviation fuel fumes everywhere and at height such it collects in the surrounding clouds. I do have an SUV but I am also a Farmer, my car have auto shut off when the hand bracket is applied and does 60+miles / gallon on a 2L engine. Compare that to any bus and I think it wins hands down

Once again, thanks to David Smart for pointing out that I may have a biased viewpoint. He is of course correct in that, I make my mind up by looking at the evidence and am often wrong in my assessments. However, if someone could provide any evidence (not theoretical models) that the climate is doing anything that it has not done many times before I may be persuaded to become a climate activist.

David’s answer to increasing electric car ownership seems to be further subsidy (as with Norway, which can well afford the subsidy). Subsidies take money from one part of the economy and give it to another: they can only be justified if the benefit is real as there are many needy people, the NHS needs more money and Law and Order needs money…….. which is really important to the people? SUVs demonstrate that people, given a free choice, ignore the hype and bias of the general meja, and probably know better that the meja in fact.

Some odd ideas here, I’m afraid. Switching to clean, green electricity and green hydrogen is a cheaper option, compared to subsidising FF and paying the price for their emissions during the next century. Many people, with vested interests, see no further than the next General Election!

Pressurised (cold) water storage – BGES is king. Let’s reflect on what the science tells us:-

“For electricity generation based on steam turbines 65% of all prime energy is wasted as heat.” Is ‘fusion’ going to be any different, if/when we think we can build a ‘commercial’ plant?!

“Gas turbines, nuclear fission and wind turbines have conversion efficiencies of around 35%” – But wind, wave and tidal power generates no heat and lasts for ever and ever, amen. Sensible folk want to leave fossil fuels in the ground, as insurance against the next Ice Age.

“Modern water turbines operate at mechanical efficiencies greater than 90%” and have a working life more than twice that of horizontal axis wind turbines, especially those at sea.