In the news

Put that engine in a small slippery car though and it will drop further…

Put it in a Citroen AX and behold!

When we switched from a 2015 Fiesta to a 2017 Seat Ateca with same sized engine, our fuel consumption and emissions dropped by about 20%.

Are you sure about those numbers for emissions?

Also interested to hear how you deduced that going from a petrol car to a dieselgate-era VAG Group oil burner reduced your emissions. Maybe not the best example!

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/nov/13/richard-ratcliffe-to-end-hunger-strike-for-wife-nazanin-after-21-days

Happy he has ended and hope he hasn't suffered any last damage, really hope the Government find a way to resolve the issue, sounds like they have come around to accepting paying the debt and the barrier is now how to within the restrictions of the sanctions but not in a rush to find a solution

No, the emissions figure is closer to 5%. Just reminded myself.

We're petrol cars caught up in diselgate? I had no idea! Does this mean the figures for my petrol car are nonsense?

I also thought the final diselgate cars were made in 2015.

I now know, thanks to this forum, that SUV drivers are in fact eco/ warriors.

Did you read me pointing out that some SUVS are greener to run than their smaller counterparts as saying SUVs are green? Not really what I said.

Did you read me pointing out that some SUVS are greener to run than their smaller counterparts as saying SUVs are green?

A little bit, but I was more interested in the way this discussion developed from:-

People protesting about SUV's miss a wider point about generalised use of motor cars to-

SUV's aren't necessarily as polluting as you might think to -

People who protest about SUV's are Dickheads.

In reality, I'm not 100% convinced by the original position. To my mind - probably incorrectly - SUV's represent a fetishisation of the motor car. They are a car that isn't in any way necessary.

The reason I no longer own a car is that years ago, when I had one I realised I only ever drove it when I went on holiday, the rest of the time it just sat outside the house.

To me, driving to the shops, or driving the kids to school is just preposterous. What SUV's symbolise is that such activity is not preposterous, but rational, which is why I am conflicted.

I think they have misunderstood that you’ve brought a diesel version.

SUV's represent a fetishisation of the motor car

Agreed. There are a few enormous cars in the neighbourhood. I assume, knowing little about cars, that they're SUVs - oversized, tall so you have to kind of climb into them, big tyres. I hate them.

Yes I understand that the general dependence and acceptance of motor car use is more problematic overall, but I do think the symbolism of these cars is significant. It says not just that urban car use is rational but that it's highly desirable - the bigger, more powerful and more dominant the vehicle the better.

Countering the cultural status of cars is as valid as activism towards better urban transport/mobility - especially in London where so much car use is already "unnecessary". (I actually hate these cars less than the incredibly loud motors but it's a close run thing.)

Indeed. I’ll be honest though, I read Ateca but I thought they meant an Altea. I can’t keep up with VAG’s stupid car names. If I’m in the car, it’s often one of those in front which makes me reach for the recirc button on my heater controls because they fucking stink and fill my car up with shitty fumes.

It says not just that urban car use is rational but that it's highly desirable - the bigger, more powerful and more dominant the vehicle the better.

I think this does rather play into the prevailing narrative that climate activists are smelly hippies who hate success, and that their actions can be dismissed as a manifestation of their envy for your large, tall, powerful car (that keeps the kids safe!), that you got a fantastic lease deal on (had to take the 2 litre diesel but it still shifts).

i.e. singling out cars that are sold on their aspirational appeal for the greatest opprobrium is counter productive - talking about cars in general (somewhat) resists the argument being derailed easily.

To me, driving to the shops, or driving the kids to school is just preposterous.

Depends where you live. Not everyone lives in cities or places well served by public transport.

They are a car that isn't in any way necessary.

Probably a fair point for most owners of them and other car types. A guy I know has a pickup and the most he puts in the back is the shopping or the bikes; he got it as he likes the image he thinks it projects (outdoorsy, manly sort of vibe is what he's going for).

Problem is that car ownership is too connected to an image people want to project or that other people expect of them and their perceived place in the world.

My point is that even in a city where it is easy and convenient for many people (obvs not all) to live day to day without cars, the cultural desirability of cars remains a problem underlying their excessive use. I'm sure it could be done in different, more effective, less smelly hippies ways, but it's valid that that idea needs countering and deflating. And the oversized power car - even if it actually doesn't use that much fuel - is a particular display of excess.

People who protest about SUV's are Dickheads.

Nah, people who do what they did are dickheads.

You can protest about SUVs all you like, I'm largely signed up, they are boring shit cars that are largely unnecessary - just don't let the air out of random's tyres - it's just childish. And that note they left, Jesus.

You can't condone that behaviour even if it was well meaning.

Incredible that the BBC reported it and in the way that they did. Assume the editor was trying to troll an audience segment or something.

I guess one of the issues with SUV's though is that they are more inefficient by design, very few people are driving them in off road conditions, so the equivalent hatchback/estate (often with more space than the SUV) with the same engine will return better efficiency and lower emissions as they are lighter, more aerodynamic (smaller front profile as not as tall) and more efficient as not 4 wheel drive

My point is that even in a city where it is easy and convenient for many people (obvs not all) to live day to day without cars, the cultural desirability of cars remains a problem underlying their excessive use. I'm sure it could be done in different, more effective, less smelly hippies ways, but it's valid that that idea needs countering and deflating. And the oversized power car - even if it actually doesn't use that much fuel - is a particular display of excess.

I'm not disagreeing with your point at all, what I'm saying is that taking aim at aspirational cars for protest plays into the hands of those who wish to discount all and any such protest.

It's very easy for someone to say "you're just envious of others success" when you target large and expensive cars.

Depends on what your goals from the protest are, I suppose - if you want to change the mind of the person who doesn't believe in climate change but is inclined to easy narratives based around envy that are promoted by the Mail etc then I suggest that reinforcing them is not the best way of doing so.

If it's just to feel good about protesting, I guess it works.

I guess one of the issues with SUV's though is that they are more inefficient by design, very few people are driving them in off road conditions, so the equivalent hatchback/estate (often with more space than the SUV) with the same engine will return better efficiency and lower emissions as they are lighter, more aerodynamic (smaller front profile as not as tall) and more efficient as not 4 wheel drive.

Good immigrant/bad immigrant?

I think that's disingenuous

I guess I see the conversation playing out on two different levels:
Cars vs No cars plays out more on a policy/regulatory level removing barriers to people using more sustainable transport modes

Good car vs Bad car is more a consumer choice, if you can get something that functionally does the same job for the same price but you choose the dirtier, less efficient version, don't be upset if people question it or say it is a conversation we should be having

Any ideas how to do this in more persuasive, less disagreeable ways? (This is not a shut up, but a genuine question.)
The target change is not about climate change in general, and not about improving other transport/mobility options, but specifically the car as aspirational possession. (Also, in case not obvious, I'm not defending the Glasgow actions which I haven't actually read about, rather riffing on the general theme. )

I also think these 2 things are tangled up. The desirability of cars is so culturally pervasive that even if people say that it's just a matter of convenience and practicality that prevents them not using cars and keeps them buying nice shiny big cars, it's more complicated than that.

Depends where you live. Not everyone lives in cities or places well served by public transport.

In London, the majority of driver still use their car for trip under 3km/day.

It's prevalent regardless of public transport being accessible or not, as hoefla already point out.

Good car vs Bad car is more a consumer choice, if you can get something that functionally does the same job for the same price but you choose the dirtier, less efficient version, don't be upset if people question it or say it is a conversation we should be having.

But that risks becoming embroiled in detail, horse trading around age, fuel, emissions - which isn't clear cut.

More emissions are (generally) released during manufacture than will be generated by the vehicle in it's lifetime, for example. So we should all be driving 40 year old Austins if we were serious about climate change, rather than Tesla.

And the discussion should be how do we effect modal change- move the journey itself from car to train, rather from old car to new car.