Growth in the worldwide popularity of larger sport-utility vehicles could imperil efforts to reduce greenhouse gas reductions from electric vehicles.
“SUVs were the second-largest contributor to the increase in global CO2 emissions since 2010,” according to Laura Cozzi and Apostolos Petropoulos (2019) of the International Energy Agency. SUVs were behind the power-generating sector but ahead of trucks, aviation and heavy industry (such as iron, steel, cement and aluminum production).
SUVs consume around a quarter more energy than medium-sized cars. “If consumers’ appetite for SUVs continues to grow at a similar pace seen in the last decade, SUVs would add nearly 2 million barrels a day in global oil demand by 2040, offsetting the savings from nearly 150 million electric cars,” wrote Cozzi and Petropoulos (2019).
Shifting SUVs to electric doesn’t solve the problem
Of course, automakers are also shifting SUVs to electric power. However, Adele Peters (2019) noted that they still have a bigger climate footprint because they require bigger batteries and use more electricity. The latter can be a problem when a power grid doesn’t yet fully run on renewable sources of energy.
The environmental group Greenpeace has argued that a Tesla Model X produces 2.9 additional tons of carbon dioxide over its life compared to a Model S sedan (Peters, 2019).
Also see ‘Is Tesla Cybertruck a brilliant breakthrough or a gimmick?’
What to do? Peters (2019) raised the question of “outlawing” SUVs. She pointed to a number of governments that have explored the idea of size and weight restrictions on vehicles allowed in urban areas.
That doesn’t sound politically viable here in the United States. So my question is this: Might the marketplace eventually take care of the problem?
Industry conformity helps fuel ‘bigger-is-better’ trend
Larger SUVs do have practical disadvantages, such as being harder to navigate in crowded quarters. Indeed, it doesn’t take much squinting to see SUVs as the modern-day equivalent of the tailfinned monsters of the late-1950s.
Unfortunately, today’s automobile industry suffers from more conformity than it did back then. There is no one like AMC’s George Romney, who focused exclusively on building compact cars and colorfully criticized the standard-sized US car as a “Dinosaur in the Driveway” (Hyde, 2009; p. 186).
Detroit’s devotion to bigger, glitzier and more powerful vehicles is arguably as strong as it ever has been. To make matters worse, foreign automakers no longer act as much of a counterbalance to the excesses of US automakers.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Cozzi, Laura and Apostolos Petropoulos; 2019. “Growing preference for SUVs challenges emissions reductions in passenger car market.” IEA. Posted Oct. 15.
- Hyde, Charles K; 2009. Storied Independent Automakers: Nash, Hudson, and American Motors. Wayne State University Press, Detroit, MI.
- Peters, Adele; 2019. “Should we outlaw SUVs?” Fast Company. Posted Oct. 23.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcaradvertising.com: Rambler (1958)
The “large” SUVs – and 4X4 four-door full size trucks with their “dinky” bed sizes – are unnecessarily popular. Of course they are conspicuous users of materials and fuel. But what weight/size limits would be wise to impose? A lot of new sedans weigh a LOT more than my ’20 Nissan Rogue SV (a small SUV).
Genesis G90 and Lexus LS500 sedans both are more than 2000 pounds fatter than my Nissan! On a recent trip to South Bend Indiana from Hamilton Ontario (just over 1,000 miles round trip and including more than 50 miles of city traffic), my car’s computer showed that on average, 7.4 litres of fuel was consumed every 100 kilometers. Translated, that is 31.7 miles per US gallon. My load was 4 people and luggage for 3 days.
The Roque weighs just over 3,000 pounds. The Lexus and Genesis sedans above are both just over 5,100 pounds and got 22 US mpg on a 500 mile trip (not likely with the good payload I had). Moral of the story: “Weight is the Enemy” (a favorite slogan used by Raymond Loewy and practiced at Studebaker).
What is an SUV? According to Consumer Reports a Buick Encore and a Honda HR-V are! So is a Chevy Suburban and a Ford Expedition and a Jeep Grand Wagoneer. Perhaps there is a need to refine terms for future discussions.
How about this? An SUV is something approaching pickup truck in size, with three row seating or the capacity to have 3 row seating, and any vehicle that shares the platform. Smaller vehicles, which back in the Triassic era were called station wagons, are CUVs.
The authors that I linked to did not do a good job of distinguishing between SUVs and CUVs. To a certain degree one can reasonably argue that the smaller CUV is the modern equivalent of the American automobile prior to the mid-50s, when they were taller, shorter and narrower.
That said, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find a light-weight and space-efficient small car. For example, the base Honda CRV weighs almost 3,500 pounds and has the footprint of a late-60s Ford Falcon. The CRV used to be a “subcompact.”
I have fleshed out my argument a bit in the story’s last section.
I think the answers are small EVs that do big things for fewer users, and tax law that incentivizes companies big and small to promote remote work whenever possible and practical. This will require car companies and politicians to wake up from their deep slumber.
The problem has been that trucks have been exempt from manufacturer’s CAFE regulations. At one time this made sense, but now trucks, “light duty” and otherwise have replaced passenger cars as the primary transportation choice of many Americans. There are a lot of reasons for this, some fall upon the manufacturer and some fall upon the consumer. Manufacturers have found that trucks, especially gussied up models and the luxury SUV variants, are terrific profit producers. Less expense in engineering and design, wed to high popularity. The manufacturers have taken the easy,safe, and profitable, choice. Ford has abandoned even trying to build competitive passenger cars. It makes sense as even high end,expensive sedans have fallen out of favor with much lower sales numbers.
Consumers buy these SUVs and CUVs because they like them, they are what is considered stylish and fashionable. They also fulfill their actual needs,for space and utility. The smaller CUVs have replaced the “normal” passenger car configuration. Large luxury trucks and SUVs are just that,luxury purchases by people that can afford them. At a certain financial level, the cost of fuel is irrelevant. There are a lot of people with plenty of money out there, and there are also those that choose to stretch their finances to display a certain image. These luxury trucks and SUVs have replaced all of the big Cadillac, Lincoln, Mercedes and BMW sedans that were popular at one time. Those big status cars have pretty much disappeared.
While the manufacturers decide what is built and offered, it’s the consumer that makes the decision of what to buy. We are back to market forces. Build desirable passenger cars and people will buy them. The current high gas prices are having quite an effect on the market.
Why do modern vehicles weigh so much? I know that safety and impact standards have their effect, but I would imagine that poor (as in uninspired and not creative) engineering has a lot to do with it. Currently the manufacturers are not very motivated to improve their products.
Of course bigger vehicles consume more energy, whether it is hydrocarbon or electric. That voltage has to come from somewhere.
Going back to the “urban ban” part of the topic, if municipalities don’t like large personal vehicles in their downtowns – for various reasons – I say just make it expensive for them to be downtown. The people who own these vehicles are seldom, if ever, destitute and could very likely afford a SUBSTANTIAL permit fee for the privilege of using more space and more energy where they’re not particularly welcome ( using large gulps of amps from the downtown grid – or having to drive out of downtown to find gas/diesel pumps, then driving back in). Almost no single moms would be affected, so no problem! lol “Tax” the &*%^# out of the conspicuous consumers if their choice of vehicle is causing problems for a city. An outright ban of those vehicles would be a political “hot potato”. A substantial permit fee will be a big enough discussion in city councils – and the state and federal governments would want an exception for security purposes in any case! The local limousine rental company? Who knows. lt’s complicated!
There is a political problem with this. Most big city and medium city municipal governments are doing all sorts of stuff to attract well heeled people into their downtowns. We need to redefine what is a “car: If it seats more than four adults it’s a car. I don’t care if it’s an F-350 Gone with the Wind special edition.
The last thing most cities want to do right now is place any barriers to people visiting the downtown. In 2022, it’s not as though all of the best entertainment, shopping venues and restaurants are located in the downtown area. Many people aren’t even commuting to the office anymore, thanks to telecommuting.
We could levy road tax based on weight, to take account of the increased road maintenance costs occasioned by heavier vehicles. That would have the benefit of being fair. As it is, there is an implicit subsidy.
SUVs do not cause additional damages to roads as compared to passenger cars. Roads have to be built to handle 80,000 tractor trailers; they can therefore handle Cadillac Escalades. This was discussed several years ago in Chicago: https://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/september-2011/chicagos-suv-tax-and-road-damage-do-the-numbers-add-up/
It’s a matter of degree not kind. For a more recent analysis, see: https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/. Yes, a full size SUV causes a lot less road wear than a tractor & trailer, but 3.5x more than an average sedan. It all does add up.
The Fort Collins calculation uses the fourth power of a vehicle’s axle weight to prove that heavier vehicles cause more damage. That calculation is valid – to a point. But roadway engineering is a lot more complicated, and thus cannot rely simply on vehicle weight to determine real-world damage.
Here is what the Chicago Magazine article said: “City pavements are considered ‘rigid pavements’ due to use of a concrete base. When using the Fatigue Strength Method of design, the pavement will fail if it is subjected to repeated applications of heavy loads causing it to exceed its fatigue strength. Due to their relatively light weights, repeated applications of car and SUV loads will not cause a pavement to exceed its fatigue strength.”
If a road has to be strong enough to handle a tractor trailer, it can easily handle an SUV without suffering additional damage.
Even if we do accept the Ford Collins calculations in a vacuum, note that it uses one vehicle as the base of comparison – a 4,000 pound passenger car. It then compares all other vehicles to that standard. But just how much damage is that passenger car actually causing? As we’ve seen, passenger cars don’t cause much – if any – damage to the roads. Yes, the SUV may be causing “more,” but both the damage caused by the car and any extra damage over that caused by the SUV are negligible. Three times next-to-nothing is still next-to-nothing.
If both San Francisco and Chicago – neither of which is a free-market, libertarian, Republican stronghold – looked at this and rejected it because it was based on a faulty premise, that says something.