Emissions - SUV and big cars in General

PaulieC

Heard on the radio (Ray D'Arcy)about the latest press release from SIMI detailing the best and worst cars for emissions. Unsurprisingly, the cleanest cars (in terms of CO2 emissions) were small cars, Daihatsu Charade 1.0 and Opel Corsa 1.0. The 'dirtiest' cars were, again unsurprisingly, SUVs, in particular Range Rovers and Land Rovers, with the Land rover Discovery (didn't specify model) emitting a metric tonne of CO2 for every 2.5 KM.
Ray's proposed solution to this was to apply more tax on big cars to discourage people from buying. He also suggested that we should shame people out of their SUVs (but apparently it is OK to have an SUV if you are a builder or if you own horses).
I think this is all highly simplistic and only adds to the anti-SUV sentiment, which is wrong in my opinion, as SUVs have just become an easy target - banning SUVs isn't going to solve any problems on it's own.
If the government really want to tackle this problem in a realistic way, I think they would need to have a much more cohesive strategy than just slapping extra tax on big cars. All thsi does is make more money for the government. In a way it's also making these cars more attractive as they become more expensive as they would be seen as more exclusive. That's the last thing we need when most of the people who drive SUVs (talking about the school-run brigade here) only drive them because they think they are better than 'normal' cars. Anyway, here's my suggestions for dealing with the problem of increasing emissions from cars:
1) A more comprehensive, integrated public transport network. Make it easier to take the train or the bus.
2) Remove VRT from car purchase price. Replace this with increased tax on fuel. The more you drive, the more you pay.
3) Base road tax on engine emissions rather than engine size. Encourage people to buy cleaner cars.
4) Incentivise people to buy cleaner cars e.g. cars that run on ethanol or bio-diesel. The infrastructure for this is pathetic at the moment - one garage in Dublin sells E85.


I know this is a highly contentious issue. What do you think should be done? And why?

Drax

Feck that.... anti SUV sentiment is well deserved. What other reason besides status on the road does a blonde midget who can bearly see over the steering wheel (while on a mobile phone), a milf (usually) with little johhnny in the back, or a tie-wearing executive have for driving one of these monsters ... I can hardly inagine them doing a bit o' off-roadin'... And dont give me 'they feel safe' argument - thats bollox. But they have the money so why not... sure who gives a fúck if they mow down someone with their bullbars - ar least they will be safe.

Some woman passed me in one of those new Land Rover discovery's the other day. I cant get over how big these things are - they are feckin huge. No need for it. Even compared to the Freelander they are monstrous.

They should be road-taxed to the hilt.

:mad:

kluivert

There is a 50% VRT Relief on Cars which run on high grade bio-fuels.

Do the new Golf Deisels not able to run on this.

If so I would be out to buy one tomorrow.

People think that this 50% VRT Relief only applies to hybrid cars - it doesnt so now ye all know.

PaulieC

Drax, I didn't want to get into the whole anti-SUV thing. I think that it distorst and sensationalises the argument. Sure they are big and mostly not needed, but then a lot of cars are. I wanted to concentrate on the emissions of big-engined cars.
I wouldn't buy an SUV (I hope) - not becuase I think they are evel, just because I don't like them. I would prefer a saloon shape

Dades

cambo_gueno wrote:

3) Base road tax on engine emissions rather than engine size. Encourage people to buy cleaner cars.

I think this is an okay idea, though really it should be based on mileage as you are paying for the roads you drive on. Of course the people who buy new Range Rovers aren't overly concerned with an extra bit of tax.

That said, I don't drive and SUV but I almost would out of spite because the whole PC bandwagon thing irritates me so much.

prospect

Drax wrote:

Feck that.... anti SUV sentiment is well deserved. What other reason besides status on the road does a blonde midget who can bearly see over the steering wheel (while on a mobile phone), a milf (usually) with little johhnny in the back, or a tie-wearing executive have for driving one of these monsters ... I can hardly inagine them doing a bit o' off-roadin'... And dont give me 'they feel safe' argument - thats bollox. But they have the money so why not... sure who gives a fúck if they mow down someone with their bullbars - ar least they will be safe.

What reason has anyone to have a 5L Mercedes?
What reason has anyone to have a BMW M car?
What reason has anyone to have a Mitsu Evo or Subaru Impreza?
What reason has anyone to have any large capacity Coupe or Convertible?

prospect

The Atheist wrote:

That said, I don't drive and SUV but I almost would out of spite because the whole PC bandwagon thing irritates me so much.

ditto

PaulieC

prospect wrote:

ditto

absolutely ditto.

There seems to be a lot of people about who think that banning SUVs is the solution to all the world's problems. It's a lot more complicated than that, unfortunately

dts

Come on grow up,
dont start the SUV bashing again, think of something else to winge about.

Drax

Did I mention the banning them anywhere in my post?

I just think it should be made more difficult for people to purchase them or have more incentives for them to purchase something smaller or evironmentally friendly.

And yes, you could argue the same about a big merc or whatever, but this thread is not about them.... It is nothing to to with PC.

I could post the thread with the exact same text except change all references of SUV to Bentley/Merc etc.... whatever...

Anyway, if its sent this thread off on a tangent I apologise!

Eoin

Ray D'Arcy constantly makes these knee-jerk reactions. For instance, he can see no difference at all between someone who mods their car, and young males who drive like lunatics.

The Sunday Times motoring section two weeks ago had an interesting article about so-called fuel-efficient cars. One thing that stood out was that the Mercedes ML (270?) CDI was more fuel efficient than the Lexus hybrid SUV. They also mentioned the Toyota Prius - apparently there are many reports by users world wide there that the MPG experienced by these cars is regularly no better than mid-30s.

Having said that, I don't know if more fuel efficient means more environmentally friendly by default though?

prospect

Drax wrote:

And yes, you could argue the same about a big merc or whatever, but this thread is not about them....

I think you should read the title of the thread again.

Drax

Ah right ted... Maybe I'll start me own SUV-bashing thread.

PaulieC

the thread was not just about SUVs, btu large-engined cars of all types. I mentioned SUVs because people automatically jump on that bandwagon. From an emissions point of view I don't see any difference between e.g. a BMW X5 4.0 and a BMW 740.

BrianD

There is also an article on the subject in todays Irish Times that quotes a government report.

I have a theory on this topic. Dubliners now have one of the longest car commute times in the world - longer tha L.A's. This is because to get affordable housing people are moving further and further out from the city. These are areas are impossible to serve with economic public transport and the motorcar is the only viable means of transport.

With the Kyoto agreement in place, Ireland will have to shell out in carbon taxes that will ultimately be paid for the people. Recent reports have been hinting that it is heavy industry, transport and now the growth in SUV ownership that are all contributory factors. We all know that the real culprits are the motor fleet as a whole, not just SUV's, along with electricity generation (required for all those extra housing units).

So, as usual, one of the biggest problems is our unsustainable development policy allowed by the Government coupled with a lack of investment in public transport (that even with more investment won't solve the problem). It seems to me that Government is happy to blame SUV owners because they are seen as a small elite group and not the ordinary man on the street. SUV owners are now the whipping boy and the real reasons for the massive increase in pollution from motor vehicles is once again disguised. Removing every single SUV of the road is not going to make the blindest bit of difference.

Anan1

cambo_gueno wrote:

...with the Land rover Discovery (didn't specify model) emitting a metric tonne of CO2 for every 2.5 KM.

I think you'll find it's a kilogram of CO2 for every 2.5Km.

PaulieC

apologies. It was a tonne of CO2 per every 2.5k KM, as in every 2500 kilometres

zuutroy

I think the tax works well....I want a nissan 300zx, but I'm f**ed if I'm payin €1300 a year for the privelige of driving it

peasant

A SMART car for everyone in the audience !!

The diesel model, the one that runs on irish grown rapeseed oil.

Tax free, VRT free, VAT free.


Any other car/ van / truck will be taxed according to the CO2 emissions and amount of miles driven in any year (yearly inspection at your friendly tax office).

That should bring the country to a standstill and people on barricades in no time at all:D

PaulieC

it's simple enough to tax based on emissions - not that much of a change from what we have now.
As for mileage, an increased tax on fuel in place of VRT will ensure that those who drive the most/those who use the most fuel will pay accordingly

peasant

AFAIK (no time to look it up now ...) emission based taxation is actually a EU guideline. Most other EU countries tax this way.

I have the suspicion that that will (have to) be introduced here sooner or later anyway.

unkel

cambo_gueno wrote:

From an emissions point of view I don't see any difference between e.g. a BMW X5 4.0 and a BMW 740.

There is! They use the same engine but the X5 emits 20% more CO2 compared to the 7-series, even though the latter is a much bigger car in all dimensions except height...

prospect

unkel wrote:

There is! They use the same engine but the X5 emits 20% more CO2 compared to the 7-series, even though the latter is a much bigger car in all dimensions except height...

The point is the 740 emits far more than a 1.8L Avensis for example.
So lets all start an anti-executive car campaign.

dts

cambo_gueno wrote:

it's simple enough to tax based on emissions - not that much of a change from what we have now.
As for mileage, an increased tax on fuel in place of VRT will ensure that those who drive the most/those who use the most fuel will pay accordingly

The problem is they would increase tax on fuel but still want to get the VRT off you as well.
SUV owners pay through the nose already in road tax compard to a 1.0 small car. Whats the problem?

unkel

prospect wrote:

The point is the 740 emits far more than a 1.8L Avensis for example.
So lets all start an anti-executive car campaign.

That was not cambo_gueno's point. His was factually incorrect. But of course a 740 emits more than a 1.8L Avensis. Though one has to put things into perspective: a 4.4l V8 BMW 740 doing 8k miles per annum emits less than a 1.4l VW Golf doing 13k miles per annum

I feel all car tax should be based on actual pollution (i.e. as a fuel tax), not on the potential to pollute (i.e. VRT / motor tax)

prospect

unkel wrote:

I feel all car tax should be based on actual pollution (i.e. as a fuel tax), not on the potential to pollute (i.e. VRT / motor tax)

I agree 100%

Cmar-Ireland

At no-one in Particular .........

I'm bloody sick of hearing hippie tree-huggers bash SUV's. I wish they would stand back and look at the green option they rant on about, that is public transport. Any bus I have ever seen belches out black smoke like it's going out of fashion! And HGV's are worse.
So maybe theyt should try to ban them!!!!

Anyway, rant mode off and I'm going out the drive my 3.0 diesel SUV

maidhc

Cmar-Ireland wrote:

I'm bloody sick of hearing hippie tree-huggers bash SUV's. I wish they would stand back and look at the green option they rant on about, that is public transport. Any bus I have ever seen belches out black smoke like it's going out of fashion!

Except for that black smoke up to 120 people are being moved (isn't 120 the capacity of the new tri-axle double deckers?). The new buses all are Euro IV compliant anyway AFAIK.

Cmar-Ireland

yes the buses can carry up to 120, but that only happens at rush hour. I reckon all the DD buses in dublin are only carrying a quarter of that 80% of the time. It is good to hear thay are becoming more compliant, but I doubt if they will replace all the buses with new ones.......countrywide!!

What about all the other road users, I'd say SUV make up a small percentage of these emmisions

maidhc

Cmar-Ireland wrote:

What about all the other road users, I'd say SUV make up a small percentage of these emmisions

I think so. The new Rav4 has the same engine and same emissions as the rather smaller Lexus IS250d and Toyota Avensis 2.2D4D.