this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
241 points (91.4% liked)

Degrowth

785 readers
12 users here now

Discussions about degrowth and all sorts of related topics. This includes UBI, economic democracy, the economics of green technologies, enviromental legislation and many more intressting economic topics.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

This is just insane. Not only are cars themself mostly unnecessary, if the right infrastructure is provided, but SUVs also use more resources to run and be produced then small cars, without any advantage over them. So an obvious waste, which could easily be cut to reduce emissions.

Source IEA: https://www.iea.org/commentaries/suvs-are-setting-new-sales-records-each-year-and-so-are-their-emissions

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] brianary@startrek.website 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You are attempting to refute data with an anecdote. The assertion isn't that no SUV is useful, it's that they are disproportionately wasteful for their level of popularity.

[–] toasteecup@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

without any advantage over them

This is a direct quote. Taken at face value, this sentence is saying "everything cars can do, SUVs can also do but SUVs are limited to exactly those capabilities and nothing else." If we take a logical step, it's reasonable to go from the quote and it's breakdown to "SUVs have no real use" because they merely duplicate the capabilities of a car and having a redundant yet unique style of vehicle with no advantages of it's own makes it pretty not useful.

This is the longer quote

SUVs also use more resources to run and be produced then small cars, without any advantage over them.

How are you getting from

without any advantage over them

to

assertion isn’t that no SUV is useful

? Cause I see nothing that directly supports that claim and implication + the internet is a pretty bad combo given the general lack of subtlety of blank text on a screen.

Edit:

You are attempting to refute data with an anecdote

I reread this, yes I'm using personal experience to refute a point. I won't deny that, but neither will I deny the validity of this statement. "I was hauling gear that was simply too much for a sedan to handle. I own and haul a Pelican 1660 which is measured at 31.59 x 22.99 x 19.48 in (80.2 x 58.4 x 49.5 cm). That thing wasn't fitting in a honda civic's backdoor, let alone safely into the backseat. Then add a folding table 2 plastic tote boxes and my stagelighting bag? No way.

[–] brianary@startrek.website 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

While the "without any advantage over them" is an exaggeration, the point is that SUVs are using a disproportionate amount of resources. A fraction of SUV drivers routinely use them for the unique situation you describe, or for any jobs that a car couldn't do. I don't begrudge anyone using the right tool for a job, though rental often would work for infrequent exceptional needs. But the OP is an important point about wastefulness, and focusing on minor semantics or individual use cases is a distraction.

[–] toasteecup@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You're making an assumption that it's an exaggeration. I actually touched on this earlier but we're on the Internet and unless someone goes to lengths to make it clear they are exaggerating or being sarcastic or whatever, that kind of stuff does not convey.

Example, I fucking hate all ice cream.

Am I exaggerating or do I actually hate all ice cream?

[–] brianary@startrek.website 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Intentional or not, it's an exaggeration. Only a sith deals in absolutes!

[–] toasteecup@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Whole lotta sith out there in the Internet. Oh well this has been fun, have a good one