Debate: Why Single out SUVs: The cars we love to hate

They're big, they're dangerous, they guzzle gas like an alcoholic tips back shots of whiskey, and it's become almost a trend to hate them. Americans call them sports utility vehicles, in Germany it's Geländewagen, Czechs call them terenní (i.e., "all-terrain") vehicles and to the French they're les quatre-quatres (4x4).

But almost all over the world, they are also known as SUVs.

Since SUVs are less fuel-efficient than other modern cars, environmental activists have launched campaigns against them. Friends of the Earth has a special anti-SUV website, Suv.org, which is quite typical of most environmental anti-SUV sites. They point out the vehicles' poor fuel efficiency, safety concerns (2,000 people would still be alive if their vehicles had been hit by a heavy car instead of an SUV, the site says), and call them "roadhogs."

And it's not just environmentalists. Even pro-car websites, such as www.cartalk.com, often come out against the SUV. Arguments vary - some people object to their size, others to the fuel efficiency, and still others seem to object to their status as status symbols.

A recent book, High and Mighty by New York Times reporter Keith Bradsher, claims that SUV drivers tend to be aggressive males, and this news was immediately picked up by anti-SUV people everywhere to claim that SUV drivers "drive like assholes" (as one person vents on his Internet pages).

There is no doubt these cars are a major phenomenon of car culture as well as anti-car culture. But, as Car Busters contributor Stephan von Pohl argues, has this focus on SUVs allowed other car drivers to smugly continue to pollute the air and clog our roads, all the while feeling that they are "environmental" because they drive a normal car? Or is this anti-SUV movement a good thing on its own, because it fulfills a small niche in the larger cause? 

Stephan von Pohl: Why This SUV Obsession?

Several years ago, I first saw a bumper sticker on the rear of an SUV that said simply "I'm Changing the Climate. Ask Me How." At first I thought that car drivers' arrogance had reached new heights, and this one was proudly saying that he didn't care about global warming. There was a website on the sticker, and when I looked it up I discovered that the car had been the victim of a bumper sticker vigilante - someone had placed the sticker on the car in protest of its low fuel efficiency.

I liked the idea. After all, the cars were big and they did pollute a lot. Over time, however, hating SUVs has become almost as big a lifestyle as owning one. Why focus on just one type of car? It allows people who still drive to shun any responsibility they should feel for polluting the air and making our cities unlivable. And while many people doing the stickering are probably carfree, it's not unusual to meet someone with a strong hatred of SUVs who drives a ten-year-old car that probably pollutes just as much. Sure, a Ford Expedition gets 16 miles per gallon, but so does a ten-year-old station wagon - no matter how many "I love the Earth" stickers you put on it.

Anti-SUV arguments tend to fall into three categories. First, some people hate them because they are big. This is a purely emotional response to the SUV drivers perceived arrogance ("roadhog"). Second, there's the safety argument. SUVs make the roads less safe for the rest of us and because of their high centre of gravity, they tend to roll over and are therefore not very safe for their passengers, either.

Then there's the fuel-efficiency. The focus on fuel-efficency and outdated regulations addresses only a small segment of the car industry. Yes, the "SUV loophole" allowing these cars to be treated as trucks should be removed. But all cars should be more fuel-efficient, and even then they cause other problems.

Yes, we can't fight all battles at once. We do what we can. Most of us recycle. We worry about endangered species and care about the ozone layer. But I'm a little worried that many people think that our lives will be much improved by increasing fuel efficiency standards. With more and more cars hitting the roads each year, our air will only get slightly better at the rate we are going.

Unless we start doing something about cars, however, (not just their pollution, but their ever-increasing numbers) the human environment - our towns and cities - will only get worse.

Fuel efficiency or not, a car is a car. They all pollute, even if some pollute more than others. And the fuel efficiency argument overlooks all the other problems associated with car use. If one of them is parked on the sidewalk, cuts me off when I'm on my bike, or comes roaring down my street at twice the speed limit, it doesn't really matter if it's a hybrid, a 4x4, or a compact. What's more, car use promotes car-centred planning, which leads to suburban sprawl, narrow sidewalks, and dispersed communities.

If you're going to sticker one kind of car, you should sticker them all.

- Stephan von Pohl is a Contributing Editor to Car Busters magazine.

Drew Agras: You Have to Pick Your Fight

Activism comes in many shades. Car Busters is trying to make a fundamental change in the way humans live - wow, that's a tall order, but courageous! And some groups (the Sierra Club, for instance), try to protect large parts of our life (e.g., the environment) - wow, another huge, but great cause. On the other end of the spectrum, smaller groups like us act either locally, or on smaller issues. We focus on some of the smaller battles. SUVs in our case.

Is our type of cause too limited? Absolutely not. First, most activist groups are small and are more effective fighting a smaller battle (i.e., local groups who fight to keep public parks in their town, or keep schools from closing, etc.). And any cause is a good cause. The key is to fight for something you believe in, and to make sure you make your voice heard.

But why SUVs?

I don't lend much support to the issue of SUVs being too big, just because you can't see past them... but safety is a big issue. The safety issue is starting to be taken up by the US Congress: .

As for fuel efficiency, of course, all cars pollute. But so do airplanes, lawn mowers, BBQs, chemical plants, dry cleaners, snow mobiles, speed boats, etc. Should we fight everything that pollutes? Why not focus on jet emissions? Or why not look harder at the energy industry and their emissions? For instance, the developed world's huge reliance on coal plants for energy rather than renewables. Perhaps automobile emissions aren't as important as this?

I'm not actually arguing this. My real argu-ment is that we should fight all battles, big and small, all at once.

The point of focusing on SUVs is that the auto industry has taken advantage of outdated regula-tions (which were originally designed to help farm-ers who used light trucks as work vehicles), and the federal government, because of its ties to industry, is unwilling to change this situation.

Because of this, SUVs and other light trucks in the US are allowed to have poorer fuel efficien-cy, which leads to more pollution, greater depen-dence on foreign oil, and all of the associated side effects (health problems, oil industry lobbying and corrupt government, global tensions, and - some might even say - war and terrorism).

You will admit that things would improve somewhat if automobiles did get greater fuel efficiency. Although all cars could be regulated more strictly to both lessen emissions and raise fuel efficiency, the government should start by making SUVs and light trucks adhere to the same rules. Here's a fact: Raising the fuel efficiency standard for light trucks (which includes SUVs) to that of cars (27.5 mpg) would save one million barrels of oil per day. We can do even better. Raising the average for cars to 45 mpg and light trucks to 34 mpg would save three million barrels of oil per day (from the Sierra Club). This is way more oil saved than we would ever get by opening the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration (could save a huge part of the environment here). And it is more oil than we import from Kuwait (some major oil dependence implications here as well).

There are, of course, other benefits to this small piece of legislation, were it to be passed. Emissions would be reduced. This has implications for the environment and people's health. In fact, the benefits here deserve quite a bit more writing.

So, the main point is, should we ignore the possibilities here, and instead focus on a greater cause? Or can't we focus on both causes at once? Because, in the long run, we might lose one of these battles, and it would be better to have fought for both so that we have a better chance at winning at least one. In fact, we should be fighting many battles - the more we fight, the more we'll win.

I whole-heartedly agree that there are too many cars on the road. There is too much traffic, there are too many emissions, there is too much oil being used. If we as a society were to reduce the number of cars being driven though better public transportation and awareness, it would greatly help all of these problems. Don't give up this fight, because it is a very import-ant one. But by the same token, don't give up on our (perhaps smaller) fight, which is to attack the current regulations on fuel efficiency and emissions. Both fights are worth it.

Some people do small parts to help these causes, and some do large parts. Some people, for instance, carpool, some ride bikes, some don't buy furniture made of rare hardwoods, etc. And some take a "grander" approach, for example, by donating money to organisations who fight at the policy level - for instance, to protect rainforests through legislation, or to greatly increase funding in public transport and education, etc. My point, again, is that everything that people do here is important - it would be a shame to tell people who only carpool that they aren't doing enough for their environment, so stop doing it... I think we have to be careful to not discourage people from helping in any way possible.