SUVs as Cliché
by Ron Dembo, Zerofootprint on 03.22.07
In my last entry I took a page from the Weather Makers, and cited Tim Flannery’s observation that one of the obstacles to decisive action on climate change is that the whole idea of global warming has become a cliché even before it has been understood.
My example of a cliché was the Kyoto protocol, which people talk about without really paying attention to. Kyoto is largely just a symbol of our feelings about global warming, rather than an indication that we’re doing anything about them.
Here’s another one: the contemporary battle between good and evil, with the hybrid cast as the hero and the SUV as the villain.
Please don’t get me wrong. I love hybrids. I drive one. If I could magically transform every Suburban into a Prius, I would.
But here’s the thing. If we’re going to act decisively, we’re going to need to do the smartest, cheapest things first, the things that deliver the deepest greenhouse gas cuts for the buck. And hybrids don’t fit the bill.
Let’s put it this way. If we traded in a million Toyota Highlanders for hybrid Toyota Highlanders, how much CO2 would we save? A conventional Highlander gets 21 mpg. A hybrid model gets 28. Driven for a year for an average distance of 16,000 kilometres, the switch to hybrid technology would save us 1.2 million tonnes of CO2 a year.
Not bad. But let’s look at another option. Let’s say we switch a million homes with natural gas HVAC systems to geothermal energy. Based on a standard annual consumption, the million geothermal homes would save 4.7 million tonnes of CO2.
In fairness, I haven’t given the numbers for the classic Prius-SUV battle. But neither have I compared geothermal to the real energy hog: electric heating and air conditioning—which sucks so much power that urban electrical grids teeter on the edge of collapse on summer afternoons. Turning a million Highlanders into Priuses would save us 2.9 million tonnes of CO2. Switching a million homes with electric heating and cooling would save 7.2 million.
So much for the emissions savings. How about the financial implications? Well, the geothermal wins here too. A hybrid Highlander is going to save you about 120 gallons of gas a year. At $2.30 a gallon, that’s $276 in savings.
A geothermal system is going to save you 2500 cubic metres of natural gas. At $0.36 per cubic metre, that’s an annual savings of $900. Of course, the geothermal system will increase electricity demand by about a third, so we’ll subtract $200.
Now, let’s say that the difference between the cost of owning a hybrid Highlander for five years is about $10,000 more than the cost of owning a conventionally powered model ($52,544 compared to $42,023). And let’s assume that the cost difference between a geothermal system and a high-efficiency natural gas system is also about $10,000 ($15,000 compared to $5,000).
At this rate, the Highlander will pay itself off in 36 years.
The geothermal system will pay itself off in 14.
Now, let’s factor in the fact that as fuel prices rise, the geothermal system gets even more cost effective. And let’s remember that the numbers above cover the costs of the SUV for only five years. It will keep getting more expensive as it ages, or as it gets replaced. Meanwhile the geothermal system gets cheaper.
Then let’s remember that the added complexity of the hybrid will also show up as higher levels of embodied CO2.
Needless to say, I’d love it if every house had a geothermal system under the driveway, and a hybrid car (or electric car) parked out front.
But if we’re going to do the most efficient things first, then let’s start where the green option is cheaper than not only the other green option, but the conventional option as well. Then the savings can fund the next step.
You can take your savings from your geothermal system to make a down-payment on your Prius.
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- On Climate Change, Africa Votes As One Country And One Continent
- Natural Disasters: The Effects of Climate Change
- Global Warming Opens Northwest Passage
- Will the Next New Deal be Transit-Based? Three Plans to Rescue the Economy and the Earth with Public Transportation
...of course, this conveniently forgets that even 28 mpg is desperately, criminally poor mpg. There were cars able to do 80 mpg in the eighties but dumbos continue to buy killing machines.
Any way to do the same comparison for Solar Thermal hot water systems?
From what I know of them, my gut says that these have the fastest ROI and sizable C02 impact depending on fuel source: gas, oil, electric.
I ask this because implementing solar thermal on a wide scale for both new construction and existing is infinitely easier/cheaper than geothermal.
Remember, I'm talking solar thermal, not solar electric (PV).
I like this approach of looking at overall impact and payback of big decisions. It would be interesting to look at this even more broadly. For example, it's one thing to say you should start small by changing light bulbs and taking shorter showers. However, if I have an extra $10K (or whatever) that I want to spend to "make a difference", what are my options? Buy a hybrid, put in geothermal, get a solar hot water system, put in low-e triple pane windows, etc. I'd love to see major alternatives with payback calculations and other considerations.
I think the author overlooks several things:
The easiest and cheapest way to reduce CO2 emmsion reduction is energy saving: insulate your house, drive a smaller car, buy an efficient washing machine and refrigerator etc. This is the low hanging fruit that can be easily picked, is very cost effective, but is still largely ignored.
But at the same time it is important to realise that in the future the low hanging fruit will be picked and there will a need to reduce CO2 emmisions even more. Than we will need the technology that is currently not the most cost-effective, like bybrids, solar cells etc.
A lot of people will say: ok let's do more research. But experience has learned that research is only less than one half of technology development. The largest part of technology development is done by building stuff, selling it, getting costumer feedback, fine tuning production techniques etc.
The pioneers bying and using new technology long before they are cost-effective, are just as important for technology development as scientists in luniversity aboratories and engineers at big componies.
So I say: Hurray for all the hybrid drivers!
That's why I don't advocate for subsidies for certain green industries. By putting a cap on carbon emissions, you eliminate the lowest hanging fruit first. Additionally, since you can trade carbon credits, the lowest hanging fruit in the whole economy (and not just for one individual) would be eliminated first. This is why subsidies for certain technologies is wrong and actual detrimental to our movement (see ethanol).
I don't care what anybody says, this post outlines the problem with most environmental movements. They focus attention to the wrong areas.
Even if you could get every moron that drives an SUV when a compact car would be fine, to switch (which will never completely happen, EVER) the savings are not as high as you get with switching out efficient bulbs, efficient home equipment (washers, dryers, etc), and the list goes on.
Plus for whatever stupid reason people feel more comfortable with their SUV and do not want to leave it for anything. But show them a cool new efficient washer and dryer, and they jump right on it. There really isn't a comfort zone for home equipment like washers and dryers, when compared to cars.
Great article! I hope that those that support environmental movements take away something positive from this post!
Vehicles are a bit of a special case, though, because they are (or can be) public declarations of self in a way that light bulbs and air conditioners can never be. You don't have to point out what "good you are doing" in a Prius the way you must if you want to explain how much energy your new washer saves.
Because of this, an SUV driver who gets that washer, builds geothermal into the new place, and forks out big bucks for LEDs, still comes off looking like a big d*ck in the public eye.
By selling the anti-SUV argument as a case against the uncouth or gawdy (because green is sexy, right?), you can get people thinking in the right direction. Once they have an mpg meter on their dashboard, and they start thinking about how much fuel they were wasting all those years, and for nothing, you'll see a snowball effect as they start to drive less, consolidate trips, and move into these other areas of energy conservation.
i think the author makes good points, and people should make other changes besided their cars, but i don't think the suv thing is cliche. cars are for many, an outlet of self expression, and have power as symbols to impact mass consciousness. the human brain recognizes cars with the same area it uses to recognize human faces. driving a small car promotes conservation and responsibility to all the people who see it in it's travels. i think there's more to it than the numbers say. i don't think it's an accident that in wartime we got a whole crop of belligerant and militarily styled american cars.
i think the author makes good points, and people should make other changes besided their cars, but i don't think the suv thing is cliche. cars are for many, an outlet of self expression, and have power as symbols to impact mass consciousness. the human brain recognizes cars with the same area it uses to recognize human faces. driving a small car promotes conservation and responsibility to all the people who see it in it's travels. i think there's more to it than the numbers say. i don't think it's an accident that in wartime we got a whole crop of belligerant and militarily styled american cars.
Anything can be a symbol. I find my self, when I am walking my dog at night, noticing who has CFL porch lights and who doesn't.
And energy efficient front loading washers tend to look nicer and sexier than top loading ones.
My theory, stop advertising prias's as using less. SUV's have a "Look at me, I can afford to spend more money on gas then you sedan drivers." In todays culture, the more you consume, the higher your rank.
Good points made by the author. I have a family of 7. We eat organic locally or homegrown food. We wear organic clothing or 2nd hand. We use led lights, the temp in our mountain home is set at 66F to limit natural gas emissions, any new appliances we have bought are energy efficient but we are big bad SUV drivers. We drive a Toyota Sequoia!! Yikes. No way can we afford a Hybrid that fits all 7. Instead we bike. Everyone has a bike and or rides in a child seat or trailer. If the trip is less than 10 miles the 6 year can make it on a bike.
It all adds up what you are doing to conserve. People just need to be more thankful that more and more people are trying to do it. Don't become a green snob because they can't do as much as you.
Good points everyone has made. I think one of the problems holding back fuel efficiency are the ever increasing crash regulations. Before the late 90's cars could be a lot smaller and lighter and still meet crash regulations. Today with all the giant SUV's on the road, cars have to be built like tanks to withstand impacts from various road going vehicles. I'd like to see cars become more as a method of transportation than anything else. Give me a small car with decent performance, good mileage, pedals, a seat, a steering wheel, and some storage space. Oh and sell it in North America, for under $15,000.
You never get the 28mpg quoted; C+D says its more like 24. Same for the new hybrid Altima. The EPA calculations are dumb and unrealistic; unfortunately the government requires them to be used.