Ireland had the largest increase in greenhouse gas emissions in the EU last year according to a report from EU statistics agency, Eurostat.
The report states that emissions surged by 12.3% in the final quarter of 2022 versus the same period in 2021.
Ireland was one of only four EU countries where emissions increased.
This week, Labour Party leader Ivana Bacik TD called for a series of measures to be introduced to curb this increase including a punitive tax on sports utility vehicles (SUVs).
"Like the measure introduced in France, a punitive tax on gas guzzling SUVs could be transformational in terms of our carbon emissions. Four out of the top five cars sold in Ireland last year were SUVs – that is a worrying trend that needs to be reversed," Bacik said.
As part of The Conversation from RTÉ's Upfront with Katie Hannon, we asked two people to join our WhatsApp group to discuss the sale of SUVs and whether a radical measure such as a ban should be considered.
Conor Faughnan is a transport consultant and commentator.
Tom Spencer is the editor of IrishEVs.com.
Conor Faughnan: Would an SUV ban or extra tax be a good thing?
Well for starters, 'SUV' is not a properly defined term. It originally meant ‘Sports Utility Vehicle’ and that implied that it was rugged, off-road capable and Jeep-shaped.
It doesn’t mean that anymore. It has influenced car design so much that it now refers to body shape. There are SUVs, cross-over SUVs and a load of other variants. What they have in common is a high-mounted driver’s position (which a lot of people like), a shape reminiscent of a Jeep design and a tendency to be physically large.
If you want to ban or tax something you have to be clear on what it is, you are targeting. You can’t just declare a tax on ‘that sort of thing.’
What is the purpose here? Is it to tax big cars, and if so, why?
Tom Spencer: Those in favour of SUVs often default to the lack of definition around them – with the amount of variations with crossovers, mid-size, etc. However, all these cars that come under the umbrella of ‘SUV’ have the same common issue of high emissions & high impact on road safety.
I’m of the belief that SUVs should be banned in Ireland, and elsewhere, based specifically on the excessive impact that they have on worsening both the climate crisis and road safety.
SUVs have been heavily promoted by car manufacturers, who have also reduced the number of non-SUV models on sale, forcing more people to purchase excessively large vehicles that have excessive energy usage, excessive emissions and excessive safety implications.
The reason I think we should ban them rather than tax them is because many people have been misled into purchasing them without understanding the climate and safety repercussions.
Taxing them would penalise the individual, while banning them would place the burden for change on the manufacturers that have knowingly promoted them despite these clear climate and societal impacts.
Conor Faughnan: I see a few problems here.
Firstly, we should be honest and say that this particular debate has nothing to do with climate. In the lifetime of any such policy, virtually all of the cars in question will be fully electric. The rapid pace of the technology is such that they will all be zero-emission vehicles.
This is something else. Larger cars obviously take up more space. They are hard to see around, they feel as if they make congestion worse and the urban landscape less pleasant. In many cases it's plain that they do not need to be that big.
It is a very fair point to say that a lot of domestic or principally domestically used cars these days are far too big. Big, clunky, awkward, over-engineered, annoying, dangerous, needlessly obtrusive. The very sight of them is annoying so why can’t we put a stop to them?
I think that is a perfectly reasonable point of view and the basis for a debate, but it is wrong to bring the climate into it. That is falsely borrowing the legitimacy and urgency of the climate conversation and using it to police what is essentially a matter of taste and preference (or safety, or congestion if you wish. But not climate).
There’s also some stereotyping here. Lots of people have a genuine need for a larger car for all sorts of reasons.
I do agree that manufacturers can do a great deal more. No good reason why ‘big is beautiful’ seems to be the design fashion at the moment and it suits them to offer us needlessly large and needlessly expensive vehicles.
Tom Spencer: There is an absolute and direct correlation between the rapid rise of SUV use and the climate crisis. According to the International Energy Agency*, SUVs consume around 20% more oil than an average, medium-size non-SUV.
[*Editor’s note: As their sales continue to rise, SUVs’ global CO2 emissions are nearing 1 billion tonnes].
The combustion-related CO2 emissions of SUVs increased by nearly 70 million tonnes in 2022 – with 330 million SUVs on the road today emitting nearly one billion tonnes of CO2 annually.
In fact, SUVs were the second largest contributor to the increase in global CO2 emissions between 2010-2018 – more than heavy industry, aviation and shipping.
If SUV drivers were a single nation, they would rank as the seventh biggest greenhouse gas emitter on Earth.
Furthermore, for every five SUVs sold, they cancel out the emissions benefits of one EV. They are locking in emissions for the next few decades at a time when we urgently need to cut greenhouse gas emissions in line with the IPCC AR6 report and the Paris Agreement.
The data is clear: we simply cannot hit our emissions targets and have vehicles with this level of excess consumption and emissions.
That’s not to mention the horrific impact that they have on road safety – which I think we should also discuss as a very pertinent topic.
Conor Faughnan: Once again Tom, saying that these cars ‘all come under the umbrella of SUV’ may be a good enough definition for you but it is not a legal definition. When you say SUV what do you specifically mean? Too big? Wrong shape? High emissions?
All cars have a carbon cost in their manufacture, and it is significant. The challenge is so large because virtually all human activity across the global economy has a major cost in carbon. The decision to place what to me seems like disproportionate focus on private car use is unhelpful.
I do agree that current cars are too big and that this should be challenged. The car industry is huge and can choose where to deploy its enormous capital into R&D.
At the moment they are backing electric because they are being pushed to do so, especially by the EU.
We know they can achieve great things when they are forced to and when they’re watched like a hawk.
But back here in Ireland, I would say again, that you are unfairly attaching the climate issue to something that relates much more to personal taste.
Tom Spencer: To say that this is a disproportionate focus on private car use once again ignores the readily available data that we have.
Transport accounts for 20% of all greenhouse gas emissions in Ireland*, with cars accounting for the majority of this.
[*Editor’s note: Data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)].
We see this trend internationally, which is highlighted in UN data, which shows that 70% of global transport emissions come from road vehicles.
Putting faith in the same car companies that lied to the public about diesel gate* and who are using emissions pooling to escape scrutiny, or thinking that EVs will fix everything just doesn’t cut it.
[*Editor’s note: Diesel gate refers to the Volkswagen emissions scandal].
Electric SUVs also overly consume energy – you’re replicating the same problem in another form. This isn’t in line with a just climate transition.
I think it's pretty shocking to engage in this level of climate denial when the data is so clear.
This isn’t personal taste, it is a clear understanding of the severity of the climate crisis, and a need for a just climate transition that considers Ireland’s sky-high emissions, especially in the context of the Global South.
Perhaps, then, we might talk about the fact that SUVs are twice as likely to kill pedestrians and cyclists than smaller, more traditional cars. Or that they are much more likely to harm their own occupants, especially through roll-overs than traditional cars.
Conor Faughnan: All modern cars are better than they were ten or 15 years ago in terms of passenger safety (driver warnings, automatic braking, pedestrian-avoidance radar etc; brilliant stuff).
Levels of road death across the developed world are way down. The US is a major exception, having not made the same progress as other wealthy countries.
Here in Ireland, is a new SUV a more dangerous vehicle on the road and a bigger threat to other road users than a conventionally shaped car? Well maybe, at a stretch. I’m not aware of Irish data supporting that but it certainly makes intuitive sense.
There is also a point that the higher driving position (which incidentally is what people who go for these cars like most about them) helps driver visibility but even so I take the view that the big is beautiful mindset of car companies at the moment is not good for road safety.
I’ve spent 30 years lobbying on road safety and I am very proud of what was achieved; road deaths are down by two-thirds in that period of time.
Even so we still live in a world where all human activity brings with it some form of risk. Modern cars of all shapes are much better than they were before which is great, but we have not yet achieved Vision Zero* which is the goal. Personally I think we will achieve zero emissions before we achieve zero road deaths.
[*Editor’s note: Vision Zero is a strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while increasing safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all].
I agree with you for sure when you reference things like diesel-gate (a breath-taking piece of corporate dishonesty, I’d encourage readers to look it up). Manufacturers can do the right thing but only if they are forced to and watched.
Tom Spencer: A ban on SUVs places the onus for change on manufacturers rather than individuals. Done right, it would take into account those that might have particular accessibility needs and offer exceptions.
However, it is clear that pedestrian deaths from SUVs rose 81%* between 2009-2018, while SUV drivers themselves are 11% more likely to die than they would be if they were driving an average saloon. The idea of SUVs being sold on safety grounds is a paradox.
[*Editor’s note: This is US data from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety].
The very shape and design of SUVs means that they are more likely to cause fatal damage to vital organs and drag a person underneath a car compared to traditional shaped cars.
The idea that modern cars emit fewer emissions than they did a decade ago also overlooks the growing population of cars in Ireland. The number of cars here rose 179% between 1985 to 2022 – from 960k to 2.7 million.* This increase in car population has caused transport emissions to increase from 10% of total national emissions in 1990 to over 20% today.
[*Editor’s note: Data from the Central Statistics Office (CSO)].
It is also clear that the 60 tonnes of CO2 that popular SUV models will emit over their lifetime is above the carbon fair share needed to stay below the vital 1.5C target. Their use perpetuates not only the climate crisis but the 1,300 deaths in Ireland each year from air pollution – while their heavy weight also exacerbates microplastic pollution in everything from rivers and oceans, to animals, plants and our human bodies.
This is a question not only about the future that we want to see, but also whether we want a liveable future at all. The impact of SUVs on the climate crisis is clear and categorical
Conor Faughnan: At the end Tom I still don’t know exactly what it is you propose to ban and I’d repeat that simply saying SUV doesn’t cut it. It’s a marketing term. It would be like banning sports cars.
I can’t accept your link between SUVs and climate change. As I said we will soon be talking about them all being zero emission.
If you start with a desire to ban cars and then look for support, then you can use the climate argument like a series of Russian dolls. If all cars were zero emission tomorrow you could pivot immediately to the carbon cost of manufacture, or of lithium.
You’ll never run out of a passionate climate-based objection. You can do precisely the same for aviation or agriculture, or electricity generation or pretty much any human activity.
You cannot always invoke climate as a moral trump card to deploy in every argument.
In this case I think an honest assessment would agree that the dislike of SUVs is not about carbon or climate. It's about car culture, already intensely disliked writ large. Properly conscientious people should hate all cars yet they embrace big ones in droves so something must be wrong. Do they not know there is a crisis?
That is a view you could legitimately hold, and it is a fair point. I agree that cars are too big. Maybe they should pay for that privilege.
But you cannot fairly begin with your conclusion – ban them – and then pull in every argument you can think of from road safety to lithium mining to back that up.
It looks and feels like an unfair argument, led by essentially a type of moral snobbery and selectively picking on a target that you simply don’t like. People may struggle to precisely define an argument framed like that, but they will recognise one when they see one. Much like an SUV.
Tom Spencer: Throughout this conversation you have continually ascribed opinions to me that are not my own. I don't hold the view 'that cars are too big' or they should 'pay for that privilege.'
I have been clear in using clear data from independent sources to demonstrate the clear correlation between SUVs and the climate crisis - and the clear impact that they have on worsening road safety.
I think that is an important distinction to make
Conor Faughnan: Tom, a pleasure and happy to chat any time on or offline.
Tom Spencer: Thanks Conor, you too.
Read last week's edition of The Conversation, where we asked if nightclubs should be allowed to open until 6am, here.
