A new report confirms what we've been saying all along - 4x4s are decidedly more dangerous - to their occupants. The report by Government road safety experts states that 4x4s are unsafe due to their larger weight and higher center of gravity.
Apparently, 4x4s are twice as likely as other cars to roll in collisions with motorway and roadside safety barriers.
Andrew Howard, head of road safety at the AA, said 4x4 drivers are lulled into a false sense of security: "4x4 drivers are not always better off, especially if they hit an object which causes them to overturn."
Hitting the nail even more on the head, The Times reports that 4x4s tended “to be bought for image value and for a perceived sense of safety on the road”. The study said many modern 4x4s had “questionable off-road abilities” and added: “The closest many of them get to an off-road environment is the super-market car park.” The authors concluded that many people bought them to transport children to school because they believed they were more likely to survive unscathed in collisions.
Watch this 5th Gear video showing what happens when a large 4x4 rams a smaller car.
It's no wonder that sales of 4x4s are declining. People are starting to see the reality beyond the hype.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Why the Dust to Dust Report belongs in the Dustbin
We have received a lot of emails lately from disgruntled 4x4 owners and piston heads who have been claiming that their 4x4 is better for the environment than a new hybrid car. Their information, we assume, comes from an article printed last year in a car magazine. We wish to inform them that the “Dust to Dust” report by the Seattle-based marketing company, CNW Marketing Research, is fundamentally flawed. We have consulted friends in the field and they have suggested the following points to support this assertion.
On the face of it, the report appears to be an extensively researched study, all 450+ pages; however it quickly becomes apparent that it provides no evidence whatsoever to back up its assertions. They claim to have nearly 4,000 data points on each of more than 300 models of vehicle. However, none of this data is actually included in the report, and there are no referenced sources, making it impossible to judge the quality of the data used.
Another big problem with the report is its lack of logic. Its main argument is that a fuel-efficient hybrid car (say 45mpg) uses more energy in its lifetime than an inefficient 4x4 (say 22mpg), because, the energy required to manufacture the hybrid outweighs the fuel saved when it is being used. It is valid to say that it takes more energy to manufacture hybrid cars. This is because of the advanced motor and battery technologies used, and the higher energy requirement of materials such as aluminium and lightweight steel.
However, the higher energy use at the manufacturing stage is more than compensated for by the energy saved when the car is being used. Reputable, peer-reviewed studies have concluded that between 10% and 30% of the total CO2 emitted by a car during its life-cycle come from the manufacturing and disposal phase, and at least 70% of CO2 comes through the use phase (i.e. when the car is actually being driven). A list of legitimate life-cycle studies is included below.
Simply put, there is no possible way that a 45mpg car could use more energy than a 22 mpg car provided they both have reasonably similar amounts of use. The only way that CNW could possibly argue that the hybrid uses more energy in its lifetime would be to assume that hybrids drive a lot more miles than less efficient cars. However, bizarrely, in their report CNW actually claim that gas-guzzlers drive more miles than hybrids! (For example, CNW claim that the gas-guzzling Hummer H3 drives 207,000 miles in its lifetime, while the Toyota Prius drives 109,000 miles.)
No reason is given for this assumption over mileage, but there is no technical reason why it should be the case: In California, the Prius hybrid system components are warranted for 150,000 miles. The point however is that if a Hummer H3 were to be driven twice as far as a Prius, then it would use vastly more fuel; far more than enough to overtake any additional energy used in the manufacture of the Prius. Yet CNW still claim that the Prius costs more in energy terms per mile than the Hummer.
The report also makes a fatal mistake by attributing all of the design and development energy costs to the existing range of hybrids. Art Spinella, the author of the report has admitted in an interview that if the study were repeated in 3 years time, the results would be “totally different”.
A quick example illustrates the flawed reasoning used in this report: the energy cost per mile of the Volkswagen Golf is given as $2.70 while that of the Hummer H3 is $1,95. How a car, with no special hardware, greater than twice the fuel economy and less than half the weight of the H3 can consume nearly 40% more energy every mile is not explained.
These are but a few illustrations of where this so-called 'study' is flawed, but the points outlined above are the most notable. The CNW report can be considered in the same category as 'modern research' published to throw doubt into the debate on the science of climate change, and should be treated with extreme scepticism by any well-meaning person.
Here’s a list of credible Automotive Life Cycle Studies:
• A report produced by Transport Research Ltd “Sustainable resource use in the motor industry: a mass balance approach”, 2004, concluded that about 80% of the total CO2 emissions from a car are as a result of its use, and 20% as a result of its manufacture and disposal. The report was produced by Transport Research Ltd under part of a contract by Viridis and is available from TRL publications publications@trl.co.uk.
• Data provided from Toyota’s Environmental and Social Report, 2004, states that 15% of CO2 comes from material manufacturing, 5% from vehicle manufacturing, 75% from use and the final 5% from maintenance and disposal. In 2002 EUCAR ran a project called LIRECAR to study lifecycle emissions of lightweight vehicles with the inclusion of a regular vehicle as a baseline. The average figure was 90% of the emissions produced in the use phase and 10% during production.
• The UK Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, who undertook a literature review and consultation on this issue in 2005, concluded that around 80% of a vehicle’s CO2 emissions come from the usage phase (plus-minus 10%)
• Volkswagen life cycle analysis of a Golf mark 3 suggests that some 70 to 73 per cent of energy is consumed during the use phase, Schweimer and Levin Life cycle inventory for the Golf (2000). This study includes reference to energy to produce the fuel, emphasising the use phase.
• CO2 analysis work by Dr. Ben Lane for Camden Council (2006) on fuels and production emissions suggests higher emissions in fuel production, but similar emissions from vehicle production and use to that outlined by Schweimer and Levin
• A breakdown of the three life cycle phases, based on Lirecar (2004) (5) suggests that five percent of energy is consumed in disposal Life Cycle Assessment of Lightweight and End-of-Life Scenarios for Generic Compact Class Passenger Vehicles Wulf-Peter Schmidt, Elisabeth Dahlqvist, Matthias Finkbeiner, Stephan Krinke, Silvia Lazzari, Dirk Oschmann, Sophie Pichon and Christian Thiel (2004)
• Taking all these studies into account, the SMMT (the UK auto industry trade body) estimated in their most recent sustainability report that for a mid range car, used in the United Kingdom they suggest life cycle and CO2 can be allocated in the following way: Manufacturing 10 per cent; Use 85 per cent; and Disposal 5 per cent.
On the face of it, the report appears to be an extensively researched study, all 450+ pages; however it quickly becomes apparent that it provides no evidence whatsoever to back up its assertions. They claim to have nearly 4,000 data points on each of more than 300 models of vehicle. However, none of this data is actually included in the report, and there are no referenced sources, making it impossible to judge the quality of the data used.
Another big problem with the report is its lack of logic. Its main argument is that a fuel-efficient hybrid car (say 45mpg) uses more energy in its lifetime than an inefficient 4x4 (say 22mpg), because, the energy required to manufacture the hybrid outweighs the fuel saved when it is being used. It is valid to say that it takes more energy to manufacture hybrid cars. This is because of the advanced motor and battery technologies used, and the higher energy requirement of materials such as aluminium and lightweight steel.
However, the higher energy use at the manufacturing stage is more than compensated for by the energy saved when the car is being used. Reputable, peer-reviewed studies have concluded that between 10% and 30% of the total CO2 emitted by a car during its life-cycle come from the manufacturing and disposal phase, and at least 70% of CO2 comes through the use phase (i.e. when the car is actually being driven). A list of legitimate life-cycle studies is included below.
Simply put, there is no possible way that a 45mpg car could use more energy than a 22 mpg car provided they both have reasonably similar amounts of use. The only way that CNW could possibly argue that the hybrid uses more energy in its lifetime would be to assume that hybrids drive a lot more miles than less efficient cars. However, bizarrely, in their report CNW actually claim that gas-guzzlers drive more miles than hybrids! (For example, CNW claim that the gas-guzzling Hummer H3 drives 207,000 miles in its lifetime, while the Toyota Prius drives 109,000 miles.)
No reason is given for this assumption over mileage, but there is no technical reason why it should be the case: In California, the Prius hybrid system components are warranted for 150,000 miles. The point however is that if a Hummer H3 were to be driven twice as far as a Prius, then it would use vastly more fuel; far more than enough to overtake any additional energy used in the manufacture of the Prius. Yet CNW still claim that the Prius costs more in energy terms per mile than the Hummer.
The report also makes a fatal mistake by attributing all of the design and development energy costs to the existing range of hybrids. Art Spinella, the author of the report has admitted in an interview that if the study were repeated in 3 years time, the results would be “totally different”.
A quick example illustrates the flawed reasoning used in this report: the energy cost per mile of the Volkswagen Golf is given as $2.70 while that of the Hummer H3 is $1,95. How a car, with no special hardware, greater than twice the fuel economy and less than half the weight of the H3 can consume nearly 40% more energy every mile is not explained.
These are but a few illustrations of where this so-called 'study' is flawed, but the points outlined above are the most notable. The CNW report can be considered in the same category as 'modern research' published to throw doubt into the debate on the science of climate change, and should be treated with extreme scepticism by any well-meaning person.
Here’s a list of credible Automotive Life Cycle Studies:
• A report produced by Transport Research Ltd “Sustainable resource use in the motor industry: a mass balance approach”, 2004, concluded that about 80% of the total CO2 emissions from a car are as a result of its use, and 20% as a result of its manufacture and disposal. The report was produced by Transport Research Ltd under part of a contract by Viridis and is available from TRL publications publications@trl.co.uk.
• Data provided from Toyota’s Environmental and Social Report, 2004, states that 15% of CO2 comes from material manufacturing, 5% from vehicle manufacturing, 75% from use and the final 5% from maintenance and disposal. In 2002 EUCAR ran a project called LIRECAR to study lifecycle emissions of lightweight vehicles with the inclusion of a regular vehicle as a baseline. The average figure was 90% of the emissions produced in the use phase and 10% during production.
• The UK Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, who undertook a literature review and consultation on this issue in 2005, concluded that around 80% of a vehicle’s CO2 emissions come from the usage phase (plus-minus 10%)
• Volkswagen life cycle analysis of a Golf mark 3 suggests that some 70 to 73 per cent of energy is consumed during the use phase, Schweimer and Levin Life cycle inventory for the Golf (2000). This study includes reference to energy to produce the fuel, emphasising the use phase.
• CO2 analysis work by Dr. Ben Lane for Camden Council (2006) on fuels and production emissions suggests higher emissions in fuel production, but similar emissions from vehicle production and use to that outlined by Schweimer and Levin
• A breakdown of the three life cycle phases, based on Lirecar (2004) (5) suggests that five percent of energy is consumed in disposal Life Cycle Assessment of Lightweight and End-of-Life Scenarios for Generic Compact Class Passenger Vehicles Wulf-Peter Schmidt, Elisabeth Dahlqvist, Matthias Finkbeiner, Stephan Krinke, Silvia Lazzari, Dirk Oschmann, Sophie Pichon and Christian Thiel (2004)
• Taking all these studies into account, the SMMT (the UK auto industry trade body) estimated in their most recent sustainability report that for a mid range car, used in the United Kingdom they suggest life cycle and CO2 can be allocated in the following way: Manufacturing 10 per cent; Use 85 per cent; and Disposal 5 per cent.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
It's the Economy, Stupid
Late last year we organised an international network of anti-4x4 groups across Europe and the US. Our french colleagues at Agir pour l'Environnement recently pulled off a media stunt to reveal the inconsistency of Fiat, who have decided to launch a new 4x4 that will emit 250 gm CO2 / km in urban areas. This is a tragedy, because Fiat have so far been one of the rare few manufacturers to keep to their EU emissions targets, according to the T&E report last year; the Italian maker's average emissions levels were currently on target at 140 gm.Fiat isn't alone. Renault joined the 4x4 bandwagon late last year. The reason? Well, according to the industry, consumers simply aren't buying enough small and efficient cars; consumers want larger and more powerful cars. As a consequence, the manufacturers' hands are tied to advertise and sell large 4x4s. Cynical, isn't it?
Meanwhile the Earth is heating up and government ministers and industry executives act as if the Stern report was never published. While the EU environmental commisioner Stavros Dimas wants to set binding emissions regulations for the industry, the chiefs at BMW, DaimerChrysler, Ford, Opel and Volswagen have strogngly urged the commision to withdraw plans to make manufacturers reduce CO2 emissions of new cars sold in the EU to an average of 120 gm/km in 2012. Why? According to the Wall Street Journal, 'One out of seven jobs in Europe's largest economy depends on the auto industry. German manufacturers -- including DaimlerChrysler's Mercedes unit, BMW AG, Porsche AG, and Volkswagen AG's Audi brand -- are particularly vulnerable because their lines are thick with vehicles that have heavy engines and churn out relatively high CO2 levels.' In other words, it's the economy, stupid.
So, while we need to do everything we can to prevent climate change, we mustn't do anything that upsets the economy. Or really, we mustn't do anything to upset the status quo.
We look forward to seeing if the EU has any conscience to withstand the industry's resistance to change.
Clementine Florence Cope, 10 lbs 9 oz
Sarah, one of the founders of the Alliance, gave birth last week to Clementine Florence Cope. Clementine has sent us an exclusive story."Born last Wednesday in
Mummy told me how dirty and dangerous 4x4s are. I wondered what positive step I could take. A quick internet search took me to the website for the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s. I swiftly bought an organic t-shirt, and stickers with which to decorate my pushchair. (NB. zero emissions! carbon neutral!).
My advice to babies everywhere is that it is us who will suffer in the future because of selfish people driving 4x4s today. Take action now! And if your parents drive a 4x4, create a stink. Literally. Poo yourself dramatically, puke all over the luxury upholstery, and scream until you make their ears bleed. We babies must stand – well, sprawl – against horrible 4x4s!"
We look forward to continuing reports from Clementine Florence Cope.
Kids Against 4x4s
Well, this must be 'Kids against 4x4s' week.Our friend Ben has sent us a photo of Edward sporting one of our 100% natural organic T-shirts. The shirts are totally ethically made for us by Sandbag, who produce clothing for the band Radiohead.
It's fitting that kids should wear our T shirts. After all, it's them who stand to suffer the most from 4x4s. The CO2 emissions that are directly contributing to climate change are on a whole twice as high from luxury 4x4s compared with most average cars and the NOx emissions from the large diesel engines are directly linked to inducing asthma. And we know that the unique height, shape and weight of 4x4s make them more dangerous to children in a collision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)