This shows just how far we need to go in terms of promoting a fact based discussion of
#ClimateAction
- SUVs not required to carry more than 5 passengers
- SUVs are heavier, less fuel efficient & more damaging to climate
- SUVs more dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists.
I see that a certain academic has called for “SUV’s” (sic) to be “taxed out of existence”. Perhaps their wish is for people with larger families (like mine) to take two cars when they need to go somewhere. How environmentally sensible!
115
40
643
6
26
140
Replies
@SadhbhO
Families were larger in the 70s and 80s and for the life of me I don't recall SUVs.
A Range Rover was an oddity, usually owned by a farmer.
I really don't know how we managed.
1
0
4
@SadhbhO
The distinction between people carriers with 7 seats and SUVs really needs to be spelled out, both in the discussion and in the government's response. If you have 4 kids then a people carrier is essential, an SUV its a choice, preferably with tax consequences.
#JustTransition
2
0
0
@SadhbhO
Most SUVs have to go. They are absurd for urban transport. We need a proper public transport system, free for commuters and students. Big families that need a car can get a minibus.
But this arguement about SUVs is a distraction.
We need radical change of lifestyle
1
0
2
@SadhbhO
Applying such a tax to 5 seater SUVs would do the trick without hitting those that have larger families which are a small percentage of them anyway. The larger family line would be used by all SUV owners as an excuse to scupper the idea. Take that ammo away.
0
0
0
@SadhbhO
To buy an SUV;
- Proof of 4 kids at least.
- their Sports Club Membership cards.
- Golf Club membership. Both parents.
- Absence of 'Notions' by both parents.
- Both parents must be at least 6ft tall.
(no Napoleon Complexes permitted)
Further conditions to come...
0
0
0