SUVs Targeted Again

There is a new commercial campaign aiming to remind young drivers that SUVs are more difficult to handle than cars and thus more dangerous. The commercial stars a CGI creation called "esuvee" that looks like one of those Star Wars creatures ridden by the Sand People. All in all, the commercial looks pretty lame and I can't imagine it making a dent (no pun intended) in the driving habits of young testosterone laden males. But I digress...

Although this commercial differs because it is safety/driving related, it does remind me of how much I want to comment about the anti-SUV backlash. This is a meme which has become pervasive. SUV driving is routinely associated with social and environmentally irresponsibility. Not too mention the assertions by Arianna Huffington and the like that driving SUVs supports terrorism. I will now deconstruct this meme in four parts:

First let's address the exaggerated notion that SUVs are responsible for depleting a large share of oil resources. But some facts: Personal Transportation only accounts for about 34 percent of all petroleum use and about 13 percent of all energy use. The other two-thirds petroleum use is industry (plastics, fibers, heating, etc.) and commercial transportation (planes, trains, ships, etc.). All told, only 6 percent of total U.S. petroleum use can be attributed to SUV driving. Cars and other light trucks (pickups, vans) utilize 16 percent of total U.S. petroleum by comparison. Obviously, there are more cars than SUVs, but still; if you factor in the actual average mileage difference (using CAFE numbers) then even if all those SUVs were traded in for cars, the savings in petroleum use would only amount to about 1.5 percent (and less than 1 percent of all energy use). Statistically significant, but hardly the death knell of our environment and democracy. Also note that similar attacks on pickup trucks, large sedans, performance cars and older cars are much rarer, even though those classes of vehicles have equivalent fuel economy numbers as SUVs. [Note: all numbers derived from this Cato institute article.]

Secondly, let's discuss usage. All things being equal, SUVs do consume more energy resources and produce more pollutants than smaller cars. However, it is unfair to single out driving SUVs as irresponsible when one can make similar value judgments about other activities that affect energy usage. For example: Are people who drive to the movie theater less moral than those who watch Pay Per View? In America, we are free to make consumer choices; these choices drive our economy and ultimately our quality of life. Other things are consumer choices as well. Why not vilify those who have long commutes to work? Shouldn't these people in the interest of the environment and national security be morally compelled to move? In a country where liberty is sacred, what makes one person's neighborhood choice more important than another's vehicle choice? I could argue that a high percentage of SUV's are owned by families with young children who tend to stay home on weekend nights, while young adults in cars drive all over town bar hopping. Who is more responsible by the logic of the anti-SUV activists in this admittedly contrived scenario? Brown baggers vs. those who go out to lunch? Long distance (across town) couples? Vacation takers? Boaters vs. non-boaters? Poor people driving older cars? If blame is to be assigned, let's be fair and target everyone. It is disingenuous to do otherwise.

Thirdly, if the real problem is limiting dependence on foreign oil, then let's simply reduce the amount that we buy. That would raise the price of gasoline drastically, to about the level paid in Europe and elsewhere. The result is that the market would simply respond appropriately. People would buy more fuel efficient vehicles by economic choice, not by coercion. That the beauty of free markets. Problem solved. Those who chose to afford the higher cost of operating SUVs would still buy them. Such a market would also compel auto manufacturers to invest more in developing highly fuel efficient vehicles. As long as gasoline remains relatively cheap the incentive to do so is not as great. Getting the government to include SUVs in its car class CAFE standards would also solve much of the problem (though perhaps introducing others). At bottom this is a political issue, not an ethical one.

Finally, the argument that buying gasoline makes one responsible for the illegal actions of someone else many, many transactions removed from that perfectly legal and necessary purchase is specious at best. I do not have the time and space to peform a full philosophical critique, but it's obvious that we all use energy in countless way, so that would make us all guilty (though again, that line of reasoning is highly faulty). I do not see a constructive purpose in assigning degrees of guilt. We could all increase the frequency at which we walk or ride bikes, so why pick on the SUV? It is not fair or justified. If SUVs never existed I believe that terrorists would be just as well financed as they are today. Those financiers who share their ideology would simply dig a few imperceptible percentage points deeper into their family fortunes, which have been amassing for over half a century.

We all should be conscious about our environmental footprint, one should not go out and buy a gas guzzler for the hell of it. But consumer decisions are complex and SUV bashing is a simplistic and misguided meme too readily adopted by those putting ideology ahead of sound reasoning. The good news is that Hybrid technology is finding its way into SUVs, so maybe this somewhat artificial vilification will fade.

[Disclaimer: I own a V6 Toyota 4Runner. Hey, but I frequently carpool with my wife to work and I subscribe to Netflix -- so its a wash :) ]