These days, Germany's politics is largely controlled by the people whose skulls are filled with sawdust. But things will be worse if and when the truly left-wing parties take over Germany. Material scientists among the TRF readers are urged to figure out what is worse than sawdust.
For years, we mocked the unhinged green extremists' for their efforts to demonize the sports utility vehicles, the SUVs. Those were killing the planets, right? We allowed the unhinged people to be legitimized and many of them can already pretend to be mainstream. They are no longer satisfied with demonizing SUVs; they want to mostly ban it.
Three days ago, Die Welt (German) described a plan of some top ladies in all the three main German left-wing parties. See stories in Jalopnik (English) and Autoforum (Czech) for some coverage in more friendly languages.
OK, SUVs have become wildly popular in the U.S. where they account for more than 40% of the newly sold vehicles right now.
Even in Germany, where the space per capita is more modest than in America, SUVs represent 1/3 of the new cars on the market. So it's no niche market – like the electric cars. Nevertheless, the German leftists think it's a great idea to ban most of them. You could ask: shouldn't the 33% of the voters – plus their friends and relatives – be sort of upset by those plans? Does it still matter in Germany?
OK, SPD – the social democrats – are still Germany's largest overtly left-wing party. Their spokeswoman Kirsten Lühman seems to be well aware of the main advantages that lead consumers towards SUVs:
In comparison with smaller vehicles, SUVs have a significantly higher emissions. But they're extremely popular due to the higher position of the driver and passengers, their abilities to attach a trailer, or during trips to the terrain.But for some reasons, these advantages aren't allowed to be considered as virtues. Instead, they must be considered sins. The people who care about these virtues must be considered sinners if not criminals. SPD wants to force carmakers to promote low-emission cars in their commercials.
Ingrid Remmers from Die Linke, the renamed communist party, was more colorful:
SUVs are over-engineered tank models. ;-) They are big and heavy and that's why many politicians consider them to be mobile environmental catastrophes that have to be prevented as soon as possible.Amusing. The only problem is that she means these jokes seriously. OK, the Green Party obviously wants to join the jihad against the SUVs as well. But their male minister of transportation in Baden-Württemberg, Winfried Hermann, only proposed some extra fees for the SUV owners – per mile etc. – so he was much less colorful than his female counterparts from the nominally less ecologically radical parties.
It's absurd when a 1.9-ton-heavy vehicle is transporting an 80-kilogram person.
Let's slow down a little bit.
First, SUVs aren't necessarily too big. As the expert on Autoforum.cz points out, 52 percent of newly registered SUVs in Germany in 2019 are as long as Volkswagen Golf or shorter. Also, the fuel consumption is almost the same as the consumption of the "small" cars. VW Golf has 4.7-7 liters per 100 km. T-Roc and VW Tiguan SUVs have 4.3-6.7 and 4.7-7.7 per 100 km, respectively.
Take Škoda Octavia, Europe's third bestselling car, from the Czech subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group – and, in 2018, #1 bestselling car in 10 European countries including Switzerland. It usually consumes between 4 and 5 liters per 100 km but the highest petrol engine, 2.0 TSI, devours 6.5 liters per 100 km. And that's a smaller car than the Superb limousine, of course.
Just to compare cars from different genres, pick new cars from Škoda. By size, they may be sorted as Citigo, Fabia, all-new Scala, Octavia, Superb, Karoq, Kamiq, and Kodiaq. The last three, K*q cars, are SUVs. To compare, pick an ambitious SUV, Kodiaq RS, which is a sporty (diesel) edition. You will see that it only eats 5.8 liters per 100 km outside cities and 7.4 liters in cities; 6.4 is quoted as the "combo". The CO2 emissions are written as 167 (grams of CO2 per kilometer).
[Felicia, the first Volkswagen-era Škoda model, has been discontinued, and so was Roomster, Rapid – the predecessor of Scala, and Yeti – the quirky, beloved, and cute small SUV.]
The fuel economy depends on many things but I think it's fair to say that the SUVs consume about 20% more than hatchbacks and similar cars. That's less than the relative reductions of the consumption that were achieved in a recent decade or two – and a tiny price to pay for the much greater comfort resulting from the higher position of the driver – which may be very important, especially for elderly drivers. The ability to use it in terrain is obviously important for some people, and so is the ability to drag trailers.
Incidentally, the complaint that the SUVs are heavy, is also cute. The mass doesn't directly translate to the fuel consumption. But let's assume that it's good to have light cars. The SUV she mentioned was 1.9 tons in mass – that happens to be the same as Škoda Kodiaq RS. But what about some cars they promote? What about Tesla Model S? Well, its curb weight is 1.96 tons – higher than the SUVs! Or think about your house. It also hosts a few 80-kilogram or lighter people. But the mass is 100+ tons just for the material. Won't they ban the too heavy houses?
And the environmentalists also love to hype a famous piece of rock, Planet Earth. Its mass is 6 x 1024 kg. So much stuff just to carry 7 billion 80-kilogram people. Why do they want to ban SUVs and not Planet Earth? Well, please, this is not made to be a recommendation of your new policies! ;-)
SPD, the Linke Leftists, and the Green Party would clearly agree on a ban of SUVs. But it's not a complete ban so far. Barbara Hendricks (SPD), a former minister of environment, has shown her amazing generosity:
Farmers and foresters should get an exception and they should be allowed SUVs.Isn't she kind? I sincerely recommend all people who find an SUV sort of important in the present or in the imaginable future – in Germany and maybe elsewhere in Europe – to get the paperwork to become at least a part-time farmer or a part-time forester. You might find this paperwork useful if you want to continue to use the SUV!
In the long run, however, if most SUVs are banned, the price of a new SUV would be high – as expected for a niche product.
This is a great example showing how harmful the left-wing politicians are for the productive part of mankind. They feel entitled to prevent people from doing useful things and using helpful tools. All the actual advantages of some products – SUVs, in this case – are either ignored or reclassified as downright blasphemies. The left-wing comrades think that only they are entitled to enumerate the legitimate virtues of products, technologies, activities, people, and their groups. Meanwhile, these people – often ladies – are allowed by the system to pretend that they are experts even though it is obvious that they are ignorant about the most basic facts that should be known to everyone who affects e.g. car policies.
This planned SUV ban is a joint project of several pathological sub-movements of the postmodern left – feminism that tries to paint technologically illiterate women as the peers of men from the car world, the radical environmentalism, and more. This kind of unhinged intersectional ideological garbage has been capable of acquiring the status of "mainstream views" in Germany and beyond because they haven't faced a sufficient number of credible enough foes who are willing to defend the civilization against degenerative insanity.
P.S.: According to a Drudge poll, Ms Tulsi Gabbard (*1981, Hawaii) won the first Democratic presidential debate. It was enough to be the least crazy one. She has other virtues, too, like being the most authentic or prettiest person on the stage. She is Hindu – and a female war veteran! And she's against the Trump impeachment and against the glorification of LGBTABCD...XYZ. Well, I suspect that the choice of the least crazy candidate could have been due to the Drudge readers' sanity and wouldn't necessarily generalize to the voters in the Democratic primaries.