Are Crossovers the Answer to SUVs?
GM’s trio of three-row crossovers have yet to set the sales world on fire. Besides the Buick Enclave, which has sold strongly since its debut, the GMC Acadia, which gets a respectable 16/24 mpg city/highway, saw sales fall by 2,900 units in June, which is a 40% drop compared to last year. The Saturn Outlook has been the poorest performer of the three, so it had less distance to fall; its 2,200 fewer units sold was a 58% decline. GM may have had trouble getting units to dealers due to a May strike at the plant that builds the crossovers, but according to Automotive News there was a 43-day supply of the Acadia and a 78-day supply for the Outlook in June. Meaning there were plenty available. GM will release its fourth version of the same vehicle, the Chevy Traverse, this fall due to dealer requests prior to the gas spike. We wonder if dealers still want these crossovers.
Nissan’s new Murano, an updated version of one of the first and most successful car-based crossovers, is off to a poor start. The new Murano got positive reviews and remarks from the entire Cars.com staff, but even the new model is down 24.3% in sales compared to last year, when the old design was on sale.
Toyota’s popular Highlander crossover saw a 30% drop in sales despite a relatively new design. Some of the drop, though, was due to lack of availability of the hybrid version. Surprisingly, Toyota’s new Sequoia truck-based SUV, which gets 14/19 mpg with a big 5.7-liter V-8 engine, saw sales jump 40% in June, with healthy incentives.
There are a few bright spots for crossovers. Dodge’s new Journey, which is one of the most affordable three-row crossovers on the market, sold more than 5,000 units, outpacing the Murano and any of the GM models. It was one of only a few gains for Chrysler this month.
The other family vehicle of choice, the minivan, didn’t fare much better. Models from Toyota, Honda, Hyundai and Nissan saw significant sales drops in June. Only the Kia Sedona, Chrysler Town & Country and Dodge Caravan saw increases.
While a 25% decline is certainly better than a 50% decline, automakers can no longer make the claim that slightly more efficient crossovers are what people are clamoring for. In this economy, buyers are shifting to smaller cars with markedly better fuel economy, giving up the size and utility of crossovers, SUVs and minivans.
Besides the Highlander, there are no hybrid crossovers or minivans on the market. Perhaps families are just biding their time until the economy as a whole improves before buying a new vehicle of any type. Lots of people may be lining up to buy economy cars, but there aren’t many single folks considering family vehicles. That makes these crossovers somewhat of a niche vehicle — even if it’s a large niche — still waiting for the automaker hype to meet reality.
Previous
Subscribe to our feed
Email us your tips!
I'm trying to sell my Mercedes G500(10mpg city) and its been IMPOSSIBLE! Talk about bad gas mileage, you can barely give these things away anymore.
I believe the reason why sales have dropped off, is because there not offering consumers anything on their trade. Therefore the person owning the Explorer and other big SUV's are stuck!!
I think it's that people are just averse to BIG HEAVY vehicles. Mass is the biggest obstacle to efficiency and these crossovers are almost as massive as regular truck-based SUVs.
Overall, the economy sucks. Who can spend $35 grand oh a luxury barge? No matter if it's truck-based or car-based.
How have Mazda5 and Kia Rondo sales been doing?
Even RAV4 sales are down 26% from last year...and that is neither overly LARGE or thirsty! Highlander is down 31%.
I think it's more the economy (people can't get those home equity loans anymore) so they are holding on to their old cars longer, and those who do need a new car are snatching up those Civics.
Mazda 5 up 29%
Rondo down nearly 50% but that can't be because of demand because it was up last month...not sure what's going on with that figure. Might be an 09 turnover issue?
Cheryl,
You might be right there.
I hope this trend continues for months to come...it's about time. BTW I have no sympathy for anyone that pays $80k for car.
Are Crossovers the Answer to SUVs?
No. "Crossover" is just another (clever marketing)name for "SUV". But shhh...don't tell anyone.
if the Mazda 5 was a little bit longer and had a bit more power, it would probably make the cut for many families. for most families though, the third row is just too small and the cargo space left when it is in use is just to small also. plus, the engine funs out of steam pretty easily. mazda should consider taking the 2.3 turbo and six speed automatic out of the CX-7 and putting it in the Mazda5, and then giving the CX-7 a new engine.
They're still pigs - big, gaudy and wasteful. Wow! I can get a whole 24 mpg on the highway and pay a small fortune for the privilege.
People are finally getting it through their heads that burning gas is just about the same as pulling out few twenties and lighting them on fire.
When so many have dumb suvs that nobody wants in trade, they finally get it into their head that it's not such a good idea to waste buckets of money, and take on huge debt, on such a quickly depreciating asset.
Of course the second mortgage piggy bank has dried up thanks to the mortgage crisis. Any number of fools were mortgaging their house to get money to buy these things so they could pretend they actually had money and impress the neighbors. Remember that these cuv things were in the pipeline long before the mortgage crisis hit.
Puh leeze! These crossovers are still enormous! Fat power-laden machines that are soggy and bloated with junk, and to top it all of, they're expensive. Either they're cheap material or poorly made, or are beyond the reach of a normal car payment.
You only have to read comments like AV's above to understand that the US' love of crazy power and inefficient cars will not easily be cured.
The Mazda5 is already perfectly powerful by any globally accepted standards. Only in the US would a 2.3 liter engine be deemed anything other than "adequately over-engined". It'd be at least the sporty model in the range and have 1 or 2 engines below it for the budget minded.
If higher gas prices stay as they are or get higher, the population of this country isn't just going to have to get used to smaller cars, they are going to start seeing smaller engines in existing cars. Rabbit with a 1.4? - yep. Mazda6 with a 1.8? - Yep. Aveo with 1.0? - yep. These cars aren't underpowered per se, just underpowered (in people's imaginations) here in the USA.
Bring back the 3 cylinder Geo Metro!!!!!
Mart-
adding the 2.3 turbo will acctually be beneficial to the lineup. the regularly aspirated 2.3L engine just is enough power with light loads and when on the highway, but when you have a full load of people or luggage or are going up the hill, the engine has to rev high and work hard, cutting fuel economy.
besides, the engine is plenty powerful in the world market because many people that buy cars around the world only use them in cites and rarley exceed 40 mph.
Well, to be honest people also drive on highways at 80+ mph in Europe and elsewhere too. they just do it with smaller engines.
In my experience, people generally drive slower here than elsewhere (thank the lower speed limits and very effective traffic cops), which makes it all the more inexplicable why everyone here has so much more power than elsewhere.
certainly it's not at all unusual to be overtaken in the UK while doing 90+ mph by a 1.0 Citroen Saxo being revved to its very life by an over-excited teenager...
In everyday life, most people can live with a 0-60 time of around 10 secs with no problem. Yeah, overtaking performance may not be as great, but it's just something you get used to.
The name "crossover" used to mean, for me anyway, a taller (often "cool" looking) wagon that drove/handled like a car/ wagon, wasn't really heavier than a wagon, and handled like a wagon.
now "crossover" is slapped on anything because "SUV" became a dirty name. that stupid naming trick apparently doesn't work that well.
3 car seats with toddlers and associated gear will not fit in my Civic. A small CUV is the only answer.
I love my Explorer and the gas milage does not effect me one bit as I work from home. If people learned financial responsibility they wouldn't be at the mercy of the oil companies and our politicians who are the ones really screwing you.
My Explorer is safe and roomy for my family of five and it tows our boat when necessary. We've been hit two times and in both cases suffered no injuries. The same couldn't said for the other parties. I really hope gas goes to $6 a gallon as it'll clear out the riff-raff who have no business driving in the first place.
The whole industry prices for SUVs and trucks has declined nearly 25 percent, which is approximately four times the normal depreciation expected over this period and well in excess of the depreciation expected over a full year.”
Last week was a busy week for the dealership because of the deals the stores have going on – 0 percent interest for 72 months vs. the typical 6.9 percent interest. These deals are just to get rid of SUVs.
BUT hybrids are in high demand and that is good for the new direction we need to take in respect to fuel efficiency
The whole industry prices for SUVs and trucks has declined nearly 25 percent, which is approximately four times the normal depreciation expected over this period and well in excess of the depreciation expected over a full year.”
Last week was a busy week for the dealership because of the deals the stores have going on – 0 percent interest for 72 months vs. the typical 6.9 percent interest. These deals are just to get rid of SUVs.
BUT hybrids are in high demand and that is good for the new direction we need to take in respect to fuel efficiency
The whole industry prices for SUVs and trucks has declined nearly 25 percent, which is approximately four times the normal depreciation expected over this period and well in excess of the depreciation expected over a full year.”
Last week was a busy week for the dealership because of the deals the stores have going on – 0 percent interest for 72 months vs. the typical 6.9 percent interest. These deals are just to get rid of SUVs.
BUT hybrids are in high demand and that is good for the new direction we need to take in respect to fuel efficiency
The whole industry prices for SUVs and trucks has declined nearly 25 percent, which is approximately four times the normal depreciation expected over this period and well in excess of the depreciation expected over a full year.”
Last week was a busy week for the dealership because of the deals the stores have going on – 0 percent interest for 72 months vs. the typical 6.9 percent interest. These deals are just to get rid of SUVs.
BUT hybrids are in high demand and that is good for the new direction we need to take in respect to fuel efficiency
Please remove the multiple posts...it's annoying.
As far as adding more power to the Mazda5 - I agree - that's the typical American response. Make it longer and thirstier. The point of the arguments here, and of the Mazda5, is that it's a good size for MOST families and has a 4-cylinder engine. Most people only have 1 or 2 kids and don't need three rows of seats. You can still seat 5+ in a Mazda 5 if and when you need it. You don't need 7 seats all the time when you only carry 7 people once a month. Unless you're a school bus, people don't need the tons of space and power you are asking for.
Also, if you don't drive it fully loaded up a long grade on a regular basis, there's no need to put in a thirstier engine. Just leave it as is. I bet they could even get away with putting in a higher efficiency 1.8L and taking out the rear-most seat to save weight. Of course, I guess that's what the Mazda3 is for.
How about comparing the decline of crossover and the total vehicles sold?
Troy S,
Why not buy an Accord? A CUV is NOT your only choice dude...
Mart -
I work with someone that has triplets and she says that she has to own a van and a large suv because of the car seat situation. There are several cars out there that can accomodate 3 car seats - the accord is one.
Yes....the Accord can probably handle 3 car seats in a pinch. The question is....can it handle the associated strollers, gear, and toys that go along with the 3 little ones? I would say no. If they made an Accord wagon, then I would say that it probably could handle all the stuff that goes along with 3 your kids, but in sedan form...no.
I can see how exceptional circumstances would require specific vehicles. But most people don't have triplets. Even if you have 3 kids they are probably gonna be a couple of years apart and as such (although it may be a little cramped back there) you could certainly manage it.
My argument was there are choices outside of Crossovers, such as wagons or large sedans, which are more aerodynamic and, hopefully, efficient. There seems to be this groundswell of opinion here that a crossover is the ONLY thing that will do the job. it's false for 85% of people.
Questions: The space behind the back seat in most suvs/cuvs is not very big. You usually get more usable space in the trunk of a car like Camry, etc. The distance from the liftgate to back seats is short
Unless you have some sort of cage that separates the back from the seats, you can't pile anything above the top of the rear seat in the suv/cuv less it fall into the back seat.
We have a Corolla and a Focus. Could we fit 3 folded strollers in either's trunk? No problem at all. With room for other stuff too. Both have far more usable space in their trunks than my neighbor's Vue's space from liftgate to seat backs. In fact, they can carry more grocery bags in their trunks than my other neighbor's Tahoe. The only time you gain cargo space with the suv/cuv is with the rear seats down. But that negates the ability to cary the kids.
In 1995 we had a Nissan Sentra that could fit a double stroller, single stroller, small cooler and two suitcases in the trunk. Not to mention it could fit two car seats and a booster seat in the back seat. I don't think car seats and strollers have increased in size since then but all of that should fit into a newer Camry, Accord or other mid-size car.
The one advantage a wagon or SUV may have is not about the extra space, but how easy it is to load. You can reach in and dump stuff down the back etc that you cannot do in a sedan. It's for the same reason i'd always take a hatch over a sedan - much easier to load.
Obviously, the SUV ruins this by generally being higher and therefore harder to reach over to get to those spots.
I think we all have stories about how we've loaded small cars with unfeasible ammounts of stuff. I moved home from university with all my posessions loaded into a 1997 3-door Fiesta Zetec. I wouldn't recommend that though.
The point of course, is that this seems to be the #1 country in the world for people who think they need much more space/utility/ability than they actually do.
How about a huge dose of everyone minding their own business when it comes to who's vehicles get's what gas mileage. The last time I checked it was a free country. As far as the whole global warming concept - still unproven. There are 30,000+ degreed scientists that disagree with the global warming theory (and yes it's a theory as it has not been proven conclusively. that surprised me too when I found out). Of these 30,000 scientists, 9,000 have phd's. Not exactly the putz's of the world.
I am all for doing what is better for the earth but to buy into GW without hearing both sides of the story is simply ignorant.
PS I drive a Prius but I do it for the efficiency factor not the environment. The truth is the manufacturing of a Prius creates more pollution than a standard car that averages 22mpg over a 5 year timeframe. And I agree with the head of the Environmental Sciences Dept at MIT when he said, "Global Warming!? As if you had the capability. It's all hog wash."
Greg,
The question isn't whether the earth itself is warming, that has been proven true.
The argument you're pointing out is do car and other emissions contribute to it. I think this block from Wikipedia states pretty well who backs the theory and who doesn't
"These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least thirty scientific societies and academies of science,[4] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[5][6][7] While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC,[8] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.[9][10]"
Freedom has it's price. For those that are economical and do what they can to conserve fuel still have the pay the price created by those that waste. It's not a "free" country - there's no such thing - there are privileges.
Dave T: NEVER EVER trust Wikipedia. It's nice for getting some basic info but you still cannot trust it.
By the way, I once read the Wiki entry on a particular well known mafioso. All the description of his house, his lifestyle, etc was simply wrong. How do I know? I grew up across the street from the guy. One of his gumbas taught my older sister how to ride a bike.
I don't "trust" wikipedia but when you can go straight to the source material like in that block than I say it's ok to use.
Greg Phd: The reason people complain about those who drive gas guzzling pigs is that they increase demand for ALL oil.
Have you seen the price of heating oil lately? How about the 90 year old retiree who cannot afford a $900 delivery?
Those who drive reasonable autos get annoyed that the monsters have so increased demand for oil and we have to pay for that.
In a free society there's such a thing as responsibility. Part of that is realizing that your actions effect others. It's not like driving a Corolla or such, instead of a pig suv, is equivalent to being forced to walk.
I don't drive compact cars because of the man-made global warming hoax. I do it because I think it's stupid to waste a lot of money on a depreciating asset like a car. I look at burning gas as if I take out a few twenties and just light them on fire. I also realize that my purchasing decision just might have an effect on my many retired, elderly neighbors and their ability to heat their homes.
It's a shame that so many Americans have their identities wrapped up some oversized, wasteful chunks of metal.
This is why externalities are a market failure and why a truly "free market" does not work. Econ 101 baby!
I think we will continue to see a dramatic decline in SUV sales in the coming years. I think consumers are coming to realize that most just don't need full sized SUV's to satisfy their daily needs. Instead, they are looking for that same feeling of comfort and security, only in a more managable and fuel efficient package. I think crossovers are a good start to that.
Dave,
In 2006 Paul Linzen (WSJ-Pulitzer Prize) and Thomas Balist (Phd, Canadian scientist, Harvard & Princeton grad) wrote what is considered by many in the scientific community to be the most comprehensive article regarding global warming. The conclusion was clear - there is no scientific evidence to support global warming is caused by automobiles. Mr Balist was accused of being funded by 'Big Oil'. The accusation was posted on Wiki and a dozen other sites so Mr Balist did what any self-respecting scientist would do. He sued. Wiki pulled the information immediately and issued an apology. Unfortunately the damage was already done.
Whom will you cite next, Al Gore and Michael Moore?
Let's cite Stalin...you shall drive only car that you need, not what you want. And only I shall determine what you need because you don't know what you need.
Coleman,
Do you think 2 who disagree with the majority are just correct and the others are wrong or are you saying the Wikipedia reference is false?
Bloke: What he's saying is that Wikipedia can be totally biased because there is no control on input.
The argument started when Dave T dited Wiki as a reference for all sorts of people supporting the manmade global warming thing. The wiki article did not provide reference to the many scientists who dissent.
Guys,
I was looking for a daily driver and something that has more utility than my current car. I looked into CUVs and found it very unatractive. Big, heavy with not more space than regular SW. In the end I bought used Subaru Legacy 2.5GT. The car is awesome. It has lot of space and I can fit many things in it (trips to Menards are fun now). It is all wheel drive and after 4th tank it returs 26.7 mpg on average - combined driving.
I don't see why would people buy CUVs/SUVs and carry all this necessery mass around. SW are as usable, weigh less and get better gas milage.
Of course it is not cool to drive SW I guess.
Mart,
An Accord would probably do fine for short distances and possibly long trips. Not too sure though. I could just as easily get a CR-V for the money I'd be shelling out for the Acord though. One option I'mconsidering is a Scion xB.
Thanks Maxwell, but I think I got all that from Coleman's post. I know about Wikipedia and who can post there, it does not mean the information is totally wrong. I would still like to see what Coleman's answer is though.
Bloke,
My answer is 'both' as a majority is not an indication of fact. As Lawrence Solomon of the acclaimed Financial Post recently explained, the scientists who ironically are often referred to as "dissenters" number at least 32,000. Recenlty the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated "Natural factors, not human sources are the cause of global warming."
You would have to be well read to have known that as very few media outlets carried it. The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization and by the United Nations Environment Programme.
If you believe Wiki is a reliable source then you are the perfect consumer for the media spoon feedings.
I don't know anyone who wants dirty air, polluted water, etc. But I do know many who prefer to know the truth. GW is a big business that is not supported by scientific fact. I'll never forget when I read about the head of MIT's Natural Science Dept being removed from his position because he wouldn't support a position of, 'Man causes GW'. Thankfully there are still some out there who have standards.
Global warming is very easy to debunk by asking a few logical questions: What ended the ice age? How much CO2 and particulate matter does a major volcanic eruption release into the atmosphere? How does solar activity affect earth's atmosphere? Are there any cracks in the earth's ocean floors that release super hot temperatures? What is the effect of naturally occurring wildfires on our atmosphere and are they a recent occurrence (did they occur before the present GW theory)? I am a trained and heavily degreed (school debt too!) scientist working for a major chemical company. I recycle, I volunteer, and I drive a 1998 Honda Civic (because it still runs great) and I am here to tell you that global warming is just like religion - pure fiction, but easy to believe if you are willing to buy into it.
Coleman, I am not sure where you get your information, but I see the following statement from the IPCC:
In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].
Here is a link to that cite:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
There is no reason to believe that just because there is a posting on Wikipedia or any other site that it is automatically wrong. It just takes looking at the sources that are there. Some maybe wrong yes, but it is up to individual in any case to do research. And I have read articles from Linzen (or is it Richard Lindzen) they are just an example of someone poking holes in a theory, it can be done with anything.
Illja,
my opinion is that, because people care very much about what other people think of them, while the car in the American culture is a huge status symbol, nobody thinks of a wagon as "cool." in fact, wagons seem to be looked upon as "fuddy" while crossovers are "new" and therfore "cool."
my wife, for example, drives a Forester because it's labeled an "SUV," even though she admits it is fugly, and refused a better looking Legacy wagon when we were buying.
this is the beauty of living in our nation. too many car purchasing decisions are made based upon what we desire, not what we need.
pardon me, in my first run-on sentence, i meant to say that, because the car is a status symbol, most people choose to buy crossovers (over a wagon or minivan) because they are "cool," not because they are more useful.
DL,
I completely understand you. My friends were telling me what would other think when they see me in SW. They even tried to convince me to by small SUV. I guess image thing is big (I am not telling that Europe is not like that in fact I think it is). Somehow it does not work for me. Cople years ago I bought G35 6-sp over BMW 330i even though BMW is more "cool" than Infiniti. But at that time I thought that Infiniti is better car (I would do the same thing today). I try to chose my car based on why I need it for and what value I get out of it.
I'm with Clay9 on this topic, but I hope that Senator Obama will fix Global warming. Seeing that he's been a Senator for 1,000 days and has spent approximately 150 of those on Capitol Hill I can see him fixing a lot of our problems. He has more experience than you and I and is just plain smarter.
Just got back from our second 500 mile round trip weekender in the Mazda5, 2 adults and 3 small kids. We packed light with no stroller and small bags that could fit behind the 3rd row, along with a cheap 9" DVD player on top of front passenger headrest. We got 29mpg round trip with AC use - maybe I'll tint the windows someday more for comfort than fuel savings. One solution to traveling with lots of kid gear: if you don't need the capacity that often, rent a minivan those days.
Due to my profession, I just completed reading the most recent technical paper from the IPCC, dated May, 2008, and titled, 'Assessing Climate Change Impacts and Atmospheric Pressure Adaptations'. From the report, page 116, verbatim, "...co2 emissions rise and fall in correspondence with changes in global temperature. We have determined that the main source of co2 emissions is caused by ocean level evaporation. The causation between co2 emissions from factories, humans, and animals, do not have a (current) direct correlation in regard to impact on subsequent climate change. It is indeterminable."
I believe in Global Warming, however since I am an expert in this particular area I have no qualms admitting that it is still unsupported by scientic fact. As a former member of the IPCC I feel obligated to state the previous poster, Blake, misrepresented their position. I do believe that the IPCC will some day have conclusive evidence, however to date that has eluded them and everyone else.
I say, forget global warming, to the extent we think we can, in our hubris, get over the top of what China, India, and the rest of the developing world will be burning, with not a care about the environment. My objection to personal habits that require huge flows of oil is that we are giving bushel baskets full of money to people who are sworn to destroy us. Every dollar in your CUV that could go into a Subaru or Focus finances another class full of Wahabis who want to kill us. Buying oil puts $$$ into the hands of terrorists and quisling oil company executives who care not a bit about the survival of our culture. I'm running biodiesel almost exclusively (and, yeah, it's from reclaimed WVO and not massacred palm forests). My goal is to burn 100% hajji-free fuel as soon as I can find a reliable supply, but the oil companies have the regulatory agencies standing in the way of coherent distribution networks, retail licensing, etc. With any luck, we'll still have enough petro-diesel around to keep the bio from waxing up in the winter temps.
Rob,
First off my wife's CUV, a CR-V, gets better gas mileage than our old Subaru (27 v 24). Secondly we get 2x as much oil from Canada and Mexico as we do from Saudi Arabia. Maybe your next posting will contain some facts.
Here is a fact, Cal: Saudi Arabian imports have exceeded Mexican imports by 1 to 12 million barrels every month since 11/07. Source: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm. Yes, Canada would appear to be our single largest extra-territorial source. Merely because we get a lot of oil from a friend in this hemisphere does not negate that we import nearly as much from non-friends (OPEC) as we do from those whose membership does not include members with populations who have sworn to annihilate ours (same source). The point is, energy independence for us--including via alternative fuels--would displace a balance-of-trade deficit with our enemies and prevent soccer moms from involuntarily funding terrorist movements via payments for oil. Might give us cleaner air, too. As for your apples-and-oranges anecdote, you've compared one of the more thrifty CUVs (Honda is always at the leading edge of economy) with an obviously badly-in-need-of-a-tune Subaru performer. In my limited post, I had in mind the more bloated CUVs out there, like the Acadia. I've had 2 Subarus, and they always averaged between 25 and 30 in mixed driving.
Richard L., I don't know what your profession is really, but why don't you post a link to that site or to the report so we could all enjoy. I only cited a source, I am not trying to misrepresent anything. I did see that the report (which itself was not from the IPCC) I cited was from 2004, but did the IPCC change their position in the last 4 years? If you were a member of the IPCC you probably have some published materials that we could all read as well, please share.
I looked up the report that "Richard L" is referring too, 'Assessing Climate Change Impacts and Atmospheric Pressure Adaptations' and it's available for purchase for a mere $3,750. I don't see why it's not possible that the IPCC would change their position, after all they did just that on (corn) ethanol. First they were pro now they are con. It appears that Bloke got dope-slapped by "Richard L".
Please stop with the dope slaps, they hurt, whether apparent or not. But here is a cite from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report "Climate Change 2007 (the Exectuive summary, I tried to take a little shortcut)
Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (379ppm) and CH4
(1774ppb) in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the
last 650,000 years. Global increases in CO2 concentrations
are due primarily to fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing
another significant but smaller contribution.
This is straight from the report, I didn't alter anything. While I think a major organization such as this could change there position in 4 years, I doubt they do it every year. It is available free for download here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/press/index.htm
I tried to find something from 2008 but I could not get anything, or else I am just missing it. Please do post a link or something which references that report I am interested in seeing it. I am not trying to degrade Richard L., but if you say you are an expert on something on a blog I would only think it proper to include some credentials.
Again internet comments take more out of the context than was ever intended. I said I referenced that graph from wiki because it had 10 sources with links and to me if you can follow a link to a real report it's a good reference. Wikipedia is not an absolute because it is edited by people just like a blog.
This post has nothing to do with Wikipedia. One commenter said Global Warming isn't happening. I pointed to an opposite position that was backed up with sources. THAT IS ALL I DID.
I never said cars cause global warming. This is a totally different debate than Crossovers inheriting SUV sales. Sigh.
Cal,
"We get 2x as much oil from Canada and Mexico as we do from Saudi Arabia."
I wish people would stop citing that fallacy. Oil is what economists call a commodity. It is treated as one big undifferentiated pool. It does not matter who buys it from whom. It only matters how much is bought in total and how much is produced in total.
The more Mexican oil we consume, the more oil Saudi Arabia and Iran wind up selling -- and the more money they get for it.
Ask any economist.