The initial link I provided linked to multiple sources, the primary of which was broken however I have found it (https://climateaccountability.org/carbonmajors.html).

The key word is increase, not total. They are not the second overall contributors to pollution, only the second highest contributors to the increase of emissions. The highest overall contributors to pollution are still industry, however even if it were SUVs #1, the person to target is the bourgeoisie. The entertainer’s argument seems to be to shame and/or harass consumers, but this is also ultra left as it fails to address the cause of why these vehicles are purchased as well as taking into account economic inter-connectivity. Just telling people to not drive them isn’t an answer.

Yes station wagons are a more reasonable vehicle to drive in terms of size but not necessarily in terms of usability. However, this is again addressing the issue in the country side and not in the cities which is likely insecurity exacerbated by the police state in them as well as the bolstering crime rates of which the police do nothing to solve as that is not their function…“If you can’t have a gun why not an SUV” some may be thinking. This is speculation. It is also likely status-based which is directly linked to the economy and the extravagance portrayed by the labor aristocracy and pette bourgeois.

As well, how are these machines created? In a factory. How is power produced? Via gas and oil production. So even if SUVs are a mechanism for this pollution, it again should be accounted towards the owners of these means of production and those who craft and direct the economy (their tools) not the workers who work on these mechanisms or use them to make ends meet. That entire argument is liberal. The issue with pollution is overproduction for the sake of commodity production to make insane profits to off-set a constantly falling rate of profit. It’s systemic, if all we had to do was just stop buying SUVs and the problem would be solved, such a problem wouldn’t exist in the first place as it’s immeasurably smaller than such a problem of mass pollution in the first place. It is such a threat because it is systemic, otherwise it could never get this big is what I’m saying. So not only is this barking up the wrong tree, it’s blaming the kid with matches for starting the fire as opposed to the conditions which necessitated such deviant behavior in the first place. Do you understand what I’m trying to say here?