Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Big cars and trucks sell immensely well in the US because of the effective subsidization of fuel, as well as anti-competitive behaviour in the light truck sector.

No. Big cars and trucks sell well because we like big cars and trucks. SUVs, Range Rovers, Trucks, even humvees are what americans generally want. Or gas guzzling sports cars. Cars are part of american culture.

> Virtually throughout the entire world, governments put taxes on fuel to address negative externalities caused by fuel consumption.

No. Oil poor countries and regions put taxes on gas/cars in order to push the market towards smaller and more efficient cars that use less gas. We are oil rich and therefore really don't require such interventions.

> As a result, most countries have much higher gas prices than the US, where in some places, is below $2/gallon.

I know. I'm american. I know gas is cheap. But even when gas was expensive ( $4+ ), the top selling vehicles were trucks, SUVs, etc. It's not politically feasible in the US to push people to smaller cars. People will simply vote for politicians who promise lower gas and bigger cars. It's why even elon musk wants tesla to get into SUVs and trucks.

People think that the government supports big vehicles and cheap oil and that's why americans buy big cars and use lot of oil. You have it backwards. We like big cars and cheap oil and that's why the government supports big cars and cheap oil.




Firstly, $4 a gallon is not expensive. Secondly up until 2008 Europe produced pretty much the same amount of oil as the USA, parts of Europe are incredibly oil rich. Thirdly there are huge negative externalities to having such a ridiculously high volume of carbon emissions per capita[1][2]. You can't throw your arms up and say "oh it's just the American way, sorry environment/health, there is just no damn way we can stop the ridiculously disproportionate per-capita CO2 emissions! Sorry world, but we like our big ass trucks, what can we do about it? drive more fuel efficient vehicles? pffftt". I mean in what world is that a defense.

Because people like something doesn't mean it's OK, or action should not be taken to curb that like for the greater good.

1. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1S0SwXvk1C0D_VWLPlU2C...

2. https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/mar/01/carbon...


>Firstly, $4 a gallon is not expensive

Yes it is. Just because someone somewhere has it worse doesn't mean it's not bad.

>You can't throw your arms up and say "oh it's just the American way, sorry environment/health, there is just no damn way we can stop the ridiculously disproportionate per-capita CO2 emissions! Sorry world, but we like our big ass trucks, what can we do about it? drive more fuel efficient vehicles? pffftt". I mean in what world is that a defense.

As much as you and I might not like it yes you can. Part of living in a society is putting up with societal norms. Taxes, indifference to dragnet surveillance, acceptance of fuel inefficient vehicles, a love of fast food, under-appreciation for small business, etc, etc. You can't hand wave away the majority opinion (or indifference) as hand waving.

If you don't like it then you have to convince a critical mass of people to work to change it.


> If you don't like it then you have to convince a critical mass of people to work to change it.

Great idea, lets convince car companies to sell more economical cars through regulations/tax breaks/whatever, and have them do the work to change public opinion.


Unfortunately the politicians who propose this tend to get replaced, due to lobbyism, and the average voter's general ignorance.

People don't want to face the fact that they're doing something bad. They want to live in la-la land.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: