> U.S. automakers separately have warned the fines would cost GM $6.5 billion, Stellantis $3 billion and Ford $1 billion. ... Automakers and the United Auto Workers union have previously also complained parallel rules proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency are not feasible and should be significantly softened.
I really find it suspicious that at a cost of $10 billion they can't figure out a way to improve their fleets.
I guess they'll just get disrupted by companies that can then.
Why do you find it suspicious? Not only have the Americans not been able to do it, but neither have the Japanese, the Koreans, the Germans, the Italians, the French, the British, or the Chinese. Since whomever was able to do it would be able to disrupt the market and gain more sales, I'm thinking it can't be done.
If we want to play the game of mandating things that can't be done then why don't we demand EVs be 6% to 8% more efficient while we're at it?
> Why do you find it suspicious? Not only have the Americans not been able to do it, but neither have the Japanese, the Koreans, the Germans, the Italians, the French, the British, or the Chinese. Since whomever was able to do it would be able to disrupt the market and gain more sales, I'm thinking it can't be done.
Any auto maker could quite easily improve the efficiency of their fleets by reducing the size of their passenger vehicles (especially large SUVs and pickup trucks).
It's not a tech question. No R&D involved. They just need to market their smaller vehicles as cool and stop marketing their large vehicles so aggressively.
The reason they want to avoid this is that they currently make better margins on larger vehicles, so they just push the environmental costs of such inefficiency out to the rest of the public and call it a day.
In a sane regulatory framework those large vehicles would be taxed dramatically more due to the damage they cause to the environment, and the auto makers wouldn't be so addicted to them.
> I guess they'll just get disrupted by companies that can then.
Or they'll make sure we never have more efficient cars, or cities designed around anything other than being in a car 24-7, like they have done quite successfully for the last 50 years.
Sadly (as one of the few people honest enough to admit humans are bad drivers), I don't see significant investment in anything other than the car city.
You give them too much credit, people build cities designed around cars with no need for pressure from automakers. There's an area by me that went greenfield (well technically brownfield) to huge high-rise apartments, restaurants and shops lining the bottom, a new pedestrian bridge. The city was constrained by no one, they could have built anything and they're as liberal and progressive as they come. An area that's not even 3 square blocks has four brand new 7 story parking garages paid for by city and free-forever. To call it a massive success is an understatement, and largely due to the crazy amount of free parking making it far more attractive than anywhere else to spend a night out. They went from literally an empty field the most expensive real-estate in the region that isn't on a golf-course and competes with our downtown for number of non-resident visitors.
> To call it a massive success is an understatement, and largely due to the crazy amount of free parking making it far more attractive than anywhere else to spend a night out.
Shocking. Motorists flock to areas designed for motorists, with free parking.
Yes? I'm not downplaying that fact at all. It's that the city wasn't stupid and realized that this was what people actually wanted. The other trendy areas didn't invest in parking at all or privatized it and it created a lot of friction to get people to come out and spend money. No auto manufacturer bribery necessary.
There are lots of walkable areas that have the same feel, and this new development are their lunch and tax revenue.
Notice how Ford is only claiming $1BB? Mary Bara needs to go. No idea why they are rewarding her when that company's products have gone straight to shit. Check YouTube.
Ford has been aggressively rolling out massive fuel savings tech for years, decades. They are going strong toward what customers want and are willing to purchase...hybrid trucks. GM is always two steps behind trying to make fun of Ford trucks in theirs ads until they can half-heartedly roll out the same tech while somehow butchering it and alienating legacy customers.
Stallantis, just can't figure that company out. Their cars and trucks have had horrible quality and resale value and have now killed some of their strongest brands to all-in on electric vehicles. Their customer base is scowling and scrambling to snatch up what are becoming collectors cars.
There's a lot of bullshit in this space. There isn't enough lithium in the world to move everyone over to electric. 80% of grid still runs on coal so it's not clean either. I'll also head for heavy duty towing electric is not where's it at, and forget EV 18 wheelers.
The simple truth is gas is a precious resource and we are wasting it. We need more public transportation and more sane use. Notice I didn't say EVs. They create another set of problems.
"In 2022, about 4,243 billion kilowatthours (kWh) (or about 4.24 trillion kWh) of electricity were generated at utility-scale electricity generation facilities in the United States.1 About 60% of this electricity generation was from fossil fuels—coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases. About 18% was from nuclear energy, and about 22% was from renewable energy sources."
The idea that because EVs need electricity from the grid, and the grid itself is not perfectly clean at this moment in time, is somehow a flaw or a problem is absurd on its face. An electric car can, over the course of its life, continue to get cleaner and cleaner energy as the grid it pulls from gets cleaner and cleaner. That's a win all around. It's also the entire fucking point. Any gas-burning cars produced can only burn gas and will never be cleaner (save for some fanciful conversions).
Trucks. Trucks. Trucks. You keep ignoring trucks. They get every god damned thing done and cannot operate on electric until lighter and more energy dense batteries are developed. A lot lighter and a lot more energy dense by several factors.
We have the mystical 50mpg car everyone dreamed about thirty years ago. No one will buy them. They need a truck.
So because trucks cannot be electric at the moment (doubtful, btw, but let's accept this premise), we should not try to electrify other parts of the global fleet? Every little bit helps, plus the research that goes into that will create these lighter and more energy dense batteries you speak of.
> There isn't enough lithium in the world to move everyone over to electric.
There is [1].
> I'll also head for heavy duty towing electric is not where's it at, and forget EV 18 wheelers.
Heavy duty, long distance hauling is something where trains excel at. It's one thing for short-distance distribution (i.e. in a city) where it's infeasible to serve industry and local distribution by rail, but everything else? We figured that stuff out almost a century ago.
As for actual availability, it would take the world's entire supply of Lithium produced per year, just to allow for half of new cars sold in the US alone be electric. That's how far behind our Lithium mining is, and as your own article says, scaling that out without environmental disasters or human rights abuses will be a challenge (and, potentially, infeasible).
There were 6 million EV's sold in China in 2022. There were only 3 million gasoline vehicles sold in the US in 2022 so there is obviously enough Lithium refinery capacity for the entire US market at least.
“It is estimated that the U.S. alone will need 500,000 metric tons per year of unrefined lithium by 2034 just to power EVs. The U.S. produces just a fraction of that today. The current global production of lithium in 2020 was about 440,000 metric tons of lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE, contains about 18% of pure lithium), and not all of that is in pure enough form for batteries, according to Chris Doornbos, president, and CEO of E3 Metals Corp, a lithium extraction firm located in Calgary, Canada, which plans to produce battery-grade lithium hydroxide.”
As he said, we are not just below the amount necessary, but much of what is produced can't meet spec.
In your first comment you said "the world's Lithium". Now you're saying "US produces". That's a massive difference. US production rounds to about 0% of the world's production. The vast majority is done in China, Chile and Australia.
"it would take the <world's> entire supply of Lithium produced per year, just to allow for half of new cars <sold in the US> alone be electric"
"It is estimated that the <U.S. alone will need 500,000 metric tons per year> of unrefined lithium by 2034 just to power EVs... <current global production> of lithium in 2020 was about 440,000 metric tons..."
I guess you're saying that Chinese cars take < 1/8 of the Lithium that American cars would? Which implies that your source thinks the average American car will need an F-150 Lightning sized battery?
It's too bad our technology for mining and battery production is permanently stuck in time, never to advance again. Otherwise, we could safely assume minor issues like this would be resolved in due time, given the neccesary investment, as countless thousands of similar issues have been resolved in the past.
One single mine in Nevada that covers ~6000 acres, which is large but not incredible by mine standards, will more than 10x US lithium production, and will 1.5x world production, all on its own.
No, the Thacker Pass Lithium Mine would theoretically increase entire world production by 25% at most when running at maximum capacity. That's assuming, of course, that the indigenous tribes and environmental activists who hate the project don't win legally.
Mining has a very long history of finding more of a resource when more became in demand. I'm sure they will find more lithium, and invent more creative ways to mine difficult deposits we already know about. It's usually a bad bet to bet against that. Exhibit A is "Peak Oil," which was that oil supplies peaked in the 70s and the world was going to run out of oil.
Side note, I wish I knew how to invest in these kinds of realizations so I could actually make money on them instead of just rambling on forums, lol!
Even ignoring that your facts are wrong, even the high energy use at construction, the bad energy mix in electricity used to power EVs combined with the charging inefficiencies and the fact that EVs are considerably heavier, etc. ICE cars are still worse in terms of carbon emissions. And the size of the gap will only increase from now on.
There's way more than enough lithium to more than double the fleet MPG, though, by mandating > 45MPG for all light vehicles, which effectively mandates hybrids.
The laws of physics get in the way. There is only so much energy in a gallon of gasoline (pick a different unit, point is the same). We are already close to the max theoretical efficiency of a gas engine (when run in perfect conditions which are hard to get in the real world).
We can eliminate safety features to make cars lighter. We can accept higher pollution levels. Those are both trade offs we are not willing to make.
We can make cars more aerodynamic, but style often gets in the way and consumers are not willing for that trade off. (or so it is claimed).
We can make cars smaller, but people often find large cars more useful. (even though a small car is good enough for 99% of all trips, that last 1% makes it worth having the larger car. Renting is so expensive that even for the 1% trip it may still be cheaper to have the large car for everything)
There are options of course. However car makers have been working on this problem for at least 50 years (energy crisis of the 1970s is obvious, even before that fuel mileage was a concern). All the easy solutions have been done already. What is left is often a lot more expensive than what was done before and also cannot possibly return a whole lot on investment.
The reality is gas and diesel engines investment is a dead end. They are not worth any more investment as everyone in the industry already knows electric cars are coming. While they probably will live on in a few niches, those niches are not large enough to support investment in making them better, today's engines are about as good as the future ever will see.
We could make cars much smaller, if we wanted. We don't sell very many two-seaters, and I don't think there are any one-seaters. Given how many cars are used for commuting and little else, these companies could sell these cars at a loss and still save money compared to the fines.
One reason commuters don't want those cars is because they don't feel safe with behemoths on the road. Another approach companies could take is to raise the price of their larger vehicles, to reduce their number on the road and make the smaller cars feel safer. That would require federal coordination.
As you note, all of this is about fuel economy, and that's really a dead end. The switch to electric is an opportunity to reconsider what mix of vehicles we want to have on the road. We take a lot of things for granted and it didn't have to be this way.
Anecdotally, I fit this description. I own a large SUV as my daily driver. It is fully paid off. I use it to get lunch and other errands for most trips. About once a month or so, I need to use the full capacity of the vehicle. This would run 50-100 bucks to rent an equally capable vehicle.
For me, it is absolutely worth saving 600-1200 bucks a year to not have to deal with the inconvenience of renting a vehicle to run an errand once a month. That price doesn’t include any insurance changes, getting to/from the rental place, and any additional costs I’m unaware of.
Every try to rent a truck for use as a truck? To haul rock for example? You will spend more than a day just finding a place that will allow that (everyone else will see the scratches and dents that does to the truck and charge you expensive damages). I've also called uhaul before and discovered they we sold out (uhaul doesn't allow rock type uses, but does cover some truck needs).
There are also times when you don't need a truck, just a larger car, renting that is $100/day. And again I've tried before and discovered the rental cars place was sold out when I needed one.
Oil is scaring me from a macroeconomic standpoint, and from a pollution standpoint but we are going to need it for a long while. Investments are being made into gasoline engines and they are paying off. The reliability and maintenance concern me with all these new clean sheet designs but the fuel efficiency is crazy good compared to previous generation engines.
I'm driving an F-150 that gets 1989 Nissan Pulsar mpg in real world operation. It can carry my whole family plus 2000lbs extra in the bed. It can tow 10k lbs when I need it to, and I do often. Insane.
There is a heavy cost in extra maintenance however, and some people have really gotten screwed when the maintenance has not been followed or the newly designed transmissions and engines fail before 100k miles.
Point being, you go fucking with oil and gas markets and people will be suffering and dying in the real world as a result. For some reason this is being ignored. And no, no one is going to take one for the team so future generations can...blah blah blah. Ain't gonna happen.
> We can make cars smaller, but people often find large cars more useful. (even though a small car is good enough for 99% of all trips, that last 1% makes it worth having the larger car. Renting is so expensive that even for the 1% trip it may still be cheaper to have the large car for everything)
Partially. But CAFE standards are based on a footprint model which has kept light trucks and SUVs cheaper for a given fuel efficiency standard than smaller cars. If you close the gap, I'm pretty sure consumers would change their behavior, at least somewhat.
CAFE standards are a half way measure. What we really need are revenue neutral carbon taxes. Gas is now $7 / gallon, but everyone gets an income tax credit. Want to 'not pay taxes'? Buy a more fuel efficient vehicle. Turn down the thermostat, etc. I always thought income taxes were silly. Tax the things you want less of like pollution, etc.
They exist, but in limited numbers. The fleet of used cars on the road doesn't represent what used car buyers necessarily want, it just represents what new car buyers wanted in years past. To get a fuel efficient used car today, you have to have convinced a higher income buyer to have bought a new one a few years ago.
This is why fuel economy standards are a good idea -- the entire market doesn't decide what vehicles get built -- only the top ~1/3 of market purchasers decide what manufacturers build.
Gas is 8 a gallon (1.85 eur/l) here, and it’s about 50c/l in road fuel tax. (As compared to the agri diesel prices)
The spike since the Ukraine war hasn’t really changed behavior that much, possibly because the baseline vehicle here is far more fuel efficient than the US.
The tax credit could be designed in such a way to be progressive and actually benefit the poor. Honestly, most of the time when I see a 'just think of the poor!' argument against a carbon tax, it's typically from someone living in a mcMansion with a $400 power bill who drives an f250 to get groceries. I realize they'd be perfectly happy with business as usual, but that's not the change we need.
Well wrong twice over. Direct "gasoline" tax is $0.77 in California. Further there's an excise tax, a greenhouse gas tax and so on. So $1.18 per gallon directly for gas...
But hold on, California also taxes underground storage tanks, the transportation of gasoline, and so on.
It doesn't cost $4/gal to transport gas from Texas to California. Your gas station owners aren't making that much profit.
Biased messenger, but correct message. CAFE and crash standards are the example to teach "bad knock-on effect". Make strict efficiency requirements, but exempt huge trucks? Everyone makes huge trucks!
Ideally, there would be a progressive gas tax on luxury trucks above a certain weight, but there is no way to enforce that which isn't highly intrusive.
I guarantee almost every truck owner could have a Ford Maverick instead of a Ford F-150 and they wouldn't lose an ounce of the needed capacity for their lives. Heck, the 2024 compact pickups are larger and heavier than full-size trucks from 25 years ago.
I was looking at Van der Hall (vanderhall.com) 3-wheel roadsters because they look cool and have an old school open air feel about them. They are exempt from so many requirements because they aren't four-wheeled, thus not an automobile WINK WINK.
I wonder what kind of sporty, comfortable, functional and efficient cars we could have under $20k in the US if we didn't have the overwrought safety standards and perverse incentives created my federal regulators.
Those 3 wheeler's are considered motorcycles. They're also death traps.
Those onerous federal regulations keep 10s of thousands of people from dying and probably 2-3x that from being seriously injured or permanently disabled. They are a good thing. You want fun small cars to be 'safe' again? Figure out a way to do away with huge trucks and SUVs (ehem, carbon tax anyone?)
The fact that cars need to resist getting hit by a loaded dumptruck that got lifted by a tornado, while motorcycles are legal, is one of the great studies of "practical laws without principle". If we 100% cared about freedom, we would let cars be designed in any particular way. If we 100% cared about safety, we wouldn't allow motorcycles on the road (or allow vehicles to be any larger than required for personal transport).
It's just a mishmash of laws that kinda make sense. Most people use cages, so make the cages safe and let the motorcyclists die if they like.
Different people have different concerns. I don't own a motorcycle because I demand higher safety standards. I sometimes consider giving up my bicycle because those are equally dangerous on roads (I have separated bike paths to where I want to go, but when those cross a road I'm never even looked for - bikes are normally much worse), but my doctor ensures me that the health benefits make up some of the danger.
Cars are dangerous too, but lacking transit options it is the safest choice I have.
I'm not necessarily complaining about the decisionmaking of being practical. It strikes a balance.
I was riding my bicycle four days ago, and while turning on a street, ran over some loose gravel from road construction. The bike went out from under me, and I slammed my face into the concrete. Concussion, possible sinus fracture, and sore teeth/nerves. I'm seeing some specialists this week.
Shit happens. Would I mandate full-face helmets for weekend bike rides? No. Would I sue the city for not properly sweeping a road after they patch a part of it? No. Shit happens.
That said, I hope my brain doesn't deteriorate too much more - this is head injury #4 that I'm aware of.
The rules are very much based on principle. General passenger vehicles are regulated to the standards we expect for general passenger transportation, and special cases are regulated with those special cases in mind.
I don't think they were suggesting that. I think they were suggesting that being wrecked into by a heavy vehicle while in a light vehicle is dangerous for the people in the light vehicle. Which is true.
They are probably safer than a motorcycle, but you still need to wear a helmet and don't even think about splitting lanes. Also too low for serious street driving (unlike a motorcycle).
> I guarantee almost every truck owner could have a Ford Maverick instead of a Ford F-150 and they wouldn't lose an ounce of the needed capacity for their lives. Heck, the 2024 compact pickups are larger and heavier than full-size trucks from 25 years ago.
Trucks have become pieces of consumer flair. I'll probably end up with a van at some point because of it. I won't buy an F-150 because they're comically large, but if I could get a Maverick without a back seat in the cab, I'd have bought one instantaneously.
They very much have. Perhaps exaggerated for the sake of example, but it makes a point.
In Europe, a woman rides her horse every weekend for dressage/fun/whatever. So she hooks a horse trailer up to her Audi station wagon and takes it.
In America, a woman rides her horse every weekend at her home. But she needs to move it to a different paddock twice a year (summer, winter). So it's obvious she will require an F-350 dual wheel truck as a daily driver...
Very true, but that Audi with a horse trailer will get along just fine with other traffic at speeds <= 80km/h which are mandatory for that configuration on much of the continent.
The image on that article really makes me miss my '79 Ford that as a teen I bought not running and fixed/replaced just about everything including the straight-6 300 engine. I tracked my MPG by hand and remember I got 16 in town and 21 on the highway. It blows my mind that something like a modern Tacoma can't blow that away, even while gaining 1,000 pounds over the old Ford.
The Tacoma and small trucks in general are odd. The engine is small but the truck is still quite heavy and is geared to handle it's own weight plus any towing or bed load. This gearing makes them inefficient.
I was wondering why Toyota Tacoma mpg was worse than the F-150. Now I know, the reliability took a nose dive and it will take a while to match mpg and quality/reliability. Toyota is stubborn about reliability.
> Biased messenger, but correct message. CAFE and crash standards are the example to teach "bad knock-on effect". Make strict efficiency requirements, but exempt huge trucks? Everyone makes huge trucks!
I agree, Tesla is clearly self-interested here but I'll take any ally in this fight I can find. Just like it's notable (but unsurprising) that all of the big manufacturers of ICE vehicles are opposed to this change.
There's going to be a place for ICE vehicles on our roads for quite a while longer yet, but in this transitional phase there's absolutely no reason that we should be incentivizing manufacturers to create larger / less efficient vehicles, which is what our existing regulatory framework has inadvertently done for decades now.
> Just like it's notable (but unsurprising) that all of the big manufacturers of ICE vehicles are opposed to this change.
I don't think it's notable at all. Companies opposing (potential) legislation that will cost them large amounts of money aimed at them lobbied for by a competitor isn't exactly shocking.
> but in this transitional phase there's absolutely no reason that we should be incentivizing manufacturers to create larger / less efficient vehicles, which is what our existing regulatory framework has inadvertently done for decades now
The truck market is one thing (and I tend to agree there), but uh, car manufacturers are making their vehicles more and more efficient, just in general.
A 2010 Toyota Camry 4-cylinder, 2.5L automatic gets 26MPG (22/32). A 2023 with the same specs gets 32 (28/39) [1].
A 24% increase in fuel efficiency for an ICE in just over a decade is something that should be lauded. Can they become even more efficient (and recognizing there is more to fuel economy than just the engine)? Sure. Does it require Tesla lobbying to try to force it? I am a lot less sure.
There is a lot of research showing that particulate pollution from tires is really harmful as well. I wonder if tesla will also be in favor of tougher regulations on that.
Why wouldn’t they be in favor of tire particulate regulations? They have a heavy car, but it’s no heavier than the top selling SUVs and trucks made by other manufacturers.
There’s a lot of country outside of whatever starbucks downtown you happen to live in - where it snows, rains, municipal services clean roads “eventually” if ever, before it melts on it’s own, and household shopping doesn’t fit in prada purse.
I've lived there. And those places had vehicles 30 years ago, when they were all much smaller. And if you've ever been to places where the roads really aren't plowed, people don't buy bigger trucks for that weather, they buy snowmobiles.
I am sorry, apparently there’s only one way to make choices and I was doing it all wrong, so has everyone else who doesn’t have either an electric vehicle or a snowmobile. Never mind that I am writing this while on the side of the mountain and I plow my driveway myself with a diesel truck, you know better.
Okay, and if you choose to live there and want to drive a monstrosity then the DMV should require you to prove that you can do so safely, much like they do with Starbucks Downtown Coastal Elites that have to get a motorcycle license before they can paint the road with their brains in what would otherwise be a minor traffic accident in a car.
It's wild seeing a space that usually blasts companies from using regulation to give themselves a moat. I think the only way to make fair and not just kill major US auto manufacturers while still putting pressure to for everyone to improve would be demanding the same efficiency increase for both ICE and electric vehicles.
Like can you imaging GM lobbying for stricter regulation on the total weight of vehicles due to the excess road maintenance and environmental damage of wearing through break-pads faster? Like we would all know it's not altruistic and they're just picking one metric they have an inherent advantage on and pushing that harder.
I think anyone with an ounce of common sense is aware that EVs are analogous to the steam era with similar dangers. Coal power is used to create and force tremendous amounts of trapped energy into batteries, which like a steam boiler is highly stressed with the added danger of explosion, thermal runaway and toxic chemical fire that can't be extinguished.
Where EVs - heavy, tire and road shredding devices requiring enormous amounts of largely unrecyclable materials in their batteries etc - have virtually no regulatory burden (why is there not legislation requiring mechanical door locks for example?) ICE vehicles, which are now highly sophisticated and efficient, are subject to endless meddling and restrictions.
An entire airport car park burnt down last week, which is an unprecedented event masked by a compliant media who are obsessed with selling the concept that EVs are our future - all just because a bunch of bungling politicians have tried to legislate change.
It's all a terrible mess compounded by encouraging people to abandon common sense and buy into the hallucinatory idea grids and the planet can support EVs within a few short years
Instead of changing the standards, I think they should keep them the same, but instead change the definition of a light truck (which is exempt) so that it only applies if the vehicle is used as a truck. People using a truck as a truck know that cosmetic damage to the sheet metal will occur and don't worry about it. Thus:
A for tax purposes the value of a truck is based only on the number of hours the engine as run, and the mechanical condition (as audited by an independent mechanic). This will kill the rental and lease market for trucks since they won't be allowed to charge extra for cosmetic damages. You can still buy one, trade in will be weird as the dealer won't give you extra for perfect body condition, mean while every once in a while they will have a deep discount sale day to get rid of the not mint condition trucks (everything else will be moved off the lot for that day), but your taxes will still show you paid mint condition price).
Of course what will happen is light trucks will be split into two models with slightly different names, one is a light truck and one is car. The car will cost more because it has to comply with CAFE. The truck will be cheaper.
Here come the fanatical tree huggers to explain why a megacorp led by a megalomaniacal conman pushing for the government to strangle their competition is ackshually a good thing.
Absolute lunacy from this proposal. They well know the current timeline for phasing out ICE vehicles is actually not going that well and they want to further accelerate that timeline? That's just plain greedy, they know Tesla is dominating the EV market atm, this will hurt and slow down current manufactures.
We are already seeing Ford slowing the production for the lightning line because the demands is just not there, there is a huge gap in infrastructure to support the upcoming wave of EVs.
People are just very hesitant to jump the EV boat, and well justified. EV charging is a mess of apps, unreliable charging rates, and just general availability in non-metro areas.
What happened to letting the free market sort it out? /s
Electric vehicles are so great, so cheap, so universally loved - it’s inconceivable why one would ever buy anything else. And environmentally friendly too? Sign me up!
I literally have nowhere to charge the thing when I'm home because I live in an apartment. My workplace does not do electric car charging in the parking lot. So an electric car is a no-go for me.
Your problems are of little concern to fiery little bunch of activists in these comments who will force their good deeds right down your throat for the greater good. If it works for them why shouldn’t it work for you too, and if you are still disagreeable - a bit more extra taxes would help you see their point of view.
Automakers blast US plan to hike fuel efficiency rules
The US is on track to completely destroy the western world's automotive industries, with a huge knock on effect in Europe. Millions of jobs will be gone forever and in the near future we will be completely reliant on areas of the world that don't care about pollution control for (probably mediocre quality) vehicles.
They've already proven the EV model works (along with BYD) [1]. Might as well shove your enemy into the lumber saw if they're trying to weaken standards. Adapt or die. Someone else will make EVs if legacy auto doesn't. No need to encourage folks to drive a studio apartment around (F150) if it is combustion powered. We're burning up so much fossil fuel for people who are social signaling or buying emotionally vs legitimate need [2] [3].
"...75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners go off-road one time a year or less."
If climate change is an emergency, treat it as such. If companies die, they die.
What is a legitimate need in your book? I don't use my truck to tow a lot of stuff (besides a boat which you probably don't think is legitimate either), and I don't go off-roading much except for deer season (again, I'm sure that's terrible for you), but it does get used for hauling things in the bed that wouldn't be able to fit in my car quite a bit.
I get people don't like using them for commuters and I agree, but to argue there is no use for them besides towing or going off-roading is absolutely silly to me. But maybe because I'm an idiot who lives in a rural area.
> "...75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners go off-road one time a year or less."
I don't see how this shows that people aren't using their trucks. Off-roading seems like a odd use for this purpose and towing is not a great metric because you can easily utilize a truck for a ton of hauling that doesn't require towing.
I agree people fly around the globe, putting tons of Co2 into the air, to simply take a instagram photo! Who cares if the travel industry dies? This is a emergency!
Or will only the luxuries your socioeconomic class doesn't engage in be targeted?
If you fly, you should be required to pay to offset using direct air capture at whatever the current market price is. I pay the fully loaded cost of all CO2 emissions my family is responsible for. The argument isn't "don't do this", the argument is "either avoid emissions or pay for them."
Are you comparing the light vehicle emissions of the low and middle class to discretionary pickup truck purchases, priced between $50k and $80k? If you want to drive such a vehicle, and it is a combustion version, as long as whatever mechanism is dispensing the fuel ensures you're paying for that CO2 to be sequestered back underground in a stable form, by all means, Canyonero! But that is not what is on offer at scale.
I pay Climeworks for annual emissions, all of our vehicles are EVs, and all of our home energy is sourced from solar. You should do more research before making inaccurate statements that "Carbon credits are a scam." Some are, some are not. The ones that aren't are, of course, more expensive.
I am not going to keep arguing with you because your ideology compels you to treat me the way you do, in a derogatory, condescending fashion. I am doing my small part (as I think everyone should, in proportion to their means and impact), and I work to find leverage points for scale (early investor in Tesla, donating to political reps who supported the Inflation Reduction Act). If you don't agree with me, that is your right, based upon your mental model. I am satisfied with what I can do with what I have, and mostly with the present velocity of change. I don't need buy in from people like yourself. The data shows it isn't needed, nor material to solve for climate change. If you don't believe climate change is real, or of the level of risk communicated by domain experts, we have nothing to discuss.
EDIT: I'm not telling the poor how to live. Living is expensive. It has always been terrible to be poor. That is what subsidies are for, to help the poor deal with climate change. I fully support subsidizing those who need the subsidies to accomplish these goals. Increase taxes if necessary, as high as necessary.
While you part remains small I don't think you have a leg to stand on when it comes to telling those much poorer and less fortunate than you, how to live. They have had a rough time lately let's not make transportation even more expensive for them. They can have some luxuries if it isn't a big enough deal for you to give up yours.
> I don't think you have a leg to stand on when it comes to telling those much poorer how to live
Doesn't the fact that they're doing more than others give them that leg?
> have had a rough time lately let's not make transportation even more expensive for them
This is a false economy. On whom do you think the costs of climate change are disproportionately falling? We're already starting to see what the shutdown of local gasoline refining and distribution looks like; would you prefer they be stranded in increasingly expensive-to-operate vehicles with limited resale value instead?
> Doesn't the fact that they're doing more than others give them that leg?
They aren't doing more than others, they just have disposable income. Being wealthy isn't a virtue.
> This is a false economy.
I want you to go to Detroit, Appalachia or South America and explain this to them.
Let them know dad can't go to work beacuse his car doesn't meet your standards or beacuse you shut down the refinery, but you won't be giving up your trip to Milan.
> they just have disposable income. Being wealthy isn't a virtue
They're doing more than me, and I consider myself wealthy. I didn't know about Climeworks, and will start doing that, as well as perhaps prioritise putting up solar panels before redoing my deck and balcony.
> want you to go to Detroit, Appalachia or South America and explain this to them
I live in Wyoming. I understand what you're saying. What I'm saying is that the people in Appalachia, the ones whose towns are predominantly along flood-prone rivers surrounded by receding forests, they're the ones who will get screwed within our lifetimes. They are being done no favors being left to their own devices.
> dad can't go to work beacuse his car doesn't meet your standards
They can keep their car for as long as they want. And I'd argue that they should get a subsidy for making the change over to an EV. Right now, there is room to do that. To turn a refinery town into a wind or battery metals town. Ten or twenty years later, I think that moment has passed. There is never political will to save the last ones left behind.
Wyoming has a lot of potential for wind power (and they are developing it). West Virginia isn't as fortunate though (not enough flat land for lots of wind, no glaciers for hydro, though they could do a lot of pumped storage if coupled with nuclear or something).
You have done nothing but strawman in this thread. They are arguing about people driving $80k trucks, you are arguing that's telling the poorest Detroit workers' children their dad can't go to work. That dad isn't the one buying an $80k truck.
I really find it suspicious that at a cost of $10 billion they can't figure out a way to improve their fleets.
I guess they'll just get disrupted by companies that can then.