It's not like they aren't trying. 10% is a pretty big challenge. The bigger issue is vehicle size. You want efficiency gains? Tackle that. Start taxing road behemoths.
Except we're going the opposite way. Car manufacturers are producing SUVs/trucks almost exclusively, in large part because they have more lax emission rules.
It's not like they aren't trying. 10% is a pretty big challenge. The bigger issue is vehicle size. You want efficiency gains? Tackle that. Start taxing road behemoths.
It seems like hybrid engines is some low hanging fruit. I went for a new F-150 with the hybrid V-6. The increase in fuel economy was stunning. Could the government not mandate more hybrids?
It's not like they aren't trying. 10% is a pretty big challenge. The bigger issue is vehicle size. You want efficiency gains? Tackle that. Start taxing road behemoths.
Indeed; case in point, I downsized my truck to a Ford ranger(2020) and it weighs over 6,000 pounds. The rangers built in the 90’s were in the 4,000 pound zone. The new one gets good mileage but loosing 1/3 of the weight would make a big difference.
The Following User Says Thank You to Geraldsh For This Useful Post:
Indeed; case in point, I downsized my truck to a Ford ranger(2020) and it weighs over 6,000 pounds. The rangers built in the 90’s were in the 4,000 pound zone. The new one gets good mileage but loosing 1/3 of the weight would make a big difference.
6000lbs seems strange. Pretty sure the curb weight on my F-150 is in the neighborhood of 5500lbs.
I would think stringent fuel economy standards across all vehicle types would drive innovation, size, hybrid and electrification. But they need to harsh limits - no pain no gain. At the same time there needs to be some economy standards for electric vehicles so we’re not just squandering energy in different ways.
The Following User Says Thank You to edslunch For This Useful Post:
It's not like they aren't trying. 10% is a pretty big challenge. The bigger issue is vehicle size. You want efficiency gains? Tackle that. Start taxing road behemoths.
Yep. Average fuel economy isn't even 30mpg and we all know why.
The Following User Says Thank You to zamler For This Useful Post:
Wrong. If anything, the ones with the depopulation agenda are the ones who are fine with making this planet uninhabitable for future generations of humans, as long as it means they get to keep their ####s-&-giggles lifestyle going uninterrupted right now.
I take offense to this. I'm a nature lover. One of those nerds that watches animal videos all the time on YouTube. I find mother nature and animals on the planet fascinating. The common theme at the end of most of the videos is dwindling populations or growing endangerment and it's always due to humans taking over their habitats, over hunting/fishing, etc. I find if anything I feel the people seem way too focused on future generations and should be more focused on the amount of animal and plant species were are driving to extinction in our quest to ensure that the planet is as inhabitable as possible for humans only.
The Following User Says Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
I take offense to this. I'm a nature lover. One of those nerds that watches animal videos all the time on YouTube. I find mother nature and animals on the planet fascinating. The common theme at the end of most of the videos is dwindling populations or growing endangerment and it's always due to humans taking over their habitats, over hunting/fishing, etc. I find if anything I feel the people seem way too focused on future generations and should be more focused on the amount of animal and plant species were are driving to extinction in our quest to ensure that the planet is as inhabitable as possible for humans only.
When I said "future generations of humans" perhaps I could have been more clear; I assumed the reader would infer that I meant future generations of humans AND life on this planet in general, which must obviously include the continuation of thriving ecosystems and wildlife habitat. The link between the world's ecosystems and human health is inescapable... just how well off will humans be if the Amazon and other forests continue to be burned to the ground until they are wiped out completely? The answer is we will be screwed.
There's a lot of factors that determine climate. Climate in the past changing because one of those factors was different doesn't preclude climate changing in the present due to a different factor changing (or the same factor being changed by human activities rather than natural ones).
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Since I've railed so hard on covid anti-vaxxers and their unwillingness to change their opinions in light of new information and further education, as if it'd be a blow to their ego that they could not survive, I better not follow down that same path myself.
When this thread was created 2.5 years ago, I voted "Humans contribute to climate change, but not the main cause", and I was wrong.
If I could re-cast my vote today, it would be for "Humans are the primary contributor to climate change".
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to The Fonz For This Useful Post:
I voted the same because I was not sure to what extent. I am more sure than I was when I voted. I also am 100% sure we cannot afford to risk it. Like Elon Musk says we are running the most dangerous experiment possible, to see how much we can in fact impact the climate.
I still don't understand how forcing electric vehicles would work logistically in many cities. For example, much of the Vancouver area is occupied by multi-tenant suites. You have detached homes that were designed for single families, that are now housing 2, 3 or even more families or households. This means that most of the parking is first-come-first-serve street parking. For example, it's not uncommon that I need to park several blocks from home if I work late. Charging up every night would be hit and miss.
For me, it all comes back to city planning and affordable housing. Design cities that require fewer cars, buy and manufacture locally even if goods cost more, and make housing affordable and easier to procure so that people can live near their work.
If someone wants to live in a large detached home with a big yard and commute across the city for work, they should be taxed more and those taxes used to subsidize the rents for people who choose to give up their car (or at least drastically reduce their reliance on it) so they can live near their work. I know that idea won't be popular, but rents in major commercial areas are more than the mortgages suburbanites pay.
Climate change isn't going to be stopped with little gestures, it is going to take a massive change in how our civilization operates and our expectations for luxuries.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
