This is "the argument" against fuel efficient cars. Although I think we all know what this is really about:
"First, people who buy fuel-efficient vehicles will end up driving more, increasing the odds that they will get into a crash. Second, the fuel-efficient vehicles will themselves will be more expensive, slowing the rate at which people buy newer vehicles with advanced safety features. Third, automakers will have to make their cars lighter in response to rising standards, slightly hurting safety."
I don't really understand why people of a certain political leaning take comfort in burning as much fossil fuel as possible and find all kinds of excuses to justify burning more fuel. I really don't get it.
A huge chunk of the American electorate has given up on principles and is now in a sports mentality where the only goal is to beat the opposing team. This has been driven to extremes by eight years of a non-white President from that team. The opposing team is against pollution and favors fuel efficiency, thus they are for pollution and against fuel efficiency. That’s really all there is to it. Look up “rolling coal” for the purest expression of this sentiment.
And the same people would nornally be shouting how more safety features are "job killing" but now that they can use them to burn more fuel they are all for them.
The “wining” team, this time, didn’t really win, now did they? They lost by 3 million votes. Without going into what Russia did to tip this elections, which were won by mere 70,000 votes in the 3 key states.
This is for sure not your usual right vs left style of governing. It’s the right not accepting that they’ve lost. It’s the self righteousness of people who think they have the right to govern, no matter what.
They won according to the rules of the game. Normal politics might say that they ought to govern from the middle given how narrowly they won. But with a team mentality, that makes no sense. It’s like saying the Super Bowl winners should share the trophy because they only won by one point and the other team ran the ball more yards. Does not compute.
Very true. The only thing that bugged me was that Trump can not even win with grace. He won but had to claim additionally without any proof that he would have won even more if not millions of illegal voters would have voted. Pretty sad.
Rules of the game, really? You mean colluding with a foreign government against your own people is playing by th “rules of the game”? Isn’t it exactly the oppsite?
Whichever is the case with this narrow “win” they for sure did not get manadate to foundentally change the USA. And this is without getting into trump’s a non existing ideology of plan for governing. It’s not a government. A government does not work against the interests of its people.
If you want to know why, I'll explain. You made a bad initial argument, which seemed to be motivated by having a political axe to grind. Since then, your replies have looked like someone who just wants to argue, but isn't actually listening to what they're replying to. That's a "dialog" that isn't going to contribute anything useful. All it adds is noise.
We try to avoid that kind of thing on HN. Hence the downvotes.
A large portion of the electorate does not believe in global warming or believe it is man made. This is a debate for another thread, let's not go there, it is just how it is for a number of reasons.
Therefore, why not burn more fuel? It is good for the economy, good for heavy industry (planes, cars), and good for your quality of life (if you don't believe it will end the world).
Taxes on fuel, large vehicles, and efficiency requirements hurt the middle class and poor consumer more. It makes products more expensive, and reduces choice, so that only the rich can drive gas guzzlers (the left needs to figure out how to make this hit the rich people too and restrict their choices if they want to tickle the populist portion of the electorate).
From a purely economic standpoint, if you don't believe in global warming, then increasing fuel consumption is the BEST way to encourage development of alternative energy. You will use up your supply more quickly, prices will raise naturally, and the market will develop alternative solutions.
>The Trump administration contends that, by promoting the manufacture and sale of lighter cars, the Obama standards could lead to nearly 13,000 more auto fatalities.
What is this madness‽ Light does not automatically equate to being unsafe.
""This can potentially affect road safety in two big ways: On average, smaller, lighter vehicles can be worse at protecting their occupants in an accident. But lighter vehicles also cause less damage to other cars on the road. The big question is which effect dominates.
Experts who have looked at this question have developed a rule of thumb: If automakers are mainly reducing the weight of their largest vehicles, like S.U.V.s and pickup trucks, then that makes the roads safer overall. But if manufacturers were to focus more on reducing the weight of their smallest passenger cars, that could be worse for overall auto safety, since those cars would be more vulnerable in crashes with bigger vehicles.""
It does not, but in the past the calculations to derive these numbers take into account what happens when a small light car impacts a larger, heavier car as well as the probability of this kind of crash happening. Numbers like this are easily fungible too, the worst kind of statistics.
Good, this environmental thing is getting out of control. When banning/taxing straws is the main concern for a political party you know it's not actually about the original issue anymore.
The thing about the environment is that we have two interwoven battles. One for the minds of the people (in which banning draws is absolutely essential) and one for effective solutions (where straws don’t matter).
It’s like fighting for tougher laws in hate crimes even if you know with certainty that it won’t lower the rate of offenses. It still has the effect of signaling to the wider population that the crime is serious and should be taken serious.
So sure, savings some straws won’t save the environment. But we will never ever get anywhere if we stay in a world where people don’t even care about needlessly throwing out plastic every time they get a drink “just caus”. That mentality needs to change and laws in that direction are sorely needed.
It is great news for the US car industry, as all of the big three are highly dependent upon the sale of trucks, SUVs, and larger cars. Glad to see this the 2012 rules were ridiculously stringent and burdensome and could ultimately put larger vehicles out of the consumers reach. A lot of people's jobs are at stake and the rust belt can't afford much more pain.
It isnt as bad as a had thought. I had expected them to enforce a maximum, to insist that the average be kept lower and penalties applied to cars that didnt burn enough fuel. Those voices are out there.
Question: if they succeed in stopping California from having more stringent pollution rules, could California partly work around that by making the annual registration fee for cars depend on their emissions so that high pollution cars would be penalized?
31 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 104 ms ] thread"First, people who buy fuel-efficient vehicles will end up driving more, increasing the odds that they will get into a crash. Second, the fuel-efficient vehicles will themselves will be more expensive, slowing the rate at which people buy newer vehicles with advanced safety features. Third, automakers will have to make their cars lighter in response to rising standards, slightly hurting safety."
This is for sure not your usual right vs left style of governing. It’s the right not accepting that they’ve lost. It’s the self righteousness of people who think they have the right to govern, no matter what.
Whichever is the case with this narrow “win” they for sure did not get manadate to foundentally change the USA. And this is without getting into trump’s a non existing ideology of plan for governing. It’s not a government. A government does not work against the interests of its people.
If you want to know why, I'll explain. You made a bad initial argument, which seemed to be motivated by having a political axe to grind. Since then, your replies have looked like someone who just wants to argue, but isn't actually listening to what they're replying to. That's a "dialog" that isn't going to contribute anything useful. All it adds is noise.
We try to avoid that kind of thing on HN. Hence the downvotes.
Therefore, why not burn more fuel? It is good for the economy, good for heavy industry (planes, cars), and good for your quality of life (if you don't believe it will end the world).
Taxes on fuel, large vehicles, and efficiency requirements hurt the middle class and poor consumer more. It makes products more expensive, and reduces choice, so that only the rich can drive gas guzzlers (the left needs to figure out how to make this hit the rich people too and restrict their choices if they want to tickle the populist portion of the electorate).
From a purely economic standpoint, if you don't believe in global warming, then increasing fuel consumption is the BEST way to encourage development of alternative energy. You will use up your supply more quickly, prices will raise naturally, and the market will develop alternative solutions.
What is this madness‽ Light does not automatically equate to being unsafe.
Edit:
From: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/climate/trump-fuel-econom...
""This can potentially affect road safety in two big ways: On average, smaller, lighter vehicles can be worse at protecting their occupants in an accident. But lighter vehicles also cause less damage to other cars on the road. The big question is which effect dominates.
Experts who have looked at this question have developed a rule of thumb: If automakers are mainly reducing the weight of their largest vehicles, like S.U.V.s and pickup trucks, then that makes the roads safer overall. But if manufacturers were to focus more on reducing the weight of their smallest passenger cars, that could be worse for overall auto safety, since those cars would be more vulnerable in crashes with bigger vehicles.""
It’s like fighting for tougher laws in hate crimes even if you know with certainty that it won’t lower the rate of offenses. It still has the effect of signaling to the wider population that the crime is serious and should be taken serious.
So sure, savings some straws won’t save the environment. But we will never ever get anywhere if we stay in a world where people don’t even care about needlessly throwing out plastic every time they get a drink “just caus”. That mentality needs to change and laws in that direction are sorely needed.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/climate/what-is-cli...