Comment by yholio | Hacker News Reader

Comment by yholio | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> I've come around though. I think all the bastardized carbon accounting, market based solutions are on average quite bad.

Carbon taxing works well when it's applied - but it's very hard to create the political consensus to impose it. For example, the high cost of fuel in Europe has driven cars to an average MPG equivalent of 45 versus the average of 33 in US. That's nothing to sneeze at, it's 40% more for a given amount of CO2 - and that's after the continous fuel efficiency improvements happening on both sides in recent decades: https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/0...

However, the EU fuel taxes are not actually carbon taxes, they are road taxes. Imposing the same tax on industry and power generation, as pure carbon taxes, would have immense political blow back.

So I really wonder how do you think "ban all non-renewable electric stations and cement factories" would work if we can't even accept a 3-10% price increase on these products?

The comparison in the graph you linked isn't particularly useful.

The US, having cheap gasoline, uses gasoline vehicles in far more roles than say, the EU does, where diesel is far more common. "Light commercial" might as well read "should have been diesel" from an MPG standpoint.

That's the point of carbon taxes, isn't it? It's irrelevant what and how people drive, and they certainly don't give a buck about carbon emissions, yet they unwittingly alter their behavior with the effect of reducing the taxed behavior.

By the way, diesel is now typically more expensive than gasoline in Europe too, and the tax embodied in the price is roughly proportional to the carbon content of both. In the past there used to be a lower tax on diesel in some countries as an aid to farmers and the transport industry, but it is less common now.

> By the way, diesel is now typically more expensive than gasoline in Europe too

Really? Which countries? Not in the european countries I'm familiar with.

Better to have the pollution we know, rather than the unknown pollution from the avreage diesel engine. American buses are 10x cleaner.

I think the issue with carbon taxes is a 10-20% reduction isn't enough. A 75% reduction is needed. Which means some sectors the reduction will have to be more than that.

At that point bans make more sense.

Exactly what I meant. The whole vehicle tax, externality-pricing approach does not make sense if you walk away from the chalkboard and look at the big picture.

Also, not every 20% is the same. 20% reductions in emmisions because 20% of the fleet is electric-from-solar is a lot closer to 100% than 20% because of lighter cars and more efficient ICEs.

Needed for what? Optimal range for plants growth is 1000-1500ppm.

Don't forget US Gallons are smaller than "proper" imperial ones

OP is using US gallons, though.

Are you sure? There are cars that are that efficient, but as an average? In real life?

The average European car is very different from the average US car. The most sold cars in the US are the Ford F series, in the EU it's the VW Golf and similar hatchbacks.

There are a lot of forces at play here, among others tax rates (which cause the F150 to get bigger and European cars to get lighter), fuel prices, culture (in Europe a big truck won't impress anyone, you get other types of cars for that), average and maximum distance traveled (in Europe nobody fantasizes about roadtrips), road conditions (high population density makes offroad driving less important in rural Europe than in rural America), etc

You didn't mention parking. In many European cities I've visited, you'd barely be able to park a larger American car almost anywhere. Last trip over there, I rented an MPV which effectively fit a family with seats for two children, plus luggage, in what was barely bigger than an Australian hatchback. And even that was nerve-wracking to drive in some underground carparks, or park in old-town streets.

in Europe nobody fantasizes about roadtrips

That's an interesting tidbit. I always thought that they did. I thought the automotive term "GT" meant "Grand Tour" and was European in inspiration.

That's what I get for culling most of my European auto culture information from Top Gear.

>in Europe nobody fantasizes about roadtrips

Even besides the German brands (VW, Mercedes, BMW), there are a huge number of European car manufacturers (Skoda, Peugeot, citroen) > showing ability and demand for cars in Europe. Also, the small size and mostly flat nature of Europe, cultural diversity, and longer vacation time all contribute to Europeans traveling more than Americans. Not to mention excellent roads, family/student hostels for less expensive trips (pre-Airbnb era) and obviously Visa free travel. So yes Europeans might not have the same idea of long distance road trips we have in the US but that is not to say they don't take the same trips or more than in the US

In the US it’s a pretty normal thing to drive coast to coast, that’s equivalent distance to driving London to Moscow, and that is a very rare thing to do. Actually the equivalent in Europe is young people doing interrail trips (a month long unlimited rail ticket). People I think mostly drive to do a specific trip, like maybe going skiing or even just going across the border to shop. But there isn’t the same prevalence of the road trip, it is strange thing in a way, but it is true. There is a particular romance that people are attracted to in different places. Funnily enough, if a European young person is going to take a road trip they’re probably just as likely to fly to the US and do it there.

Europe nobody fantasizes about roadtrips

So how do you explain the countless German and Dutch cars driving around forests of Norway and Sweden every summer?

Because Finland is sparsely populated (and long) for an EU country, road trips are a thing here, especially for a winter holiday to Lapland. We even have a company advertise car ferries to Germany, so some must fantasize about a road trip!

Even then, there are no American size cars. Most sold cars are European or Japanese station wagons.

That's kind of a bad comparison because the Ford F-Series (or any other pickup platform) is many different vehicles under one name.

basically in europe there are not a lot of pickups to none out there. in europe there is a trend for SUVs at the moment, but besides that we mostly buy limousines.

This is a "limousine" in the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limousine#/media/File:98-02_Li...

So I assume you were using the "sedan" interpretation.

There are plenty of pickups in Europe. It's just that they're based on vans, with a tray on the back instead of a box. And very few people are silly enough to buy one as their personal vehicle.

If we need to move mulch or the like, we rent/buy trailers.

Indeed but it's funny that most SUVs are (what I'd call) fake SUVs. They look beefy and big but they have a 1.6 liter engine and can still only pull 1200-1400 kg (like the Hyundai ix35). And then there are the real ones that may at first glance look the same but easily pull up to or over 2400 kg (Volvo xc90 versions).

>and big but they have a 1.6 liter engine and can still only pull 1200-1400 kg

This is a reflection of the vehicle platforms they're built on. You take a Civic or a Dart slap on AWD, a lift kit and extra 500-1000lb of body/interior and call it a CRV or a Cherokee and there's not much spare capacity left to haul cargo or tow trailers.

Mostly they don't even slap on AWD :)

I'm sure that they were using US gallons. Whether this is data is accurate is another matter.

According to the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), Europe averaged 46 MPG (US gallons, "normalized to CAFE test cycles") in 2015 [1], compared to something like 37 MPG in the US.

This NY Times article [2] summarizes the report, with some nice graphs.

[1] https://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/201...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/04/03/climate/us-fu...

I share your parent's skepticism. It seems obvious that cars sold in the US are not averaging 37 MPG when the average car is roughly a RAV4 that gets 22/29.(EDIT: It occurs to me that the RAV4 may be classified as a light truck -- even so, I can go pick a passenger car...)

As far as I can tell taking a quick look at your links, the difference can be in two things. First, these are fuel economy standards companies are expected to hit, and not reporting on whether they hit them or missed and paid penalties. Second there's the phrase "Assumes manufacturers fully use low-GWP A/C refrigerants credits". Apparently fuel economy numbers are boosted by these credits--actual fuel economy isn't the same thing, it appears?

(EDIT: Overall fuel economy for cars and trucks combined was 24.8 mpg in MY2015 [1])

[1] https://phys.org/news/2016-11-average-fuel-economy-high-mpg....

Additional notes:

The top 4 best-selling passenger cars are the Honda Accord and Civic, and the Toyota Camry and Corolla [1].

Their "combined city/highway" fuel efficiences are respectively 30, 34, 27, and 32 mpg for the base engine [2][3][4][5].

How can this possibly work out to 37 mpg overall? There aren't enough hybrid sales to bring that number up.

[1] http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2018/08/july-2018-ytd-u-s-passe... [2] https://www.edmunds.com/honda/accord/2017/features-specs/ [3] https://www.edmunds.com/honda/civic/2017/features-specs/ [4] https://www.edmunds.com/toyota/camry/2017/features-specs/ [5] https://www.edmunds.com/toyota/corolla/2017/features-specs/

Thanks for finding some stats. Based on the cars I see driving in the UK, I'm sure plenty of people buy cars that claim to do 55mpg, and many of those cars will actually do 55mpg. But as an average? - I'm just a bit unconvinced.

(Perhaps the mpgs were added up and divided by N? That doesn't always provide the answer you're looking for.)

If you compare US cars to EU cars on average then: - EU cars are much smaller - hp of engines is much lower

> "skepticism" "It seems obvious"

Pick one please.

I wasn't saying anything about EU cars -- why are you bringing that up?

I am skeptical of the 37mpg claim because it seems clear to me that the average car sold in the US isn't that efficient. What's the contradiction?

Sorry, I missed that part.

I think 37mpg depends on what you actually count as a car and what goes for a light truck.

See my comment in a parallel branch for data: even the US best-selling passenger cars don’t average 37 mpg.

Europe and Japan both use smaller engine sizes, increasing fuel economy pretty drastically compared to North America. Especially when your average speed might be 80 km/hr, rather than 80 miles an hour. I don't know if their different testing regimes reflect that (maybe).

Anecdote: several years ago, I got the lightest, smallest-engined, most-efficient car I could find here in Canada, a Toyota Yaris. And using a calculator to convert units, I see that even so, it only gets me ~40 US MPG (real world) - most because of highway speeds. When I drive mostly 80km/hr, it's about 42 US MPG. When I drive mostly 120 km/hr, it's more like 36 US MPG. The same car is sold in Japan/EU with a 1.2 litre engine, vs the 1.5 litre in North America. Similar things happen with many other models.

A Toyota Camry Hybrid will get better MPG with a 2.5 liter engine, and give more space for passengers and cargo, than the Yaris. Also it has EV-like torque.

My relatives drive a Camry Hybrid, and I've used it a fair bit. It certainly does have better torque, and slightly better real world mileage (5.5 litre/100km for the Camry, vs my Yaris at 6.0 litre/100km). It also drives more comfortably on the highway. It's less affected by wind/passenger weight, though downshifting to 4th has never been an issue for me.

However, as a sedan, I strongly dispute the "more space for passengers and cargo". The trunk is larger in the camry, but has severe limits that the Yaris, a hatchback, does not. Carrying a mini fridge, for example, is out of the question in a Camry, but easy in a Yaris (as long as you only have 1 or 2 passengers). Also, the camry has better rear-seat leg room, but much less height, such that my head (185cm) touches the roof in the back seats. Finally, the Yaris has better clearance for rough roads, and much better turning radius and visibility for city driving. (Oh, and my cost after 150000km, including purchase, fuel, and oil changes, is just approaching the purchase price of a Camry Hybrid)

I wish the Yaris Hybrid, available in Japan, was available in North America.

Last weekend, I took an assembled office chair to my parents in the back seat of my Camry Hybrid. If you put the fridge in the back seat, it would probably fit.

And I used to haul my 46" HDTV in my 99 Sentra, pretty sure it will fit in Camry too.

Camry is big for city driving. Moving to Seattle again reminds me how much better a Yaris can parallel park than my 'boat'.

I'm consistently driving 1100 miles a month on 28 gallons. This may change after the upcoming move, since walking will replace driving as primary transportation.

Definitely tradeoffs with any model of car. I'm hopeful that when I'm ready to get a new car (in another 5 years or so...) that the electric car landscape has changed enough that there's something that ticks more boxes for me. A hatchback really fits best with how I use a car (an SUV would provide most of the same, but be much less fun in the city)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com