[flagged]
there is ZERO reason to be buying (or producing) vehicles like this. climate change is seriously happening for real, and this is like flicking off everybody who gives a shit for no reason.
if you need a truck like this to work (people got along fine with trucks with less power for a century), they aren't paying the asking price anyway
is that a high enough bar for you?
Where does your electricity come from? Ecosystem destroying dams or fossil fuels? The PNW is pretty bad when it comes to energy and I would much prefer you move to the desert where you can live on solar or vote to put in some nuclear. Both of those would be vastly better for the earth than your plan for a vegetable farm.
those truck buyers could start literally anywhere, but I doubt they are. same goes for the tuning company.
there is clearly a grey line. and this truck is clearly way past it.
But that’s all that you’ve done. You’ve just moved them somewhere that’s convenience for you.
That’s what I’m demonstrating here. If you don’t pick something objective like CO2 emissions and tax that directly, this is just a big pointless fucking culture war that does nothing to help climate change.
There is no shared sacrifice here, it’s just “fuck the person that buys this truck”. Nothing to do with emissions or anything like that.
and yes. fuck the person who bought that truck (the very specific topic of the OP and this whole thread), and skirted the taxes, the very objective measure you purport to uphold.
this truck doesn't even pass the sniff test. it's blatant.
what do you even want?? I have no idea what you're arguing for.
I suggest we sue the shit out of corps skirting taxes. call the individuals who participate assholes.
the only reason you called me out is because for some reason I'm not allowed to have an opinion about this because lines are blurry?? it's called politics, where you hadh out the lines, redraw them, and hash them out again.
if you want to call me an asshole, fine, do it. you might be right, I'm probably a hipocrite in some area I haven't examined yet. but at least I'm trying
the vehicle is a giant middle finger to minimization. pure excess.
I think it's not not about a line but a posture, and that truck is one that's obvious: fuck responsibility.
an individual's emotional response gets them to act. rational people tell them where to channel their energy. we need both.
but you put up goal posts marking objective things people can do better on, as if to check whether or not I'm allowed to have an opinion on this truck (which is the inane part, not the whole conversation) tho I'm tired of it as well.
I met those goal posts and went further because I've been acting on the emotional and rational responses for years now.
my point is that we don't need "arbitrary" lines to find out whether this specific truck skirting these specific taxes is crossing them. it's so flagrant it doesn't need an emotional or rational justification.
it clearly does.
just admit your original comment was an emotional one, go back and read it and tell me it wasn't at all.
I don't care whether we are polarized. I don't believe we are going to experience a magical unification where we figure out politics out and defeat climate change.
it's a slow train downhill and everybody who isn't getting on board now (trying and learning to reduce) is my enemy. end of story.
This is going overboard on the bad thing, vs driving a fuel efficient car as a comparison to eating some red meat.
Not that I think it's on individuals to handle climate change. It's on governments to ban kind of vehicle, or rather, ensure its battery electric
This real super-happening climate change won't be impacted by literally a handful of people in Europe sometimes being half as efficient as a normal truck.
There's more FIA cars than Hennessey ones. Do you want to ban that as well?
and this ostentatious excess a side effect of the processes that got us into critical climate change in the first place: a proliferation of needless consumption driven by manufactured demand due to excessive production.
and yes, we need to massively rethink car and transportation infrastructure to compensate.
maybe it is you who is limited in actual eyesight?
No thank you. I would rather not treat my actions regarding climate change like a poor college student comparing prices of bland cup noodles.
but that mentality is also why we're fucked. we are losing our way of life anyway, why not choose the easy things to give up now?
NIMBYism is a real part of failed climate policy as much as ExxonMobile's misinformation campaigns and grifting
Because it placates one-dimensional morons into thinking they are doing something to stop climate change without actually changing anything. How many hours have been spent discussing this do-nothing tax while planes still fly without additional taxes?
Another 20% airfare tax would do more in a week for climate change than this tax will do ever.
> NIMBYism is a real part of failed climate policy
What you’re supporting is the definition of NIMBYism. It’s a tax on other people doing things you don’t like and it’s not happening to you so it’s okay.
how do you know I wouldn't support it? I would never buy that truck ever so of course I wouldn't need to pay a tax for it... I also support a 20% airfare tax. because I don't fly a lot. because I don't want to. because it's bad...
I would support insanely radical climate austerity measures imposed on my treasured way of life. I truly am ready to give up a lot if society starts moving in lockstep to face the future.
if only there were politicians willing to do so. but NIMBYs make sure they'll never be elected. until, to your point, it is in their back yard.
Who ever said you wouldn't? Of course you would:
> > it’s not happening to you so it’s okay.
> I would support insanely radical climate austerity measures imposed on my treasured way of life. I truly am ready to give up a lot if society starts moving in lockstep to face the future.
Well good for you, you're a saint[1].
Newsflash 1: Most ordinary people aren't.
Newsflash 2: The world is made up of ordinary people.
Newsflash 3: The only thing saints accomplish by parading their sainthood is annoying ordinary people.
___
[1]: At least here, on-line. And I'm sure you're sincere about it, as long as it's about stuff that wouldn't happen to you. As for the "truly ready to give up [your] treasured way of life"... We only have you saying that.
> what more can we do with less
is extremely exciting. but has been left unprioritized because it isn't sexy.
It's practically the definition of anti-social or sociopathic behavior. A complete disregard for the wellbeing of others.
Did you know there's a war on?
also why blame anyone who purchases such a vehicle for nonsensical tax laws? it is not clearly a commercial vehicle yet the laws are such that it is considered so simply by weighing a certain amount. that is what creates the tax loophole, not the speed limiter. the limiter is simply a consequence of an arbitrary classification.
If you want to push the cost of your hobby onto society by commiting tax fraud I don't think it's the democratically elected legislature that's at issue here.
I thought they were of concern for the effect on the global climate, in contrast to NOx, CO or HC emissions.
I would think it's academic anyway, because a vehicle that costs as much as a Ferrari isn't going to be used to commute in. Ten times the CO2 emissions from a vehicle driven 1/10th as much is a wash.
As far as weight goes, it may be huge but the article says it's just barely large enough to be classed with commercial vehicles. Wouldn't you think the biggest commercial trucks do most road damage? There's a widespread factoid that the damage is a very nonlinear function of weight, and so road taxes are allegedly misapportioned.
Correlation, causation regarding weight/size of vehicle and external impact. Its actually quite simple to objectively determine that sort of impact on a vehicle by vehicle basis, all of this is known. No reason to anchor it to the weight of a vehicle.
Again, the tax aspect ("fraud") is NOT being pushed by a potential purchaser. the laws FORCE it to be a vehicle that is tax exempt (according to the article).
Judging by my Facebook, I know a lot of sociopathic assholes. :-/
At these rates and a great circle distance of ~8000km you'd get 4 metric tons for two people round trip. Long-haul planes are likely more efficient than average per passenger mile, so some SFO-LHR round-trips are actually closer to 1 metric ton per person. Still not great, of course.