> Tesla urges US to adopt much tougher fuel efficiency rules
Color me surprised. Not.
Color me surprised. Not.
"...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.
[1] https://www.statista.com/chart/30758/most-popular-plug-in-el...
[2] https://twitter.com/TheWarOnCars/status/1497757646455201792
[3] https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-siz...
Or will only the luxuries your socioeconomic class doesn't engage in be targeted?
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.
Carbon credits are a scam, so no you don't.
https://climeworks.com/carbon-removal-as-a-solution-to-fight...
https://climeworks.com/news/climeworks-achievedvalidationfro...
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.
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?
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'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.
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.
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.