Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

They've already proven the EV model works (along with BYD) [1]. Might as well shove your enemy into the lumber saw if they're trying to weaken standards. Adapt or die. Someone else will make EVs if legacy auto doesn't. No need to encourage folks to drive a studio apartment around (F150) if it is combustion powered. We're burning up so much fossil fuel for people who are social signaling or buying emotionally vs legitimate need [2] [3].

"...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...

View on HN

What is a legitimate need in your book? I don't use my truck to tow a lot of stuff (besides a boat which you probably don't think is legitimate either), and I don't go off-roading much except for deer season (again, I'm sure that's terrible for you), but it does get used for hauling things in the bed that wouldn't be able to fit in my car quite a bit.

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.

> "...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."

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.

I agree people fly around the globe, putting tons of Co2 into the air, to simply take a instagram photo! Who cares if the travel industry dies? This is a emergency!

Or will only the luxuries your socioeconomic class doesn't engage in be targeted?

If you fly, you should be required to pay to offset using direct air capture at whatever the current market price is. I pay the fully loaded cost of all CO2 emissions my family is responsible for. The argument isn't "don't do this", the argument is "either avoid emissions or pay for them."

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI_Jl5WFQkA

> I pay the fully loaded cost of all CO2 emissions my family is responsible for.

Carbon credits are a scam, so no you don't.

I pay Climeworks for annual emissions, all of our vehicles are EVs, and all of our home energy is sourced from solar. You should do more research before making inaccurate statements that "Carbon credits are a scam." Some are, some are not. The ones that aren't are, of course, more expensive.

https://climeworks.com/carbon-removal-as-a-solution-to-fight...

https://climeworks.com/news/climeworks-achievedvalidationfro...

Since it's a emergency shouldn't you buy as many carbon credits as you can afford and skip the vacation?

I am not going to keep arguing with you because your ideology compels you to treat me the way you do, in a derogatory, condescending fashion. I am doing my small part (as I think everyone should, in proportion to their means and impact), and I work to find leverage points for scale (early investor in Tesla, donating to political reps who supported the Inflation Reduction Act). If you don't agree with me, that is your right, based upon your mental model. I am satisfied with what I can do with what I have, and mostly with the present velocity of change. I don't need buy in from people like yourself. The data shows it isn't needed, nor material to solve for climate change. If you don't believe climate change is real, or of the level of risk communicated by domain experts, we have nothing to discuss.

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.

While you part remains small I don't think you have a leg to stand on when it comes to telling those much poorer and less fortunate than you, how to live. They have had a rough time lately let's not make transportation even more expensive for them. They can have some luxuries if it isn't a big enough deal for you to give up yours.

> I don't think you have a leg to stand on when it comes to telling those much poorer how to live

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?

> Doesn't the fact that they're doing more than others give them that leg?

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 just have disposable income. Being wealthy isn't a virtue

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.

Wyoming has a lot of potential for wind power (and they are developing it). West Virginia isn't as fortunate though (not enough flat land for lots of wind, no glaciers for hydro, though they could do a lot of pumped storage if coupled with nuclear or something).

You have done nothing but strawman in this thread. They are arguing about people driving $80k trucks, you are arguing that's telling the poorest Detroit workers' children their dad can't go to work. That dad isn't the one buying an $80k truck.

Is "shove your enemy into the lumber saw" a common saying?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com