7 ms·

Those are the expected, if not intended, consequences of environmental legislation looking to decrease CO2 emissions. I can live with that. The real scandal is

Those are the expected, if not intended, consequences of environmental legislation looking to decrease CO2 emissions. I can live with that. The real scandal is that we're not building out public transit so that people do not need to own a car in the US.

BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
Is there evidence that’s the reason? I assumed corporate greed.
- bluGill 3y ago
  Corporate greed meant they got an exception to environmental rules for SUVs, which they then sell for more profit.
- throwaway44773 3y ago
  Saying that prices rise because of corporate greed is the same as saying that fires burn because of oxygen. Sure, it's true, but it's not helpful because you cannot stop people from being greedy. What is useful is to look at why corporations are able to greedily increase their prices unchecked. That's usually because of some imbalance in supply and demand: in this case, why does the demand outstrip the supply? There are multiple reasons, but one of them is that governments have outlawed the sale of new ICE vehicles for 2035, increasing demand on the small supply of electric vehicles available. This has also caused manufacturers to reduce their investment in ICE vehicles, thereby further reducing supply of these vehicles, thereby increasing prices. Furthermore, electric vehicles are (at least at this moment) more expensive to manufacture.
bequanna 3y ago
> The real scandal is that we're not building out public transit so that people do not need to own a car in the US. Is there evidence that a large number of people actually want more public transportation? If we're talking about commuters, most people who live in suburbs and commute already have the option to drive a short distance, park and ride a bus to their jobs.
- bluGill 3y ago
  That is not the valid question. We know from other cities around the world that when transit is good many people will choose to use it. However your question is phased in such a way as to kill hope: most people don't have the imagination to think of what great transit even is, much less how it would change their life or if they want it. Most of the costs of a car are fixed costs: your car payment, insurance, and taxes are the same on the car if you buy it and leave it sitting in your driveway all year, or if you drive it 70,000 miles in a year. Thus once you have the car you may as well drive all the way into work and not have to deal with the local transit system. (Unless traffic is really bad or parking is expensive this is the smart thing vs a park and ride). Work is another problem with your statement - if you still need the car to do your normal shopping, get to Church on Sunday, your volleyball club games at night, or whatever else you do with your life outside of work - then the incremental cost of driving to work is trivial so you may as well (again unless traffic or parking is an issue). The real question is can we as a society afford cars? Cars costs thousands of lives in accidents every year. Cars need a lot of space: more and more expensive lanes on are roads, and many parking lots. A great transit system would save most people a lot of money, and a lot of lives.
  - bequanna 3y ago
    > That is not the valid question. Well, luckily things in the US don't work this way. We don't build out unwanted infrastructure because "...most people don't have the imagination". The preferences of the ivory tower academics or 1% of non-car owners shouldn't drive transportation infrastructure decisions. > The real question is can we as a society afford cars? Every day, people overwhelmingly vote with their actions: YES, they want cars. NO, they don't want to make it harder or more expensive to own cars. The small minority of Americans who choose to not have cars should stop trying to tell the rest of the population how to live. Most people do not wish to live in high-density urban areas. They do not wish to have their travel restricted to wherever a bus will take them. Safety and emissions will continue to improve, but cars are (thankfully) here to stay.
    - 0xdde 3y ago

BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago

Is there evidence that’s the reason? I assumed corporate greed.

bluGill 3y ago
Corporate greed meant they got an exception to environmental rules for SUVs, which they then sell for more profit.
throwaway44773 3y ago
Saying that prices rise because of corporate greed is the same as saying that fires burn because of oxygen. Sure, it's true, but it's not helpful because you cannot stop people from being greedy. What is useful is to look at why corporations are able to greedily increase their prices unchecked. That's usually because of some imbalance in supply and demand: in this case, why does the demand outstrip the supply? There are multiple reasons, but one of them is that governments have outlawed the sale of new ICE vehicles for 2035, increasing demand on the small supply of electric vehicles available. This has also caused manufacturers to reduce their investment in ICE vehicles, thereby further reducing supply of these vehicles, thereby increasing prices. Furthermore, electric vehicles are (at least at this moment) more expensive to manufacture.

bequanna 3y ago

> The real scandal is that we're not building out public transit so that people do not need to own a car in the US. Is there evidence that a large number of people actually want more public transportation? If we're talking about commuters, most people who live in suburbs and commute already have the option to drive a short distance, park and ride a bus to their jobs.

bluGill 3y ago
That is not the valid question. We know from other cities around the world that when transit is good many people will choose to use it. However your question is phased in such a way as to kill hope: most people don't have the imagination to think of what great transit even is, much less how it would change their life or if they want it. Most of the costs of a car are fixed costs: your car payment, insurance, and taxes are the same on the car if you buy it and leave it sitting in your driveway all year, or if you drive it 70,000 miles in a year. Thus once you have the car you may as well drive all the way into work and not have to deal with the local transit system. (Unless traffic is really bad or parking is expensive this is the smart thing vs a park and ride). Work is another problem with your statement - if you still need the car to do your normal shopping, get to Church on Sunday, your volleyball club games at night, or whatever else you do with your life outside of work - then the incremental cost of driving to work is trivial so you may as well (again unless traffic or parking is an issue). The real question is can we as a society afford cars? Cars costs thousands of lives in accidents every year. Cars need a lot of space: more and more expensive lanes on are roads, and many parking lots. A great transit system would save most people a lot of money, and a lot of lives.
- bequanna 3y ago
  > That is not the valid question. Well, luckily things in the US don't work this way. We don't build out unwanted infrastructure because "...most people don't have the imagination". The preferences of the ivory tower academics or 1% of non-car owners shouldn't drive transportation infrastructure decisions. > The real question is can we as a society afford cars? Every day, people overwhelmingly vote with their actions: YES, they want cars. NO, they don't want to make it harder or more expensive to own cars. The small minority of Americans who choose to not have cars should stop trying to tell the rest of the population how to live. Most people do not wish to live in high-density urban areas. They do not wish to have their travel restricted to wherever a bus will take them. Safety and emissions will continue to improve, but cars are (thankfully) here to stay.
  - 0xdde 3y ago