7 ms·

Nope that's how CAFE standards work. You can thank the EPA for that! Instead of building more efficient small cars it becomes impossible to make them meet the

Nope that's how CAFE standards work. You can thank the EPA for that! Instead of building more efficient small cars it becomes impossible to make them meet the efficiency requirements without making the car cost so much extra through fines. So instead you just get more "trucks" and SUVs. No more sedans! Those are the vehicles killing the planet!

fshbbdssbbgdd 2y ago
Is the limit really 8500 to get into that unregulated category? Small SUVs are very popular and are basically sedans on stilts and weigh a lot less than 8500. So I don’t think you could blame the death of sedans on that rule, if that’s indeed what the rule is.
- macNchz 2y ago
  There are other standards that can put vehicles in different emissions categories. I believe the one that most crossover SUVs target is being considered “off road”, by having four wheel drive and meeting a few ground clearance specifications: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/part-523#p-523.5(b) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/part-523#p-523.5(b) The goal of promoting these small SUVs instead of sedans is actually because they’re quite fuel efficient: being in the same category as much larger trucks, they pull up the average fuel economy and take the pressure off manufacturers to make their highly-profitable bigger SUVs more efficient.
- hedora 2y ago
  GVWR includes passengers and cargo when fully loaded. 8000 lbs is not totally crazy for a delivery vehicle. It probably weighs at least 2000-3000 lbs empty (with batteries). Imagine a small business that tries to mail ten pound boxes. If they can fit ten by ten per layer in the van, once the pile of boxes is five layers tall, you’re basically at the van’s specs.
  - QuarterReptile 2y ago
    A 10 year old Ford Focus weighs 2900lb empty. I'd be impressed if this truck weighs less than 5k empty.
throwup238 2y ago
You can thank Congress for that, not the EPA. They were the ones that required the agency by law to create the separate standards for “non-passenger vehicles” and the weight classes, as well as the other loopholes that enable the shenanigans, like allowing medium passenger vehicles to classify as non-passenger.
- hedora 2y ago
  Now that chevron deference was eliminated (along with many other long-standing precedents), soon you’ll get to blame political appointees with lifetime positions!
  - dumbo-octopus 2y ago
    Theoretically this would be a great opportunity for someone to take the EPA to court over this and have a chance of it actually having an effect, whereas before that was unimaginable. Of course it will require deep pockets, but a coalition of automakers could perhaps make it happen.
  - Thorrez 2y ago
    Are you saying that the chevron deference elimination allows the courts to overrule congress? I don't think that's the case. I think the courts still can only overrule congress on constitutional issues, the same as before the chevron deference was eliminated.
    - adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
      the courts de-jure can't override Congress, but de-facto, the current court is very wind to read things in bizarre ways.
      - dumbo-octopus 2y ago
        But then so are the bureaucrats. Hence the ass-backwards emissions policy we have now. The different is courts are compelled to hear well-reasoned arguments from experts on both sides and adjudicate based on their analysis, whereas bureaucrats can and do turn a deaf ear to anyone that doesn’t toe the party line.
akira2501 2y ago
> Those are the vehicles killing the planet! That would be boats. Cars or trucks or even semis don't even rank.
- dumbo-octopus 2y ago
  Ships, rather.
- Panzer04 2y ago
  This isn't even close. Cars globally emit 4x as much CO2 as the global fleet. You might be referring to sulphur emissions, which are much higher for ships because they are basically unregulated, while car fuel has virtually zero sulphur.
  - yurishimo 2y ago
    You’ve literally made the point. How many boats are there? Compared to cars? My guess is we as a species don’t have anywhere near 1/4 the number of cars as boats worldwide. I would be flabbergasted if the number of boats (with motors) was even 1/10 the number of cars. Boats pollute massively and it’s a shame considering that water is a much more efficient medium of transportation thanks to buoyancy.
    - pyth0 2y ago
      Yes but this is not some incredible realization. Cars transport individuals (up to a family) whereas these enormous ships are the backbone of global shipping and commerce. Not to say they can’t run cleaner but this comparison is pointless.
    - shikon7 2y ago
      Considering a ship can carry tens of thousands as much cargo as a car, the comparison isn't even remotely fair.
    - kergonath 2y ago
      > Boats pollute massively and it’s a shame considering that water is a much more efficient medium of transportation thanks to buoyancy. It’s a good thing people don’t use container ships to commute every day, then… Seriously, comparing the effect of one car to that of one ship is not even remotely useful. Cars would be much better if they were used by more than one person on average. At which point we could even scale them up and operate them among fixed, predictable routes at fixes, predictable times. Anyway, no, they really are not making your point. Comparing the emissions of the global shipping fleet to that of all the cars used to commute every day tells a lot about where efficiency can be found. Sure, some shipping is frivolous, but then a single person (or even two people) commuting in a light truck is beyond stupid on every level.
coin 2y ago
Not to mention the flex fuel scheme that GM, Ford and Chrysler pulls. CAFE fuel mileage calculations permits ethanol compatible vehicles to assume that it will be driven 50% of the time using E85 ethanol. For the worst gas guzzlers, they add the additional ethanol hardware to get the “lower” fuel mileage. Hence you only see the flex fuel badge on big trucks and SUVs. And ironically, the flex fuel label is really a label that it’s a gas guzzler.
starspangled 2y ago
Private passenger vehicles is under 10% of global CO2 emissions. Electricity and heating is about 4x. Manufacturing and construction 2x, farming 2x, freight 1x. Repurposed light commercial vehicles would be a tiny fraction of those numbers. I suspect they are not what's killing the planet.
- woodruffw 2y ago
  Broken out per-pound, I suspect that private passenger vehicles represent a disproportionate amount of unnecessary global emissions. Or another way: heating and cooling, farming, etc. are all essential (if not necessarily optimal). Commuting in your own private car is not; one only has to spend 15 minutes on the average American highway to observe that the overwhelming majority of car traffic is one person driving a car that can fit 5 or more.
  - starspangled 2y ago
    Sounds dubious considering the amount of CO2 emissions caused by uneaten / wasted food is similar to personal transportation emissions. I also don't think the idea that we should strive to limit our lives to that which is absolutely necessary to only survive or generate economic activity is valid. To me, my drive to the beach with my dog is more essential, valid, and valuable than your commute to work. But regardless of whether true or not, environmental destruction caused by CO2 emissions does not care if the emissions were "necessary" or not, by any definition of necessary. So it simply isn't personal light trucks that are what's destroying the world.
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      There is a simple way to find out what is “destroying the world”. Keep increasing fossil fuel taxes until the target amount of carbon emissions is achieved. The consumption that goes away is what was “destroying the world”. >To me, my drive to the beach with my dog is more essential, valid, and valuable than your commute to work. And this is why efforts to curb emissions and other pollution is hopeless. Emissions and pollution are a function of energy consumption. Energy = force times distance. Force = mass * acceleration * distance. So you either reduce the mass that is moving (including you, your dog, and your 5+ passenger vehicle) and/or reduce the distance you move, or don’t worry about pollution.

fshbbdssbbgdd 2y ago

Is the limit really 8500 to get into that unregulated category? Small SUVs are very popular and are basically sedans on stilts and weigh a lot less than 8500. So I don’t think you could blame the death of sedans on that rule, if that’s indeed what the rule is.

macNchz 2y ago
There are other standards that can put vehicles in different emissions categories. I believe the one that most crossover SUVs target is being considered “off road”, by having four wheel drive and meeting a few ground clearance specifications: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/part-523#p-523.5(b) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/part-523#p-523.5(b) The goal of promoting these small SUVs instead of sedans is actually because they’re quite fuel efficient: being in the same category as much larger trucks, they pull up the average fuel economy and take the pressure off manufacturers to make their highly-profitable bigger SUVs more efficient.
hedora 2y ago
GVWR includes passengers and cargo when fully loaded. 8000 lbs is not totally crazy for a delivery vehicle. It probably weighs at least 2000-3000 lbs empty (with batteries). Imagine a small business that tries to mail ten pound boxes. If they can fit ten by ten per layer in the van, once the pile of boxes is five layers tall, you’re basically at the van’s specs.
- QuarterReptile 2y ago
  A 10 year old Ford Focus weighs 2900lb empty. I'd be impressed if this truck weighs less than 5k empty.

throwup238 2y ago

You can thank Congress for that, not the EPA. They were the ones that required the agency by law to create the separate standards for “non-passenger vehicles” and the weight classes, as well as the other loopholes that enable the shenanigans, like allowing medium passenger vehicles to classify as non-passenger.

hedora 2y ago
Now that chevron deference was eliminated (along with many other long-standing precedents), soon you’ll get to blame political appointees with lifetime positions!
- dumbo-octopus 2y ago
  Theoretically this would be a great opportunity for someone to take the EPA to court over this and have a chance of it actually having an effect, whereas before that was unimaginable. Of course it will require deep pockets, but a coalition of automakers could perhaps make it happen.
- Thorrez 2y ago
  Are you saying that the chevron deference elimination allows the courts to overrule congress? I don't think that's the case. I think the courts still can only overrule congress on constitutional issues, the same as before the chevron deference was eliminated.
  - adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
    the courts de-jure can't override Congress, but de-facto, the current court is very wind to read things in bizarre ways.
    - dumbo-octopus 2y ago
      But then so are the bureaucrats. Hence the ass-backwards emissions policy we have now. The different is courts are compelled to hear well-reasoned arguments from experts on both sides and adjudicate based on their analysis, whereas bureaucrats can and do turn a deaf ear to anyone that doesn’t toe the party line.

akira2501 2y ago

> Those are the vehicles killing the planet! That would be boats. Cars or trucks or even semis don't even rank.

dumbo-octopus 2y ago
Ships, rather.
Panzer04 2y ago
This isn't even close. Cars globally emit 4x as much CO2 as the global fleet. You might be referring to sulphur emissions, which are much higher for ships because they are basically unregulated, while car fuel has virtually zero sulphur.
- yurishimo 2y ago
  You’ve literally made the point. How many boats are there? Compared to cars? My guess is we as a species don’t have anywhere near 1/4 the number of cars as boats worldwide. I would be flabbergasted if the number of boats (with motors) was even 1/10 the number of cars. Boats pollute massively and it’s a shame considering that water is a much more efficient medium of transportation thanks to buoyancy.
  - pyth0 2y ago
    Yes but this is not some incredible realization. Cars transport individuals (up to a family) whereas these enormous ships are the backbone of global shipping and commerce. Not to say they can’t run cleaner but this comparison is pointless.
  - shikon7 2y ago
    Considering a ship can carry tens of thousands as much cargo as a car, the comparison isn't even remotely fair.
  - kergonath 2y ago
    > Boats pollute massively and it’s a shame considering that water is a much more efficient medium of transportation thanks to buoyancy. It’s a good thing people don’t use container ships to commute every day, then… Seriously, comparing the effect of one car to that of one ship is not even remotely useful. Cars would be much better if they were used by more than one person on average. At which point we could even scale them up and operate them among fixed, predictable routes at fixes, predictable times. Anyway, no, they really are not making your point. Comparing the emissions of the global shipping fleet to that of all the cars used to commute every day tells a lot about where efficiency can be found. Sure, some shipping is frivolous, but then a single person (or even two people) commuting in a light truck is beyond stupid on every level.

coin 2y ago

Not to mention the flex fuel scheme that GM, Ford and Chrysler pulls. CAFE fuel mileage calculations permits ethanol compatible vehicles to assume that it will be driven 50% of the time using E85 ethanol. For the worst gas guzzlers, they add the additional ethanol hardware to get the “lower” fuel mileage. Hence you only see the flex fuel badge on big trucks and SUVs. And ironically, the flex fuel label is really a label that it’s a gas guzzler.

starspangled 2y ago

Private passenger vehicles is under 10% of global CO2 emissions. Electricity and heating is about 4x. Manufacturing and construction 2x, farming 2x, freight 1x. Repurposed light commercial vehicles would be a tiny fraction of those numbers. I suspect they are not what's killing the planet.

woodruffw 2y ago
Broken out per-pound, I suspect that private passenger vehicles represent a disproportionate amount of unnecessary global emissions. Or another way: heating and cooling, farming, etc. are all essential (if not necessarily optimal). Commuting in your own private car is not; one only has to spend 15 minutes on the average American highway to observe that the overwhelming majority of car traffic is one person driving a car that can fit 5 or more.
- starspangled 2y ago
  Sounds dubious considering the amount of CO2 emissions caused by uneaten / wasted food is similar to personal transportation emissions. I also don't think the idea that we should strive to limit our lives to that which is absolutely necessary to only survive or generate economic activity is valid. To me, my drive to the beach with my dog is more essential, valid, and valuable than your commute to work. But regardless of whether true or not, environmental destruction caused by CO2 emissions does not care if the emissions were "necessary" or not, by any definition of necessary. So it simply isn't personal light trucks that are what's destroying the world.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    There is a simple way to find out what is “destroying the world”. Keep increasing fossil fuel taxes until the target amount of carbon emissions is achieved. The consumption that goes away is what was “destroying the world”. >To me, my drive to the beach with my dog is more essential, valid, and valuable than your commute to work. And this is why efforts to curb emissions and other pollution is hopeless. Emissions and pollution are a function of energy consumption. Energy = force times distance. Force = mass * acceleration * distance. So you either reduce the mass that is moving (including you, your dog, and your 5+ passenger vehicle) and/or reduce the distance you move, or don’t worry about pollution.