9 ms·
Cheap and plentiful fossil fuels. We’re rolling back CAFE standards too.
by melling 5mo ago
Cheap and plentiful fossil fuels.
We’re rolling back CAFE standards too.
- nradov 5mo agoCAFE standards were always a stupid idea. If we want to reduce fuel usage then increase the tax on fuel instead of punishing manufacturers for selling vehicles that consumers want to buy.
- a_random_name 5mo agoYeah, but "increasing taxes" always rouses the rabble.
- post-it 5mo agoThis is, respectfully, corporate propaganda. Consumers buy the vehicles that are available and advertised. It's in the best interest of manufacturers to convince/compel consumers to buy larger, more expensive vehicles with higher margins, and that's exactly what they're doing.
- ndisn 5mo agoYou can’t convince (almost all) consumers to spend money on something that they do not want.
- post-it 5mo agoOf course you can. And for the rest, you just discontinue the product they want so they have no choice.
- tyre 5mo agoYou can, but it’s easier to convince them to want something that they don’t need or is actively harmful.
- adrianN 5mo agoYou can make them want things. Ad money is what powers some of the most successful companies.
- iso1631 5mo agoThat's the entire point of the trillion dollar advertising industry
- sneak 5mo agoCar insurance. Low flow showerheads. Fuel-inefficient vehicles. Electric dryers. Electric stoves. Appliances that don’t last. Lawn care. Taxes. Social Security. The list is gigantic. Your claim could not be more false.
- traderj0e 5mo agoPeople want car insurance because it's a law, low-flow showerheads if water is expensive, and electric appliances if gas is expensive or outlawed. And some want fuel-inefficient vehicles because they like them and gasoline isn't very expensive, while plenty of other people opt for MPG.
- nradov 5mo agoBullshit. There are many competing auto manufacturers. No one is compelled to buy larger, more expensive vehicles. There are smaller, cheap vehicles available to those who want them. If I want a little penalty box like a Hyundai Elantra or Nissan Sentra the local dealers have base models in stock and ready to sell today. Larger vehicles are more comfortable, safe, and practical (for anyone who doesn't need to worry about parking issues). It doesn't take advertising to convince consumers about that, it's just reality.
- post-it 5mo agoA Hyundai Elantra of today is significantly bigger than it was ten years ago. It also used to be the second-tier model above the Accent, which was discontinued. Ditto with the Sentra and the Versa. This is my point exactly.
- jagraff 5mo agoLarge vehicles are safer for the occupants of the vehicle, however they do increase danger for pedestrians and drivers of other vehicles in a collision. There is a reasonable argument that reducing vehicle size would save lives overall
- sneak 5mo agoThis is a myth. Larger vehicles are not safer for their occupants; they merely feel that way.
- Supermancho 5mo ago> This is a myth. Larger vehicles are not safer for their occupants; they merely feel that way. I'm pretty sure it's not, because physics. A tank is safer than a bike for the poilot, when there is a collision. This data is a little muddled, but follows common sense. Large SUVs and Pickups: These vehicles have the lowest occupant fatality rates, averaging 14 deaths per million registered vehicles for SUVs compared to 48 per million for sedans. Large luxury SUVs often register statistically zero deaths in specific three-year studies.
- stickfigure 5mo agoIf gasoline is more expensive, customers will demand more efficient vehicles. We aren't mindless zombies buying whatever we see on TV. I'm old enough to remember when Japanese small cars practically took over the market in the 70s and 80s due to gas price shocks. It can happen again.
- debo_ 5mo agoTell that to the literal constant flow of old men I see driving pristine F150s in the metropolitan center of the Canadian city I live in.
- asa400 5mo agoThey probably won't buy Honda Civics, but they (or their children, more realistically) might buy the electric equivalent of an F150 if the market produces one that can fulfill what they perceive their needs to be. I just bought a (small, hybrid) truck because I need to do some truck stuff. I 100% would have bought an electric if the market produced one with comparable capability and competitive price, but we're not there yet, and I don't have Rivian money (yet! lol maybe someday). My point being: there is still a huge demand for trucks from both a capability and culture standpoint, and very little supply of a cost-comparable product that doesn't take gas or diesel. Rivian is around double what most people want to pay, and the F150 Lightning was marketed poorly and had bad towing/hauling range compared to gas/diesel equivalents. I'm not here to defend "truck culture" but I do believe that if you offer people a better product, they will figure it out and buy it. An electric truck with 400+ miles of towing range, an onboard 2kW+ inverter, 500 ft-lbs of torque, and fast charging for the same price as a comparable gas F150 will sell. Unfortunately the battery energy density and EV supply chain economies of scale aren't there yet in North America.
- United857 5mo agoU u u
- Teever 5mo ago> We aren't mindless zombies buying whatever we see on TV. But we are. I don't want to turn this into a political slap fight but it became apparent to me the extent in which people are swayed by advertising when I read an article that talked about how one party in the US was concerned that the other was going to win an important seat becase the other party had done a recent spending surge on ads in last few days before election day and they were concerned that they couldn't match it. That article right there forever changed my view of the average person on the street. In a highly polarized campaign and political environment with months to years of knowing who the candidates and policies are and they can still be swayed by millions in TV and radio ads? Like it sounds like these people could literally be on their way to vote for a candidate and then switch their mind at the last second because they hear an ad on the radio as they're pulling into the polling station. That's absurd -- but it's real. People are completely enthralled by advertisements to the point where they'll buy a stupid truck that they can't fit anywhere, that they need a ladder to climb into, that has terrible sight lines, simply because advertising tells them to.
- amluto 5mo agoHow many CAFE compliant “light trucks” do you see around? CAFE is a great example of a well-meaning regulation failing because the people who developed and approved it didn’t think through the obvious consequences.
- ambicapter 5mo ago"It's your fault you didn't expressly disallow what I ended up doing to get around what you asked me not to do"
- readthenotes1 5mo agoIf you make a game someone's going to play it. Allowing light trucks to turn the SUVs and replace sedans is not an "unintended consequence"--it's either stupidity or graft (not xor). There are several laws that are "wtf -- is this the best we can do?"
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- anvuong 5mo agoWell, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
- traderj0e 5mo agoHow can that be if they all offer extensive lines of small and efficient cars that a good number of people drive? Besides, collusion doesn't seem likely given the amount of foreign competition. The majority of Americans have made it clear that they want bigger autos, at least with the usual gas prices. Sorry if that's corp propaganda. Separately I've heard emissions laws blamed for large sedans losing to small SUVs and trucks due to double standards, but I doubt it would've made a difference, even though I personally prefer large sedans.
- scq 5mo agoFord no longer makes traditional passenger cars. They now only sell SUVs, trucks, and sports cars. You can see this if you go to https://shop.ford.com/showroom/ https://shop.ford.com/showroom/ and select sedan or hatchback in the left filters. No results.
- traderj0e 5mo agoIt's a small exception that wasn't selling well before anyway. Even the police fleets switched to SUVs.
- bee_rider 5mo agoWhat if consumers want to buy Chinese electric cars? Are we going to remove that bit of protectionism?
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- linkregister 5mo agoGreat catch! There's a trend toward advantaging entrenched interests to the detriment of the overall economy and interests of the population.
- amiga386 5mo agoVehicle emission and fuel efficiency standards are a great idea. The stupidity was allowing a "light truck" exception at all. It made the manufacturers turn to manufacturing and promoting what should be work vehicles to rich idiots who need nothing larger than a regular car (but can easily be upsold on something they don't need) America is already fucked, given how awful its urban sprawl is. Trucks used for commuting and not haulage just makes it double fucked.
- kingstnap 5mo agoThe exception being blamed on "stupidity" makes it sound like an oversight. It was not an oversight. It was corruption.
- adrr 5mo agoIncreasing prices doesn't effect demand right? $10+ per pack cigarettes in California hasn't had any affect on smoking rates.
- deaux 5mo agoNot sure if you're facetious but there are plenty of examples of rising cigarettes' prices leading to reduction in smoking, or similarly a sugary soda tax reducing consumption of sugary soda (UK is a prime example).
- fragmede 5mo agohttps://medicalxpress.com/news/2025-02-cigarette-pricing-policy-linked-decrease.html https://medicalxpress.com/news/2025-02-cigarette-pricing-pol... A 2025 study showing that it did.
- Certhas 5mo agoWe shouldn't prohibit dumping toxic waste in the river, we should just tax it! I am familiar with the EU situation. The carbon tax you would have needed to achieve the effect of fleet emission standards would have been political suicide. And that is not just psychological. People who buy used cars and drive their cars until they fall apart are well correlated with people who can't afford high carbon tax. Buyers of new cars are the people who can. Carbon Tax would mean massive redistribution of the money raised. Yet another political mine field.
- the_sleaze_ 5mo agoAlways gonna happen. Oil margins are gigantic and they'll use every dime of runway they can. Electric is better in every single way and batteries tech is only making that more true every day. The dinosaurs won't go quietly into the night.