5 ms·

This is "the argument" against fuel efficient cars. Although I think we all know what this is really about: "First, people who buy fuel-efficient vehicles will

This is "the argument" against fuel efficient cars. Although I think we all know what this is really about: "First, people who buy fuel-efficient vehicles will end up driving more, increasing the odds that they will get into a crash. Second, the fuel-efficient vehicles will themselves will be more expensive, slowing the rate at which people buy newer vehicles with advanced safety features. Third, automakers will have to make their cars lighter in response to rising standards, slightly hurting safety."

carry_bit 8y ago
VW made some really fuel efficient cars, but there was a scandal when it was discovered that they were too fuel efficient... /s
maxxxxx 8y ago
I don't really understand why people of a certain political leaning take comfort in burning as much fossil fuel as possible and find all kinds of excuses to justify burning more fuel. I really don't get it.
- mikeash 8y ago
  A huge chunk of the American electorate has given up on principles and is now in a sports mentality where the only goal is to beat the opposing team. This has been driven to extremes by eight years of a non-white President from that team. The opposing team is against pollution and favors fuel efficiency, thus they are for pollution and against fuel efficiency. That’s really all there is to it. Look up “rolling coal” for the purest expression of this sentiment.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    And the same people would nornally be shouting how more safety features are "job killing" but now that they can use them to burn more fuel they are all for them.
  - onyva 8y ago
    The “wining” team, this time, didn’t really win, now did they? They lost by 3 million votes. Without going into what Russia did to tip this elections, which were won by mere 70,000 votes in the 3 key states. This is for sure not your usual right vs left style of governing. It’s the right not accepting that they’ve lost. It’s the self righteousness of people who think they have the right to govern, no matter what.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      They won according to the rules of the game. Normal politics might say that they ought to govern from the middle given how narrowly they won. But with a team mentality, that makes no sense. It’s like saying the Super Bowl winners should share the trophy because they only won by one point and the other team ran the ball more yards. Does not compute.
      - maxxxxx 8y ago
        Very true. The only thing that bugged me was that Trump can not even win with grace. He won but had to claim additionally without any proof that he would have won even more if not millions of illegal voters would have voted. Pretty sad.
      - onyva 8y ago
        Rules of the game, really? You mean colluding with a foreign government against your own people is playing by th “rules of the game”? Isn’t it exactly the oppsite? Whichever is the case with this narrow “win” they for sure did not get manadate to foundentally change the USA. And this is without getting into trump’s a non existing ideology of plan for governing. It’s not a government. A government does not work against the interests of its people.
        mikeash 8y ago
        You were talking about losing the popular vote and explicitly disclaimed the rest, and I was following along.
- rpiguy 8y ago
  A large portion of the electorate does not believe in global warming or believe it is man made. This is a debate for another thread, let's not go there, it is just how it is for a number of reasons. Therefore, why not burn more fuel? It is good for the economy, good for heavy industry (planes, cars), and good for your quality of life (if you don't believe it will end the world). Taxes on fuel, large vehicles, and efficiency requirements hurt the middle class and poor consumer more. It makes products more expensive, and reduces choice, so that only the rich can drive gas guzzlers (the left needs to figure out how to make this hit the rich people too and restrict their choices if they want to tickle the populist portion of the electorate). From a purely economic standpoint, if you don't believe in global warming, then increasing fuel consumption is the BEST way to encourage development of alternative energy. You will use up your supply more quickly, prices will raise naturally, and the market will develop alternative solutions.
  - mercer 8y ago
    There's a relatively sizeable subset of that electorate that believes the world will end soon anyways, which probably complicates matters too.
Faaak 8y ago
I have to agree, it's a really good (fallacious) (populist) argument.

carry_bit 8y ago

VW made some really fuel efficient cars, but there was a scandal when it was discovered that they were too fuel efficient... /s

maxxxxx 8y ago

I don't really understand why people of a certain political leaning take comfort in burning as much fossil fuel as possible and find all kinds of excuses to justify burning more fuel. I really don't get it.

mikeash 8y ago
A huge chunk of the American electorate has given up on principles and is now in a sports mentality where the only goal is to beat the opposing team. This has been driven to extremes by eight years of a non-white President from that team. The opposing team is against pollution and favors fuel efficiency, thus they are for pollution and against fuel efficiency. That’s really all there is to it. Look up “rolling coal” for the purest expression of this sentiment.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  And the same people would nornally be shouting how more safety features are "job killing" but now that they can use them to burn more fuel they are all for them.
- onyva 8y ago
  The “wining” team, this time, didn’t really win, now did they? They lost by 3 million votes. Without going into what Russia did to tip this elections, which were won by mere 70,000 votes in the 3 key states. This is for sure not your usual right vs left style of governing. It’s the right not accepting that they’ve lost. It’s the self righteousness of people who think they have the right to govern, no matter what.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    They won according to the rules of the game. Normal politics might say that they ought to govern from the middle given how narrowly they won. But with a team mentality, that makes no sense. It’s like saying the Super Bowl winners should share the trophy because they only won by one point and the other team ran the ball more yards. Does not compute.
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      Very true. The only thing that bugged me was that Trump can not even win with grace. He won but had to claim additionally without any proof that he would have won even more if not millions of illegal voters would have voted. Pretty sad.
    - onyva 8y ago
      Rules of the game, really? You mean colluding with a foreign government against your own people is playing by th “rules of the game”? Isn’t it exactly the oppsite? Whichever is the case with this narrow “win” they for sure did not get manadate to foundentally change the USA. And this is without getting into trump’s a non existing ideology of plan for governing. It’s not a government. A government does not work against the interests of its people.
      - mikeash 8y ago
        You were talking about losing the popular vote and explicitly disclaimed the rest, and I was following along.
rpiguy 8y ago
A large portion of the electorate does not believe in global warming or believe it is man made. This is a debate for another thread, let's not go there, it is just how it is for a number of reasons. Therefore, why not burn more fuel? It is good for the economy, good for heavy industry (planes, cars), and good for your quality of life (if you don't believe it will end the world). Taxes on fuel, large vehicles, and efficiency requirements hurt the middle class and poor consumer more. It makes products more expensive, and reduces choice, so that only the rich can drive gas guzzlers (the left needs to figure out how to make this hit the rich people too and restrict their choices if they want to tickle the populist portion of the electorate). From a purely economic standpoint, if you don't believe in global warming, then increasing fuel consumption is the BEST way to encourage development of alternative energy. You will use up your supply more quickly, prices will raise naturally, and the market will develop alternative solutions.
- mercer 8y ago
  There's a relatively sizeable subset of that electorate that believes the world will end soon anyways, which probably complicates matters too.

Faaak 8y ago

I have to agree, it's a really good (fallacious) (populist) argument.