9 ms·

The Oil Industry’s Covert Campaign to Rewrite American Car Emissions Rules

168 points by pingou 8y ago

gameswithgo 8y ago
The Koch brothers are amazing. Cars are bigger and heavier than ever, almost everyone has a huge truck in Austin, TX and usually an SUV if not that. They all have more power than ever. But they want to craft a narrative that Obama has been foolishly limiting our choice of cars with efficiency standards. There are certainly lots of regulations that make cars more expensive than they need to be but I don't think MPG standards are one of the first order cases.
- assblaster 8y ago
  The Ford F-150 now has an aluminum body, and uses a turbocharged V6 instead of regular V8 to generate torque, and it does a good job of it. Even so, the actual gas mileage owners get is lower than advertised, but still higher than a decade ago. The increased fuel efficiency standards have actually lead to higher costs of vehicle development to lighten the car and make the engine do more with less. Your lamenting the surge in trucks and SUV ownership is ironic since the increase is actually a direct result of the newer mileage standards: if trucks are now rated similar to where cars were rated 15 years ago, then why not go for the more utilitarian vehicle?
  - mtw 8y ago
    There's really no reason why most people in Texas commute with a truck, unless you are in construction/renovation. If you follow the logic "go for the more utilitarian vehicle", then why not then commute with a semi trailer truck, after all these have a higher point of view, can haul more stuff. Or why not commute with a mining dump truck, it's got a practical bed and loads of space.
    - assblaster 8y ago
      Your straw man is not relevant. You are asking people to purchase two vehicles for themselves: one high efficiency commuter and one utility vehicle. Why do people in Texas commute with a pickup? Because they don't want to buy a sedan in addition, and I don't blame them. If you look at liberal California, you'll see tons of Subaru AWD light SUV/crossovers. Why don't Californians just bike everywhere to save on gas? Are you going to spite them because they want a vehicle that does everything they need?
      - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
        This. Think of it as a three axis space with people capacity, indoor cargo space and outdoor cargo space on all three axis (I'm approximating here, there's more things than that people consider in a vehicle purchase but those are the big ones that determine which models you're considering). Crew cab and extended cab trucks have a lot of all three of those things (even more if you toss on a cap) making them capable of checking all the "must have" boxes of many potential buyers. The people that don't need the outdoor space get crossovers. The people that need more indoor space or seating get three row SUVs and minivans. The people that need the same blend of indoor/outdoor/seating but less of it get midsize trucks. The husband wants a driver's car with a manual and the wife wants a convertible with AWD and two rows of seating so they get a 4dr Jeep Wrangler (facepalm implied). Of course most vehicles are at least partially a luxury purchase so people higher on the economic spectrum will purchase more capacity than they "need" (three row SUV for two kids, 3/4-ton truck to tow a pop up camper).
      - jiveturkey 8y ago
        great point. thanks, assblaster.
      - ensiferum 8y ago
        And these people really need big ass trucks.. to haul exactly what? I bet the great majority of people really don't need it for work or anything.
        dsfyu404ed 8y ago
        People don't "need" it in the sense that they need food or water but they "need" it to conform to social norms. It's a class/status thing. How hard you work your vehicles is inversely correlated with income (generally speaking, exceptions are in abundance when you speak in generalizations like this). If you hang out with the HN type crowd then you'll rarely if ever see someone fill every seat in a car or use a pickup to its full capacity. We're generally rich enough to afford more vehicle than we "need" in every regard (pickup trucks to haul light loads, three rows of seating for families with <4 kids, high performance German driving machines for a commute that's mostly sitting in traffic, etc, etc). At the other end of the economic spectrum people shoehorn whatever vehicle is available to them into every role it needs to fill. Every time I'm strapping material to the roof of one of my beater cars at home depot I'm immediately self aware that I am not acting the way people of my income level are expected to by other people of the same income level. Depending your income level pressing a less than ideal vehicle into service to fit all your needs is just not an option you let yourself seriously consider. So yeah, the people driving newish vehicles are mostly rich enough to not "need" all the capability they have and it's generally not socially acceptable for these people to go all out using their vehicles. Edit: You can see this playing out in the comments. Someone says they "need" a pickup to do something and gets responses like "No you don't, people in India haul lumber on motorcycles" or "But people in France can tow their their boat with a subcompact car" While that might be true the social norms of the US do not permit middle class and upper middle class people to use the piss out of their vehicles.
    - squish78 8y ago
      I work in an office job. Here are some of my reasons for owning a pickup truck, yet not a mining dump truck. - I volunteer at a community garden and move mulch/plants/soil - I cycle, kayak, and go camping and it's easier to transport my gear - I am a homeowner, and do the repairs and maintenance myself. It's hard to haul things like lumber and miter saw in the trunk of a civic. - Taking tree trimmings and other wood mulch to a dump site - When buying new furniture, I can move it myself instead of renting/borrowing a truck
      - toomuchtodo 8y ago
        I used to own a large pickup truck. Traded in as part of my Tesla Model S purchase. Slapped a hitch on the Model S (2500 lb towing capacity) and I can do everything I did before with my pickup with my electric car (arguably easier with a lower platform for loading and unloading, and my trailer has a higher load limit than my pickup truck bed did). Unless you’re hauling thousand of pounds behind that truck every day (above smaller vehicle tow limits, which is a legitimate use case if you're someone who is a shipper/transporter or contractor with a heavy trailer of some sort), it’s a waste, but to each their own.
        squish78 8y ago
        That seems like a reasonable alternative, but I like to also do maintenance on my own vehicle and have been working on combustion engines my whole life. I supposed it is as unnecessary as anything in life, no more or less so than a Tesla, Civic, motorcycle, or scooter Edit: I will concede that a mining dump truck would be unnecessary, in response to the parent comment
        cronix 8y ago
        If you really enjoy doing maintenance, don't get a Tesla. The main thing you'd really be doing is changing tires every 40k or so, and eventually the battery pack. They are tremendously simple compared to a combustion engine. No spark plugs, no oil or filters to change, no oxygen sensors to go bad, no air filters, no fuel pumps or timing belts, etc. You'd be quite bored.
    - S_A_P 8y ago
      I like in Houston. Yes there are plenty of trucks and many people driving them “unnecessarily” whatever that means. But I have worked in the northeast, mid west and west coast. Despite what you may want to believe, there are not that many more trucks in Texas than elsewhere. The F-150 would not be the best selling vehicle in the US if only Texans bought them. I personally can’t daily drive a truck because I like sportier vehicles. But I can’t be mad at someone who chooses to. They’re roomy, convenient when buying large items and as of late not earth destroying bro dozers that they seem to have a reputation for in some circles. If we truly want to make progress towards less oil dependence and cleaner vehicles then we have to get off this tribal greenies vs MAGAs nonsense that really only serves to entrench two sides. I’m somewhat interested in the auto industry, I like cars. I love old muscle cars that get 10 mpg and have horrible emissions. I also would love to own a Tesla. I would like to see future cars more in line with a model S or model X than the gas swilling muscle car. I think that the left thinks that mandates are the only way to get there. That may be partially true but I also think that mandates are pushing opposing goals. Cars have to be safer so you build heavier larger cars. That requires more horsepower so we need larger engines or forced induction. Setting a deadline for mpg and emissions is only going to make cars very expensive. Electric cars are not going to cover all use cases and there is a real problem of lithium availability and battery capacity. There have been great strides to solving these issues but it isn’t there yet. As other comments have said, passenger cars and trucks are low on the list of polluters compared to planes, semis, trains, cargo ships. Believe it or not, I think the folks in the auto industry do want to make cleaner more efficient cars and trucks, but they also are in a business where a misstep can bankrupt the company so bold moves are not on the road map.
      - jefurii 8y ago
        > Believe it or not, I think the folks in the auto industry do want to make cleaner more efficient cars and trucks, but they also are in a business where a misstep can bankrupt the company so bold moves are not on the road map. Wouldn't legislation that requires cleaner and more efficient vehicles level the playing field? If all companies had to do it then it wouldn't be a competitive liability.
    - EADGBE 8y ago
      Are common people not allowed to do utilitarian things with their privately-owned vehicles? How else am I going to build a retaining wall, lawn maintenance, be the volunteer dance dad in the parade, pick up some building supplies for weekend projects, all while fitting three oversized safety-regulated car seats? Come on, this statement is close-minded.
      - Sharlin 8y ago
        Pickup trucks are almost unheard of outside the US, except in the countryside. SUVs are much rarer as well. Somehow people get by.
        donaltroddyn 8y ago
        In Ireland, pickups are fairly uncommon (probably because of the weather), but 4x4s like Land Cruisers, Patrols, Defenders, Discoveries, etc are really common. The only category we don't have is what Americans call light trucks.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - Marsymars 8y ago
    Yes, big pickups get better fuel economy than big pickups from a decade ago, but the entire compact pickup market has been eliminated in North America. I inherited my first pickup (a Nissan Hardbody), a couple decades ago from my father, who'd used it for years for beekeeping work, and the F-150 still doesn't match it for fuel economy.
    - squish78 8y ago
      Now I want to know more about your beekeeping father
- paganel 8y ago
  To be fair the CAFE standards have severely limited the choice of small trucks the US consumer can buy, but I agree that they have nothing to do with the Obama mandate as they are by now almost 40 years old, just with fuel economy standards in general.
- travisporter 8y ago
  Is there a way to remain safe driving in these places besides also buying a large heavy vehicle? I despise gas guzzlers but my sedan may not survive an accident.
  - Retric 8y ago
    Vehicle size has minimal impact on collision safty. People regularly survive collisions with Semi Trucks for example. Also those SUV’s often look huge, but a Honda Accord weighs 2/3 as much as a Chevy Suburban before adding passengers. Weight reduces acceleration and fuel economy so they use body styles that look huge while being mostly hollow.
  - jiveturkey 8y ago
    honestly, who cares if your car survives? will you survive? if you have a car made within the last 20 years, most likely yes.
  - rootusrootus 8y ago
    I'm reaching back a ways to my college days, but as I remember, two objects can have masses 2x apart (e.g. 3500 pound car, 7000 pound truck) and for all practical purposes it doesn't really change the collision dynamics much. Something about velocity squared, as I recall. So ... buy a Subaru Forester, I guess. Or another CUV. Taller bumper so you don't get run over by a pickup, but still a smallish vehicle.
    - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      KE=0.5MV^2 Vehicle and cargo (you) damage is more strongly related to force than kinetic energy. You can be going 150mph and stop just fine by using the brakes to convert that kinetic energy into thermal energy. Using a concrete barrier and the vehicle to dissipate that force throughout the structure of the vehicle would work as well as far as getting rid of the kinetic energy but will probably have a less desirable outcome for the contents of the vehicle. Same energy in both cases, way different forces involved. It's like how a sledgehammer hits with more force the more rigid the thing you're hitting is. Also it's not the acceleration that kills you[1], it's the bouncing off things in the cabin that kills you. [1]http://www.ejectionsite.com/stapp.htm http://www.ejectionsite.com/stapp.htm (8th to last paragraph)
- Sharlin 8y ago
  The infatuation of Americans with bigger and bigger vehicles is one of the things that is just bizarre from an outside point of view.
  - tertius 8y ago
    Cheap gas.
  - supertrope 8y ago
    In the United States bigger is better. A big car fits more people and cargo. They're safer in a crash (if you ignore single vehicle accidents and especially rollovers). Finally it's a status symbol: bigger generally means more impressive and expensive. Americans don't share their salaries and directly bragging is faux pas, but we tend to signal social-economic status through property.
- pif 8y ago
  > They all have more power than ever. Modern engines have a lot of power, when you are at full regime. Getting to full regime is what emission control directives have made more and more painful during last decades.
- gerbilly 8y ago
  Why not convert tractor trailers into pickups? I bet they would sell really well. You know the bigger the better, right?
dao- 8y ago
Oh, the irony: https://www.nytimes.com/shell https://www.nytimes.com/shell
- ajmurmann 8y ago
  Even if we had a "net-zero emissions world by 2070" it would be way too late. I suspect we needed that 10 years ago. If we want to prevent disastrous climate change we should ban all combustion engines by Jan. 2021 and pay insane amounts of money for captured carbon. Of course that would be incredibly painful. Many people would starve to death, all our quality of life would go down dramatically for a while. But the alternative is that even more people die.
- makerofspoons 8y ago
  A breakdown of the Shell Sky scenario, who funded the research, how much Shell was involved, and the background of reviewers: https://cleantechnica.com/2018/11/30/the-shell-sky-scenario-our-need-to-critically-assess-sponsored-corporate-content/ https://cleantechnica.com/2018/11/30/the-shell-sky-scenario-...
clouddrover 8y ago
It may not matter so much. Car makers will still have to comply with European and Chinese emissions standards anyway (test cheating aside). How much incentive will there be for them to develop a separate car purely for the US market? And there will be many models of EVs available across the next 7 years. In addition to Tesla, most of the major car brands have EV development programs. Here are four EVs available now or in the first half of 2019, depending on where you live: - Jaguar I-Pace: https://www.jaguar.co.uk/jaguar-range/i-pace/index.html https://www.jaguar.co.uk/jaguar-range/i-pace/index.html - Audi e-Tron: https://www.audi.co.uk/electric-car/e-tron.html https://www.audi.co.uk/electric-car/e-tron.html - Hyundai Kona: https://www.hyundai.co.uk/new-cars/kona-electric https://www.hyundai.co.uk/new-cars/kona-electric Review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LATZ0g-Sz2s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LATZ0g-Sz2s - Kia e-Niro: https://www.kia.com/uk/new-cars/all-new-e-niro/ https://www.kia.com/uk/new-cars/all-new-e-niro/ Review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR5sDwF5aBM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR5sDwF5aBM The Hyundai Kona and Kia e-Niro are interesting as practical cars with good range at a more affordable price than the luxury EV options. The Kona and the e-Niro have the same drivetrain so they're quite similar, but of the two I like the e-Niro better. Hyundai and Kia also have some on-car solar options in development: https://electrek.co/2018/10/31/hyundai-kia-solar-roof-electric-vehicles/ https://electrek.co/2018/10/31/hyundai-kia-solar-roof-electr... I think the future is bright for low or zero emissions vehicles, despite the oil industry's efforts.
- dao- 8y ago
  > How much incentive will there be for them to develop a separate car purely for the US market? Aren't they doing that already? The whole pickup truck class mostly doesn't exist outside of the US.
  - clouddrover 8y ago
    Well, they're selling them in Australia: https://www.ford.com.au/commercial/ranger/ https://www.ford.com.au/commercial/ranger/ And in China soon if not already: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ford-motor-china-idUSKBN17916D https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ford-motor-china-idUSKBN1... https://www.ford.com.cn/performance/raptor/ https://www.ford.com.cn/performance/raptor/
PeterStuer 8y ago
The insanity is that we built a system that cultivates and breeds extreme greed at any price, and then hope that the reigns to keep it under control will be forever flawless. It means the protectors need to be eternally on top, while a single victory of the beast can destroy the world.
nimbius 8y ago
Disclosure: im a full-time auto mechanic learning python in my ample spare time. In terms of emissions, you wont come close to what a diesel long haul truck is putting out, and those are the vehicles no one really talks about. Freightliner and peterbilt all showcase their latest trucks with urea scrubbers and nox emissions reduction technology, or even hybrid/electric systems when they go to trade shows, but most fleet operators are on a 30 year curve. No trucking company wants to buy a truck new. and thanks to loopholes in EPA regulations they dont need to. fleet owners can do whats called a "glider" conversion. You essentially take the guts of a 30 year old tractor trailer, and wrap it in a nice new body. this works well to refurbish trucks that have been in rollover accidents or written off by insurance companies. they are easier to move from salvage to titled. Assembly of a glider is also prone to problems. Professional mechanics can do it well, but its not cheap, so to drop the cost of a glider most fleet owners sub this work out from their main shops to subcontractors of Salvadorian day laborers. The result is that the truck runs, but critical things like the urea tank wont run, the pyrometer is broken, and the dashboard lights up like a christmas tree. Ive even seen gliders where the speedometer was so incorrect, the driver told me to "use the gps" on my phone instead. These trucks are miles off spec for EPA, but most states only halfheartedly enforce the EPA regulations for trucks. Fleet owners title them in states like Indiana, florida and Ohio for a reason: these states couldnt care less if the truck smokes out the parking lot of a wal-mart just starting up.
- Eric_WVGG 8y ago
  Glad you mentioned "gliders"… they were on the chopping block, but obviously any and every common sense decision from 2008-2016 will be reversed by this awesome administration. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17478176 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17478176
- travisoneill1 8y ago
  How does that work economically? Isn't a 30 year old truck engine massively less efficient than a modern one?
  - nwatson 8y ago
njarboe 8y ago
It is really too bad we can't implement a revenue neutral carbon dioxide tax. Start at a low level and gradually ramp it up until we are carbon dioxide neutral or a bit negative. Pay for taking CO2 out of the air at the same rate as the tax and let American ingenuity do the rest. Even the oil companies are not against a CO2 tax if you bring it on slowly. Seems like if Congress could just ignore the crazies on either side for a bit, most people would agree this the best way forward to reduce CO2 emissions working with the strengths of American culture instead of going against it.
- martythemaniak 8y ago
  Well, this is what a number of jurisdictions are doing, or have already done. Canada is doing pretty much exactly this - implement $12/ton in 2019, ramp it up gradually through the 2020s. 90% of tax revenues are refunded directly back to taxpayers. The problem of course is... it's a tax. It doesn't matter if it makes sense, if it is revenue neutral etc etc. Someone will just start yelling about elites robbing the people. I guess you can see how it plays out in Canada. Not only is the tax slated to be imposed this year, but there is a federal election in the fall.
- 3pt14159 8y ago
  We did that in Ontario. The problem is that the people that care about environmentalism cluster in cities and our votes get wasted because it's a fight between centre-left and left. Out in the suburbs it's people with giant houses, giant trucks, and wasteful thermal choices (gotta cheap out and save that $$$ to buy a bigger house!) so they get nailed by the costs. The difference is fucking comical. My utility bill was $40 (including heat!) the same month it was $420 for someone I know out in the sticks. So now we have an idiot in charge. Deceased crack mayor Rob Ford's brother. It's a nightmare. People want the very lifestyle that needs to end.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > It is really too bad we can't implement a revenue neutral carbon dioxide tax. Start at a low level and gradually ramp it up until we are carbon dioxide neutral or a bit negative. As long as it's revenue neutral it doesn't even need to be ramped up, it can start at 100%. If you're suddenly paying an extra $500/month in carbon tax but at the same time you're getting the same $500/month back in lower taxes or higher EITC etc., nothing immediately changes unless you make different choices -- and then you pay less. Then the "ramp up" is automatic, not because the amount of the tax increases over time, but because the amount of carbon being burned (and therefore taxed) goes down which makes "revenue neutral" result in a smaller "refund" payment. You buy an electric car and receive $500/month, but as more people buy electric cars, the amount you receive drops to $400/month, then $300 etc. The amount relative to a traditional vehicle never changes -- by the time you're receiving $300 with an electric car while paying nothing, the person with a gasoline car is also receiving $300 but is still paying $500, so "stop burning oil" is always $500/month ahead of continuing the status quo, whether it's $0 vs. $500 or -$200 vs. $300.
shmerl 8y ago
These crooks are worrying, that with demand for oil dropping in the near future, they'll be left with tons of cheap oil that no one will need. So in their greed they are ramping up efforts to profit from their oil now, before prices will plummet. It's also the same reason they rushed to reverse oil conservation limitations, and drill now more than ever. As usual, their mentality is "rip off everything now, and don't care about any future outcome it will cause". There should be stronger push back to stop them in their tracks before they do more damage than they already have done.

168 points by pingou 8y ago

The Koch brothers are amazing. Cars are bigger and heavier than ever, almost everyone has a huge truck in Austin, TX and usually an SUV if not that. They all have more power than ever. But they want to craft a narrative that Obama has been foolishly limiting our choice of cars with efficiency standards. There are certainly lots of regulations that make cars more expensive than they need to be but I don't think MPG standards are one of the first order cases.

assblaster 8y ago
The Ford F-150 now has an aluminum body, and uses a turbocharged V6 instead of regular V8 to generate torque, and it does a good job of it. Even so, the actual gas mileage owners get is lower than advertised, but still higher than a decade ago. The increased fuel efficiency standards have actually lead to higher costs of vehicle development to lighten the car and make the engine do more with less. Your lamenting the surge in trucks and SUV ownership is ironic since the increase is actually a direct result of the newer mileage standards: if trucks are now rated similar to where cars were rated 15 years ago, then why not go for the more utilitarian vehicle?
- mtw 8y ago
  There's really no reason why most people in Texas commute with a truck, unless you are in construction/renovation. If you follow the logic "go for the more utilitarian vehicle", then why not then commute with a semi trailer truck, after all these have a higher point of view, can haul more stuff. Or why not commute with a mining dump truck, it's got a practical bed and loads of space.
  - assblaster 8y ago
    Your straw man is not relevant. You are asking people to purchase two vehicles for themselves: one high efficiency commuter and one utility vehicle. Why do people in Texas commute with a pickup? Because they don't want to buy a sedan in addition, and I don't blame them. If you look at liberal California, you'll see tons of Subaru AWD light SUV/crossovers. Why don't Californians just bike everywhere to save on gas? Are you going to spite them because they want a vehicle that does everything they need?
    - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      This. Think of it as a three axis space with people capacity, indoor cargo space and outdoor cargo space on all three axis (I'm approximating here, there's more things than that people consider in a vehicle purchase but those are the big ones that determine which models you're considering). Crew cab and extended cab trucks have a lot of all three of those things (even more if you toss on a cap) making them capable of checking all the "must have" boxes of many potential buyers. The people that don't need the outdoor space get crossovers. The people that need more indoor space or seating get three row SUVs and minivans. The people that need the same blend of indoor/outdoor/seating but less of it get midsize trucks. The husband wants a driver's car with a manual and the wife wants a convertible with AWD and two rows of seating so they get a 4dr Jeep Wrangler (facepalm implied). Of course most vehicles are at least partially a luxury purchase so people higher on the economic spectrum will purchase more capacity than they "need" (three row SUV for two kids, 3/4-ton truck to tow a pop up camper).
    - jiveturkey 8y ago
      great point. thanks, assblaster.
    - ensiferum 8y ago
      And these people really need big ass trucks.. to haul exactly what? I bet the great majority of people really don't need it for work or anything.
      - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
        People don't "need" it in the sense that they need food or water but they "need" it to conform to social norms. It's a class/status thing. How hard you work your vehicles is inversely correlated with income (generally speaking, exceptions are in abundance when you speak in generalizations like this). If you hang out with the HN type crowd then you'll rarely if ever see someone fill every seat in a car or use a pickup to its full capacity. We're generally rich enough to afford more vehicle than we "need" in every regard (pickup trucks to haul light loads, three rows of seating for families with <4 kids, high performance German driving machines for a commute that's mostly sitting in traffic, etc, etc). At the other end of the economic spectrum people shoehorn whatever vehicle is available to them into every role it needs to fill. Every time I'm strapping material to the roof of one of my beater cars at home depot I'm immediately self aware that I am not acting the way people of my income level are expected to by other people of the same income level. Depending your income level pressing a less than ideal vehicle into service to fit all your needs is just not an option you let yourself seriously consider. So yeah, the people driving newish vehicles are mostly rich enough to not "need" all the capability they have and it's generally not socially acceptable for these people to go all out using their vehicles. Edit: You can see this playing out in the comments. Someone says they "need" a pickup to do something and gets responses like "No you don't, people in India haul lumber on motorcycles" or "But people in France can tow their their boat with a subcompact car" While that might be true the social norms of the US do not permit middle class and upper middle class people to use the piss out of their vehicles.
  - squish78 8y ago
    I work in an office job. Here are some of my reasons for owning a pickup truck, yet not a mining dump truck. - I volunteer at a community garden and move mulch/plants/soil - I cycle, kayak, and go camping and it's easier to transport my gear - I am a homeowner, and do the repairs and maintenance myself. It's hard to haul things like lumber and miter saw in the trunk of a civic. - Taking tree trimmings and other wood mulch to a dump site - When buying new furniture, I can move it myself instead of renting/borrowing a truck
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      I used to own a large pickup truck. Traded in as part of my Tesla Model S purchase. Slapped a hitch on the Model S (2500 lb towing capacity) and I can do everything I did before with my pickup with my electric car (arguably easier with a lower platform for loading and unloading, and my trailer has a higher load limit than my pickup truck bed did). Unless you’re hauling thousand of pounds behind that truck every day (above smaller vehicle tow limits, which is a legitimate use case if you're someone who is a shipper/transporter or contractor with a heavy trailer of some sort), it’s a waste, but to each their own.
      - squish78 8y ago
        That seems like a reasonable alternative, but I like to also do maintenance on my own vehicle and have been working on combustion engines my whole life. I supposed it is as unnecessary as anything in life, no more or less so than a Tesla, Civic, motorcycle, or scooter Edit: I will concede that a mining dump truck would be unnecessary, in response to the parent comment
        cronix 8y ago
        If you really enjoy doing maintenance, don't get a Tesla. The main thing you'd really be doing is changing tires every 40k or so, and eventually the battery pack. They are tremendously simple compared to a combustion engine. No spark plugs, no oil or filters to change, no oxygen sensors to go bad, no air filters, no fuel pumps or timing belts, etc. You'd be quite bored.
  - S_A_P 8y ago
    I like in Houston. Yes there are plenty of trucks and many people driving them “unnecessarily” whatever that means. But I have worked in the northeast, mid west and west coast. Despite what you may want to believe, there are not that many more trucks in Texas than elsewhere. The F-150 would not be the best selling vehicle in the US if only Texans bought them. I personally can’t daily drive a truck because I like sportier vehicles. But I can’t be mad at someone who chooses to. They’re roomy, convenient when buying large items and as of late not earth destroying bro dozers that they seem to have a reputation for in some circles. If we truly want to make progress towards less oil dependence and cleaner vehicles then we have to get off this tribal greenies vs MAGAs nonsense that really only serves to entrench two sides. I’m somewhat interested in the auto industry, I like cars. I love old muscle cars that get 10 mpg and have horrible emissions. I also would love to own a Tesla. I would like to see future cars more in line with a model S or model X than the gas swilling muscle car. I think that the left thinks that mandates are the only way to get there. That may be partially true but I also think that mandates are pushing opposing goals. Cars have to be safer so you build heavier larger cars. That requires more horsepower so we need larger engines or forced induction. Setting a deadline for mpg and emissions is only going to make cars very expensive. Electric cars are not going to cover all use cases and there is a real problem of lithium availability and battery capacity. There have been great strides to solving these issues but it isn’t there yet. As other comments have said, passenger cars and trucks are low on the list of polluters compared to planes, semis, trains, cargo ships. Believe it or not, I think the folks in the auto industry do want to make cleaner more efficient cars and trucks, but they also are in a business where a misstep can bankrupt the company so bold moves are not on the road map.
    - jefurii 8y ago
      > Believe it or not, I think the folks in the auto industry do want to make cleaner more efficient cars and trucks, but they also are in a business where a misstep can bankrupt the company so bold moves are not on the road map. Wouldn't legislation that requires cleaner and more efficient vehicles level the playing field? If all companies had to do it then it wouldn't be a competitive liability.
  - EADGBE 8y ago
    Are common people not allowed to do utilitarian things with their privately-owned vehicles? How else am I going to build a retaining wall, lawn maintenance, be the volunteer dance dad in the parade, pick up some building supplies for weekend projects, all while fitting three oversized safety-regulated car seats? Come on, this statement is close-minded.
    - Sharlin 8y ago
      Pickup trucks are almost unheard of outside the US, except in the countryside. SUVs are much rarer as well. Somehow people get by.
      - donaltroddyn 8y ago
        In Ireland, pickups are fairly uncommon (probably because of the weather), but 4x4s like Land Cruisers, Patrols, Defenders, Discoveries, etc are really common. The only category we don't have is what Americans call light trucks.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- Marsymars 8y ago
  Yes, big pickups get better fuel economy than big pickups from a decade ago, but the entire compact pickup market has been eliminated in North America. I inherited my first pickup (a Nissan Hardbody), a couple decades ago from my father, who'd used it for years for beekeeping work, and the F-150 still doesn't match it for fuel economy.
  - squish78 8y ago
    Now I want to know more about your beekeeping father
paganel 8y ago
To be fair the CAFE standards have severely limited the choice of small trucks the US consumer can buy, but I agree that they have nothing to do with the Obama mandate as they are by now almost 40 years old, just with fuel economy standards in general.
travisporter 8y ago
Is there a way to remain safe driving in these places besides also buying a large heavy vehicle? I despise gas guzzlers but my sedan may not survive an accident.
- Retric 8y ago
  Vehicle size has minimal impact on collision safty. People regularly survive collisions with Semi Trucks for example. Also those SUV’s often look huge, but a Honda Accord weighs 2/3 as much as a Chevy Suburban before adding passengers. Weight reduces acceleration and fuel economy so they use body styles that look huge while being mostly hollow.
- jiveturkey 8y ago
  honestly, who cares if your car survives? will you survive? if you have a car made within the last 20 years, most likely yes.
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  I'm reaching back a ways to my college days, but as I remember, two objects can have masses 2x apart (e.g. 3500 pound car, 7000 pound truck) and for all practical purposes it doesn't really change the collision dynamics much. Something about velocity squared, as I recall. So ... buy a Subaru Forester, I guess. Or another CUV. Taller bumper so you don't get run over by a pickup, but still a smallish vehicle.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    KE=0.5MV^2 Vehicle and cargo (you) damage is more strongly related to force than kinetic energy. You can be going 150mph and stop just fine by using the brakes to convert that kinetic energy into thermal energy. Using a concrete barrier and the vehicle to dissipate that force throughout the structure of the vehicle would work as well as far as getting rid of the kinetic energy but will probably have a less desirable outcome for the contents of the vehicle. Same energy in both cases, way different forces involved. It's like how a sledgehammer hits with more force the more rigid the thing you're hitting is. Also it's not the acceleration that kills you[1], it's the bouncing off things in the cabin that kills you. [1]http://www.ejectionsite.com/stapp.htm http://www.ejectionsite.com/stapp.htm (8th to last paragraph)
Sharlin 8y ago
The infatuation of Americans with bigger and bigger vehicles is one of the things that is just bizarre from an outside point of view.
- tertius 8y ago
  Cheap gas.
- supertrope 8y ago
  In the United States bigger is better. A big car fits more people and cargo. They're safer in a crash (if you ignore single vehicle accidents and especially rollovers). Finally it's a status symbol: bigger generally means more impressive and expensive. Americans don't share their salaries and directly bragging is faux pas, but we tend to signal social-economic status through property.
pif 8y ago
> They all have more power than ever. Modern engines have a lot of power, when you are at full regime. Getting to full regime is what emission control directives have made more and more painful during last decades.
gerbilly 8y ago
Why not convert tractor trailers into pickups? I bet they would sell really well. You know the bigger the better, right?

dao- 8y ago

Oh, the irony: https://www.nytimes.com/shell https://www.nytimes.com/shell

ajmurmann 8y ago
Even if we had a "net-zero emissions world by 2070" it would be way too late. I suspect we needed that 10 years ago. If we want to prevent disastrous climate change we should ban all combustion engines by Jan. 2021 and pay insane amounts of money for captured carbon. Of course that would be incredibly painful. Many people would starve to death, all our quality of life would go down dramatically for a while. But the alternative is that even more people die.
makerofspoons 8y ago
A breakdown of the Shell Sky scenario, who funded the research, how much Shell was involved, and the background of reviewers: https://cleantechnica.com/2018/11/30/the-shell-sky-scenario-our-need-to-critically-assess-sponsored-corporate-content/ https://cleantechnica.com/2018/11/30/the-shell-sky-scenario-...

clouddrover 8y ago

It may not matter so much. Car makers will still have to comply with European and Chinese emissions standards anyway (test cheating aside). How much incentive will there be for them to develop a separate car purely for the US market? And there will be many models of EVs available across the next 7 years. In addition to Tesla, most of the major car brands have EV development programs. Here are four EVs available now or in the first half of 2019, depending on where you live: - Jaguar I-Pace: https://www.jaguar.co.uk/jaguar-range/i-pace/index.html https://www.jaguar.co.uk/jaguar-range/i-pace/index.html - Audi e-Tron: https://www.audi.co.uk/electric-car/e-tron.html https://www.audi.co.uk/electric-car/e-tron.html - Hyundai Kona: https://www.hyundai.co.uk/new-cars/kona-electric https://www.hyundai.co.uk/new-cars/kona-electric Review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LATZ0g-Sz2s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LATZ0g-Sz2s - Kia e-Niro: https://www.kia.com/uk/new-cars/all-new-e-niro/ https://www.kia.com/uk/new-cars/all-new-e-niro/ Review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR5sDwF5aBM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR5sDwF5aBM The Hyundai Kona and Kia e-Niro are interesting as practical cars with good range at a more affordable price than the luxury EV options. The Kona and the e-Niro have the same drivetrain so they're quite similar, but of the two I like the e-Niro better. Hyundai and Kia also have some on-car solar options in development: https://electrek.co/2018/10/31/hyundai-kia-solar-roof-electric-vehicles/ https://electrek.co/2018/10/31/hyundai-kia-solar-roof-electr... I think the future is bright for low or zero emissions vehicles, despite the oil industry's efforts.

dao- 8y ago
> How much incentive will there be for them to develop a separate car purely for the US market? Aren't they doing that already? The whole pickup truck class mostly doesn't exist outside of the US.
- clouddrover 8y ago
  Well, they're selling them in Australia: https://www.ford.com.au/commercial/ranger/ https://www.ford.com.au/commercial/ranger/ And in China soon if not already: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ford-motor-china-idUSKBN17916D https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ford-motor-china-idUSKBN1... https://www.ford.com.cn/performance/raptor/ https://www.ford.com.cn/performance/raptor/

PeterStuer 8y ago

The insanity is that we built a system that cultivates and breeds extreme greed at any price, and then hope that the reigns to keep it under control will be forever flawless. It means the protectors need to be eternally on top, while a single victory of the beast can destroy the world.

nimbius 8y ago

Disclosure: im a full-time auto mechanic learning python in my ample spare time. In terms of emissions, you wont come close to what a diesel long haul truck is putting out, and those are the vehicles no one really talks about. Freightliner and peterbilt all showcase their latest trucks with urea scrubbers and nox emissions reduction technology, or even hybrid/electric systems when they go to trade shows, but most fleet operators are on a 30 year curve. No trucking company wants to buy a truck new. and thanks to loopholes in EPA regulations they dont need to. fleet owners can do whats called a "glider" conversion. You essentially take the guts of a 30 year old tractor trailer, and wrap it in a nice new body. this works well to refurbish trucks that have been in rollover accidents or written off by insurance companies. they are easier to move from salvage to titled. Assembly of a glider is also prone to problems. Professional mechanics can do it well, but its not cheap, so to drop the cost of a glider most fleet owners sub this work out from their main shops to subcontractors of Salvadorian day laborers. The result is that the truck runs, but critical things like the urea tank wont run, the pyrometer is broken, and the dashboard lights up like a christmas tree. Ive even seen gliders where the speedometer was so incorrect, the driver told me to "use the gps" on my phone instead. These trucks are miles off spec for EPA, but most states only halfheartedly enforce the EPA regulations for trucks. Fleet owners title them in states like Indiana, florida and Ohio for a reason: these states couldnt care less if the truck smokes out the parking lot of a wal-mart just starting up.

Eric_WVGG 8y ago
Glad you mentioned "gliders"… they were on the chopping block, but obviously any and every common sense decision from 2008-2016 will be reversed by this awesome administration. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17478176 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17478176
travisoneill1 8y ago
How does that work economically? Isn't a 30 year old truck engine massively less efficient than a modern one?
- nwatson 8y ago

njarboe 8y ago

It is really too bad we can't implement a revenue neutral carbon dioxide tax. Start at a low level and gradually ramp it up until we are carbon dioxide neutral or a bit negative. Pay for taking CO2 out of the air at the same rate as the tax and let American ingenuity do the rest. Even the oil companies are not against a CO2 tax if you bring it on slowly. Seems like if Congress could just ignore the crazies on either side for a bit, most people would agree this the best way forward to reduce CO2 emissions working with the strengths of American culture instead of going against it.

martythemaniak 8y ago
Well, this is what a number of jurisdictions are doing, or have already done. Canada is doing pretty much exactly this - implement $12/ton in 2019, ramp it up gradually through the 2020s. 90% of tax revenues are refunded directly back to taxpayers. The problem of course is... it's a tax. It doesn't matter if it makes sense, if it is revenue neutral etc etc. Someone will just start yelling about elites robbing the people. I guess you can see how it plays out in Canada. Not only is the tax slated to be imposed this year, but there is a federal election in the fall.
3pt14159 8y ago
We did that in Ontario. The problem is that the people that care about environmentalism cluster in cities and our votes get wasted because it's a fight between centre-left and left. Out in the suburbs it's people with giant houses, giant trucks, and wasteful thermal choices (gotta cheap out and save that $$$ to buy a bigger house!) so they get nailed by the costs. The difference is fucking comical. My utility bill was $40 (including heat!) the same month it was $420 for someone I know out in the sticks. So now we have an idiot in charge. Deceased crack mayor Rob Ford's brother. It's a nightmare. People want the very lifestyle that needs to end.
AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> It is really too bad we can't implement a revenue neutral carbon dioxide tax. Start at a low level and gradually ramp it up until we are carbon dioxide neutral or a bit negative. As long as it's revenue neutral it doesn't even need to be ramped up, it can start at 100%. If you're suddenly paying an extra $500/month in carbon tax but at the same time you're getting the same $500/month back in lower taxes or higher EITC etc., nothing immediately changes unless you make different choices -- and then you pay less. Then the "ramp up" is automatic, not because the amount of the tax increases over time, but because the amount of carbon being burned (and therefore taxed) goes down which makes "revenue neutral" result in a smaller "refund" payment. You buy an electric car and receive $500/month, but as more people buy electric cars, the amount you receive drops to $400/month, then $300 etc. The amount relative to a traditional vehicle never changes -- by the time you're receiving $300 with an electric car while paying nothing, the person with a gasoline car is also receiving $300 but is still paying $500, so "stop burning oil" is always $500/month ahead of continuing the status quo, whether it's $0 vs. $500 or -$200 vs. $300.

shmerl 8y ago

These crooks are worrying, that with demand for oil dropping in the near future, they'll be left with tons of cheap oil that no one will need. So in their greed they are ramping up efforts to profit from their oil now, before prices will plummet. It's also the same reason they rushed to reverse oil conservation limitations, and drill now more than ever. As usual, their mentality is "rip off everything now, and don't care about any future outcome it will cause". There should be stronger push back to stop them in their tracks before they do more damage than they already have done.