17 ms·

Disappointing to see most of the comments here discussing either how to remove limiters or specs of cars. We should be looking to reduce polluting vehicles lik

• arrakis2021 5y ago
  We are fortunate we have you to tell us what we should think. Talk of car specs and removing limiters is disappointing you? This is “hacker news” after all?
• 55873445216111 5y ago
  Many people have hobbies that drive CO2 emissions. Should we ban all of these too?
  • twelvechairs 5y ago
    What hobbies are you referring to specifically?
    • onetokeoverthe 5y ago
    • nsxwolf 5y ago
      Making sourdough.
      • rzzzt 5y ago
        Knitting
        • calumetregion 5y ago
          Existing
    • 55873445216111 5y ago
      "travelling"
      • throwaway0x7E6 5y ago
      • fulafel 5y ago
        Travelling is most CO2 intensive when air travel is involved. It would be fine if faraway travel took more time. But yes, in any case, we need to reduce air travel.
    • 55873445216111 5y ago
      My favorite hobby is is inhaling O2 and exhaling CO2.
  • zardo 5y ago
    The externalities should be internalized.
    • BobbyJo 5y ago
      We don't need to ban anything, just make it cost what it costs.
    • Manuel_D 5y ago
      This is accomplished via gas taxes. If you drive this car only 100 miles a year, you're still emitting a lot less CO2 than driving a Prius 10,000 miles a year.
      • zardo 5y ago
        It's not really accomplished unless the gas tax pulls that CO2 back down from the atmosphere.
        • BizarroLand 5y ago
          Per the CDC, A typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. The weighted average price per ton for carbon credits from forestry and land-use projects that reduce emissions or remove carbon from the atmosphere has been on a steady upward path, rising from $4.33 per credit in 2019 to $4.73 per credit so far in 2021, with a spike to $5.60 per credit in 2020. So, spend $35/year or if you want to get fancy, the cost of 1 tank of gas per year to offset your carbon footprint from driving and enjoy a guilt-free year. Or we could fold that cost into gas, if you use 1 tank a week, 10/gallons a tank, that would be less than $0.02 as a carbon tax credit. I would be all for that. But, if you raised the price of gas $0.50 and funneled all of that money into funding carbon capture industries, I would also be all for that, and at that price point more people would search for public transportation or purchase EV's so that is a double win. But then again, these taxes would disproportionately affect the middle and lower classes in suburban and rural communities so that would make life far more difficult on people who already have it tough enough and manufacturers would probably shovel any taxes you put on them directly to the consumers as well, so I would say it's almost as if there isn't a single simple fix to the issue and only a multipronged approach that takes into account dozens of moving variables rolled out over time is the only viable solution.
  • rhinoceraptor 5y ago
    Talking about the individuals' personal choices first and foremost, instead of the state action and regulation that needs to occur is both alienating, and counterproductive. It's a tool used by corporations that benefit from lax regulation, to shift the blame for their negative externalities to the public. For example, the 'carbon footprint' is a marketing invention from BP.
  • goodpoint 5y ago
    Yes. Cars actively and provably harm other people with their emissions. Yet society tolerates them as a necessary evil (also due to the lobbying from car companies and big oil). Hobbies that harm other people by polluting are not a "necessary evil". They are not necessary. For example, in many cities in the world it's illegal to have a bonfire because it makes people (unwillingly) inhale toxic particulate.
• darkengine 5y ago
  I get where you're coming from, but this website is called Hacker News. Getting around limits is a primary part of the tradition.
  • RC_ITR 5y ago
    Sure I just wish for ONCE the goal of the hacking zeitgeist on here would be “how do we get around limits to do something good for society” rather than “how do we use our cleverness to exempt ourselves from the rules that enable society?”
    • giantg2 5y ago
      I'll probably get downvoted, but... Maybe we also accept that some limits can't be surpassed, at least not at an acceptable cost. In my opinion, the world cannot sustainably support so many people. So artificial limits we like to defeat, natural limits are much tougher.
      • eru 5y ago
        What do you mean by 'so many people'? The carrying capacity of earth is likely hundreds of billions of humans, if we were to set our mind to it. Just to concentrate on food alone: we are barely harvesting anything from the oceans. Even on land, using greenhouses everywhere would give us vastly more agricultural yield. We are not using greenhouses everywhere right now, because that's a huge capital investment; and given current food prices, it's generally not worth it. But if push came to shove, we could totally do it. (Just like we _could_ totally get rid of fossil fuels, if we really had to and run everything on wind and solar. It's just not economically viable to do that right now.) There's lots more techniques you can do to produce more calories. For example fusion power could help a lot to power lots of artificial lighting in vertical farms, and to purify sea water. (And even without fusion power, we could generate lots and lots of power from fission with current technology. It's just unpopular.) > Maybe we also accept that some limits can't be surpassed, at least not at an acceptable cost. I guess you would say that the suggestions I made above fall under the second clause of unacceptable costs? Do you mean economic costs or some kind of ethical or moral or metaphysical costs? I can see how some people might be queasy about putting fission reactors everywhere. But I don't really see anything against Dutch-style greenhouses apart from economic costs?
• Tabular-Iceberg 5y ago
  $272,000 cars are not really serious road going vehicles. Emissions per mile travelled may be atrocious, but adjusted for how far it will actually travel in its lifetime, it's probably no worse than a Nissan Leaf.
  • lasc4r 5y ago
    If we're getting technical I think spending $272,000 on anything is going to have some environmental costs in line with spending $272,000.
    • teruakohatu 5y ago
      Spending that much money on a truck probably generates no more emissions than a basic Ford F-150. Would an iPhone Pro Max produce much more emissions than a iPhone SE? But from an environmental, not spending the money in the first place (not upgrading a car or phone) in both cases would be a net win for the environment.
      • eru 5y ago
        What do you mean by not spending? If you just take the money and bury it in your backyard forever, the central bank will just replace it after a while. (Assuming a typical inflation targeting central bank. And also in aggregate, because the central bank doesn't know exactly how much money is getting buried; but they do monitor total spending in the economy.) If you leave the money in the bank, the bank invests it. If you want to make a positive difference, you can use the money to contribute to eg carbon reduction efforts. The rest of what you are saying is right: there's better and worse ways to spend that money. (In the worst case, you could buy a few tons of coal and just set them on fire.) I'm just saying that earning money and not spending it at all, doesn't automatically mean zero net emissions.
        • hgomersall 5y ago
          Loans create deposits, not the other way around. Your broader point that in a rational society money will never be a limiting factor is good though.
• superkuh 5y ago
  I can see this kind of take in most areas were most people live: dense urban networks along coasts. But the rest of us really do need cars to get around and no amount of city planning/rebuilding or place to place public transport is going to change that.
  • Doctor_Fegg 5y ago
    Hi from Europe.
• systemvoltage 5y ago
  I strongly disagree and this kind of virtue signaling leaves a bad authoritarian taste. We used to look at amazing engineering in supercars, now all we hear about is woke fetish for reducing life quality, living in a pod and driving a scooter. The current trend is to ban all luxury and prevent people from excelling at craftsmanship. It gives people jobs, reduces income inequality (transfer of wealth from top to bottom) and propelling culture forward. Nevermind that. All this is very perverse, like a race to the bottom with double-standards and contradictions everywhere. "For thee, not me".
  • reanimus 5y ago
    Funny, living in cities that prioritize other modes of transport (biking, buses, trains, etc) has drastically improved my quality of life, as opposed to places that prioritize cars and inevitably end up being traffic-locked hellholes.
    • systemvoltage 5y ago
      I use public transportation as well. But I don't gawk at people that have Ferraris in disgust.
      • reanimus 5y ago
        1) this isn't a Ferrari, the article literally describes this car as an anti-Prius 2) even the most polluting Ferrari, which according to this page (1) emits 385g/km , is still almost a quarter less polluting than this car (506 g/km according to the article) (1) https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/cars/Car-CO2-and-fuel-economy-mpg-figures?CarType=&Manufacturer=&Model=&CO2To=&EquaMpgFrom=&SortBy=CO2&SortDesc=true&FuelType= https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/cars/Car-CO2-and-fuel-economy-mp...
        • systemvoltage 5y ago
          Wait until you hear about this that enables a $2 Trillion dollar company and probably 95% of everything you own in your living room: https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/shipping-emissions-17-global-co2-making-it-elephant-climate-negotiations-room/ https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/shipping-emiss... But hey look! That one car! Fuck that in particular.
• xwdv 5y ago
  Why? We can still have a cleaner world even with polluting vehicles. There’s bigger targets to hit.
  • nxm 5y ago
    Exactly. Let’s start with planes
    • xwdv 5y ago
      Planes and Cargo ships.
  • ttGpN5Nde3pK 5y ago
    Yep. Can start by not making people drive to offices to sit on computers...
• calumetregion 5y ago
• voldacar 5y ago
• S_A_P 5y ago
  At 272k plus taxes I don’t think we need to worry about this being a peoples car. I think that all manufacturers realize that ICE is on the way out. The new generation of electric cars on the horizon are very compelling and seem to be capable of even better performance than ICE vehicles. The Lucid Air and Rivian truck( along with Tesla and traditional car makers) are bringing prices down more quickly than I personally expected. I think that FCA(now stellantis) hellcatting all the cars was/is a great way to send off the old technology. Making high profit vehicles like this is also helping stellantis bankroll the transition to electric cars. I say all of that to say that big gas guzzler vehicles are an easy target for judgement but in the scheme of things they’re about 29% of CO2 emissions. Cars are getting more fuel efficient and the average car is not a supercharged v8. Also what’s wrong with the fetishization of cars? There is a lot to geek out to in vehicle engineering. Not all cars are a giant eff you to the planet. Just like not every computer is a 500gpu crypto miner.
  • giantg2 5y ago
    "Making high profit vehicles like this is also helping stellantis bankroll the transition to electric cars." And keeps regular people from affording an EV truck. Although, I also hate how much stupid tech they put in them. "Cars are getting more fuel efficient and the average car is not a supercharged v8." I was surprised that I recently got 20.5 mpg hauling 1200 lbs of lumber. That was almost double what I expected to get. "There is a lot to geek out to in vehicle engineering." I absolutely agree. Prior to computer (and phreaks, and ham, etc) hot rodders where hackers. There's still a lot of interesting tech and concepts to explore.
    • nebula8804 5y ago
      >And keeps regular people from affording an EV truck. Although, I also hate how much stupid tech they put in them. They don't have the money to transition so they could either sell these high margin vehicles to fund the transition to EVs or sell off the business and dump all the non useful assets like the engine/transmission factories. Either way, you aren't getting your cheap truck until there is sufficient volume and the second approach will make it harder to get to that volume.
• missedthecue 5y ago
  What's the difference between fetishisation and enjoyment? Are all hobbies fetishes? Is any non-productive interest a fetish?
• aaron695 5y ago
• eru 5y ago
  > We should be looking to reduce polluting vehicles like these and also the fetishisation of cars in general. Eh, the former is pretty easy: just tax pollution and let people decide how much polluting they want to afford. But that's too boring to have long discussions about. About the latter: it's not my business what people do in their bedroom.
  • ajsnigrutin 5y ago
    This is problematic, because someone poor then can't drive at all, and someone rich just pays a bit more, to ride his private jet. It's easy to say "just buy electric"... but that's 40k+ eur right now, and if you live in an apartment building, you have nowehere to charge it, unless you wait at a public charging station for hours every few days. We have A LOT of people warning against climate change, eg obama: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-record/climate https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-record/climate But we also have obama buying waterfront property, which will supposedly be underwater soon. https://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-buy-home-on-marthas-vineyard-report-photos-2019-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-buy-home-on-marthas-v... Same for the terminator: https://www.schwarzeneggerclimateinitiative.com/about https://www.schwarzeneggerclimateinitiative.com/about But drives a monstrosity of an SUV: https://www.tmz.com/2022/01/21/arnold-schwarzenegger-car-accident-prius-suv-injuries/ https://www.tmz.com/2022/01/21/arnold-schwarzenegger-car-acc... So yes... raise the taxes, the poor won't be able to drive at all, their houses will be cold all winter, and massive polluters will still pollute.
    • eru 5y ago
      Give the poor person money, if you want to help her. Use an income tax (or land value tax or similar) on the rich guy to finance that. No need to mix up your redistribution apparatus with your pigovian taxes. Both of them would be worse off for this double duty.
• Justin_K 5y ago
  Hackers are gonna hack.
• throwaway0x7E6 5y ago
• WalterBright 5y ago
  My teenage obsession with cars is what really got my interest in engineering going, and has had many knock-on advantages for me.
• cato_the_elder 5y ago
  It's really disappointing that the woke-scolding comment is now the top one. Since the comment in question is merely a normative opinion on what we should do, here's mine: We should banish the fun police, and stop believing all the hyperbolic things that activists tell us. [1] We are under no obligation to align every aspect of our life (like interest in fancy cars) with the puritan values of anyone. [1]: Things like "we only have 18 months to save the planet" (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48964736.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48964736.amp).
• lelanthran 5y ago
• bendbro 5y ago
  Lol car go zoom
• jnsaff2 5y ago
  Totally with you. Lets say 90km trip A to B in this car will get one there say 3,6 seconds faster 0,1% improvement in performance for about 3-4x the pollution.
• seabird 5y ago
  The percentage of people that will do anything to their car that will negatively impact the emissions is so small that it's not even worth worrying about. The vast majority of people take their vehicle to an oil change chain so they can have the drain plug hole on their pan stripped out instead of just taking 30 minutes to do it themselves. I really don't think you need to worry about them pulling off emissions controls while they dyno tune their Camry. "Fetishisation" is a word that is inching closer to being an instant giveaway for a ham-fisted or outright stupid take. Your average person driving a car in the US isn't "fetishizing" anything. They live in a big-ass country where a lot of things they care about are far away. Having a car allows them to get to their job, see their family, and so on. It's not some insidious plot to keep you from walking around your city.
  • drewwwwww 5y ago
    them living far away from their jobs or preferred places to go were not values free choices made in a vacuum, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise to make some kind of point about how the status quo is a law of the universe.
  • mandmandam 5y ago
    > Your average person driving a car in the US isn't "fetishizing" anything. They live in a big-ass country where a lot of things they care about are far away. Having a car allows them to get to their job, see their family, and so on. Americans are mocked worldwide for their ridiculous cars. Oversized, gas guzzling, ostentatious, and yes - fetishized cars are associated with Americans worldwide. > It's not some insidious plot to keep you from walking around your city. OP didn't say it is. However car manufacturers did in fact plot - conspired, even - to attack trams, public transport, trains, and anything else that could threaten their dominance. That's just well known fact, and I don't know why you're defending any of this. Have you ever actually traveled outside America and seen how much nicer it is to be able to walk around a city that isn't designed completely around cars? It's a far, far superior daily experience.
    • cplusplusfellow 5y ago
      Most of those cities were designed when horses weren’t even an option. But some of us don’t consider that nicer.
• markvdb 5y ago
  Global warming is one thing. Supporting war criminals like Vladimir Putin or Mohammed Bin Salman is another. I don't want to subsidise them. So the rare times I drive, I mostly use an electric. The even rarer times I drive a diesel car, I use HVO100 [0]. That is by choice. I consciously try to limit my fossil fuel consumption with the goal of reducing war subsidies and global warming. So what if that makes me a naive idiot. And yes, I hope for more people to share those goals, eventually translating them into my government's energy policies. But but but... am I a gas guzzler party pooper? Not at all! Museum workshops work wonderfully well for steam trains, historical agricultural tools and industrial archeology. They could work very well for this kind of historical vehicle propulsion too! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrotreated_vegetable_oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrotreated_vegetable_oil
• passivate 5y ago
  >We should be looking to reduce polluting vehicles like these and also the fetishisation of cars in general. How many people here avoid flying out of principle? There is a clear answer to - Do planes pollute a lot? (yes/no)
  • nosianu 5y ago
    I thought the subject was cars right now. I see the point of bringing up something for a larger perspective, but this here is just whataboutism. With this "argument" it's useless to talk about any source of pollution - because there always is another one. Also, using a different car is very easy, it does not compare to not flying, so the comparison is more than just a little flawed to begin with.
    • passivate 5y ago
      My point was about being principled not whataboutism. Of the people telling others to not drive cars, how many people are avoiding flying for non-essential travel? Its easy to tell others to sacrifice, and I'm sure that everyone has at-least one cause they care about. > Also, using a different car is very easy, it does not compare to not flying, so the comparison is more than just a little flawed to begin with. What if one wants to drive a gas guzzler, but avoid airline travel? :)
  • fulafel 5y ago
    Many have drastically reduced it, I think you assume too much environmental cynicism.
    • passivate 5y ago
      Yes, it is quite possible that I am a bit jaded. I just get tired being lectured to on that - not by you or the OP, just randos IRL, who love flying all over the world on vacation, while driving a prius or tesla.
  • pbhjpbhj 5y ago
    >How many people here avoid flying out of principle? I'm not sure what you're expecting, but surely it's lots?
• 2143 5y ago
  > We should be looking to reduce polluting vehicles Yep, absolutely! > also the fetishisation of cars in general. Aww come on! What's wrong with being a petrolhead? Appreciate a fine piece of engineering! I'm into planes as well.
• Day1 5y ago
• draw_down 5y ago
• pc86 5y ago
  Some people just like cars and there's nothing wrong with that. This is paternalistic nonsense.
• mkr-hn 5y ago
  What did you think the "hacker" in Hacker News meant? While the actual activities rarely match the "learning to understand and control systems" sense, it's 100% in line with that niche usage. That usage also frequently fails to consider or care about ordinary senses of law and morality.