6 ms·

Great news. Long needed simple fix for climate. The highest sector for GHG emissions in California for example, is transport.

Paul-Craft 3y ago
This is not in any way a "fix." It's a bandaid on a shotgun wound, at best.
- Daishiman 3y ago
  Transport is one the lowest-hanging fruits for fixing climate change with domestic heating.
  - Paul-Craft 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - bdcravens 3y ago
      The US has the second most CO2 emissions [1], and roughly 28% of that total comes from transportation [2]. That means our transportation emissions are higher than most countries' total emissions. Reducing that number by 25% would be the equivalent of the UK eliminating 100% of its emissions. 1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/270499/co2-emissions-in-selected-countries https://www.statista.com/statistics/270499/co2-emissions-in-... 2. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-...
      - pengaru 3y ago
        2020 seems like an odd year to source those stats from considering how abnormal transportation was during COVID-19. Particularly air travel, which is part of transportation, would have been way down vs. normal, artificially inflating the %age contributed by others including the fraction you're implying would go away.
        bdcravens 3y ago
        I was trying to source the most current information I could find. I'm happy to use more current data. Considering how car-dependent we are, years unaffected (or less affected) pandemic would learn more towards the US having a larger share.
        pengaru 3y ago
        Well, the distribution of transportation's emissions within the US is completely out of wack throughout COVID-19. People stopped commuting by car due to shelter in place and WFH, air travel was paralyzed, deliveries went up and trucking was a shit show. Throughout 2020 I practically never saw jets in the air, and that's quite unusual for my locale, being east of LA (JTNP).
      - Paul-Craft 3y ago
        And how many years will that take? Hint: more than we've got, if we want to have a prayer of avoiding more than 1.5 degrees of warning. Just read for yourself here: https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/04/1115452 https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/04/1115452 > “This assessment shows that limiting warming to around 2C (3.6F) still requires global greenhouse gas emissions to peak before 2025 at the latest, and be reduced by a quarter by 2030.” Ain't happenin', and this isn't going to get us there. Only massive, worldwide action will save us. Again, this is not a "fix" in any sense of the word. At best, by itself, it's a feel good measure. But I'm sure we won't commit to what it would really take.
        BobbyJo 3y ago
        "If I can't run a marathon then why leave the couch?"
        Paul-Craft 3y ago
        Where did I say we shouldn't do this? Was it perhaps in this comment where I said we should do it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35610696 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35610696 My problem is in calling this a "fix." It's not a "fix." It's an incremental step, at best, and one that will make no difference unless we have massive, worldwide action. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with the comment guidelines: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
        BobbyJo 3y ago
        If you apply your own advice to the original comment in this thread, they were saying it was one of the easiest things we can do, not that it was sufficient by itself. If I apply that interpretation of the original comment, and look at your comments as a rebuttal (which the strength of your language implies), it forces me to interpret them as "worrying about transportation is futile". Even in this comment here: > it's an incremental step, at best You are implying my interpretation wasn't wrong. If it's a step "at best", then what is it at worst?
- thecopy 3y ago
  What would you suggest the US policy makers do instead?
  - SyzygistSix 3y ago
    Removing the Chicken Tax in addition might be good.
tmnvix 3y ago
As much as I agree that this is great news, I would like to see something that isn't focused exclusively on emissions - or even weight for that matter. As important as those are, I would also like to see something that focuses on size as well. There is so much potential in small vehicles, but it is stymied by the proportion of over-sized vehicles on the road. Something to short circuit the 'visibility arms race' would be welcome in my opinion.
- cozzyd 3y ago
  Instead of taxing fuel, governments should tax mileage * weight (or perhaps mileage * weight^alpha for some alpha...)
  - hackernewds 3y ago
    Why? Truck seamlessly and scalably move cargo for thousands of customers at once. Distributing that to hundreds of smaller trucks for tax efficiency would be worse for the env
    - cozzyd 3y ago
      It wouldn't make sense to distribute to smaller trucks for tax efficiency when considering the cost of the extra trucks, drivers, and loading/unloading. And besides, trucks already pay more in fuel tax. A mileage tax is going to be a necessity with electrification in the future, and it doesn't make sense for all weight-classes to pay the same tax as they don't do equal damage to roads.
      - thecopy 3y ago
        >equal damage to roads. That's an understatement. Afaik damage to the road scales with weight to the _FOURTH_ power.
        seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        Don’t wheels and weight distribution have something to do with this? Otherwise this property would be really easy to game.

Paul-Craft 3y ago

This is not in any way a "fix." It's a bandaid on a shotgun wound, at best.

Daishiman 3y ago
Transport is one the lowest-hanging fruits for fixing climate change with domestic heating.
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - bdcravens 3y ago
    The US has the second most CO2 emissions [1], and roughly 28% of that total comes from transportation [2]. That means our transportation emissions are higher than most countries' total emissions. Reducing that number by 25% would be the equivalent of the UK eliminating 100% of its emissions. 1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/270499/co2-emissions-in-selected-countries https://www.statista.com/statistics/270499/co2-emissions-in-... 2. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-...
    - pengaru 3y ago
      2020 seems like an odd year to source those stats from considering how abnormal transportation was during COVID-19. Particularly air travel, which is part of transportation, would have been way down vs. normal, artificially inflating the %age contributed by others including the fraction you're implying would go away.
      - bdcravens 3y ago
        I was trying to source the most current information I could find. I'm happy to use more current data. Considering how car-dependent we are, years unaffected (or less affected) pandemic would learn more towards the US having a larger share.
        pengaru 3y ago
        Well, the distribution of transportation's emissions within the US is completely out of wack throughout COVID-19. People stopped commuting by car due to shelter in place and WFH, air travel was paralyzed, deliveries went up and trucking was a shit show. Throughout 2020 I practically never saw jets in the air, and that's quite unusual for my locale, being east of LA (JTNP).
    - Paul-Craft 3y ago
      And how many years will that take? Hint: more than we've got, if we want to have a prayer of avoiding more than 1.5 degrees of warning. Just read for yourself here: https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/04/1115452 https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/04/1115452 > “This assessment shows that limiting warming to around 2C (3.6F) still requires global greenhouse gas emissions to peak before 2025 at the latest, and be reduced by a quarter by 2030.” Ain't happenin', and this isn't going to get us there. Only massive, worldwide action will save us. Again, this is not a "fix" in any sense of the word. At best, by itself, it's a feel good measure. But I'm sure we won't commit to what it would really take.
      - BobbyJo 3y ago
        "If I can't run a marathon then why leave the couch?"
        Paul-Craft 3y ago
        Where did I say we shouldn't do this? Was it perhaps in this comment where I said we should do it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35610696 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35610696 My problem is in calling this a "fix." It's not a "fix." It's an incremental step, at best, and one that will make no difference unless we have massive, worldwide action. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with the comment guidelines: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
        BobbyJo 3y ago
        If you apply your own advice to the original comment in this thread, they were saying it was one of the easiest things we can do, not that it was sufficient by itself. If I apply that interpretation of the original comment, and look at your comments as a rebuttal (which the strength of your language implies), it forces me to interpret them as "worrying about transportation is futile". Even in this comment here: > it's an incremental step, at best You are implying my interpretation wasn't wrong. If it's a step "at best", then what is it at worst?
thecopy 3y ago
What would you suggest the US policy makers do instead?
- SyzygistSix 3y ago
  Removing the Chicken Tax in addition might be good.

tmnvix 3y ago

As much as I agree that this is great news, I would like to see something that isn't focused exclusively on emissions - or even weight for that matter. As important as those are, I would also like to see something that focuses on size as well. There is so much potential in small vehicles, but it is stymied by the proportion of over-sized vehicles on the road. Something to short circuit the 'visibility arms race' would be welcome in my opinion.

cozzyd 3y ago
Instead of taxing fuel, governments should tax mileage * weight (or perhaps mileage * weight^alpha for some alpha...)
- hackernewds 3y ago
  Why? Truck seamlessly and scalably move cargo for thousands of customers at once. Distributing that to hundreds of smaller trucks for tax efficiency would be worse for the env
  - cozzyd 3y ago
    It wouldn't make sense to distribute to smaller trucks for tax efficiency when considering the cost of the extra trucks, drivers, and loading/unloading. And besides, trucks already pay more in fuel tax. A mileage tax is going to be a necessity with electrification in the future, and it doesn't make sense for all weight-classes to pay the same tax as they don't do equal damage to roads.
    - thecopy 3y ago
      >equal damage to roads. That's an understatement. Afaik damage to the road scales with weight to the _FOURTH_ power.
      - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        Don’t wheels and weight distribution have something to do with this? Otherwise this property would be really easy to game.