6 ms·

It's sad that SUV's proliferated, especially after the relatively climate and environment-aware decades of the 80's and 90's but I've realised that only governm

It's sad that SUV's proliferated, especially after the relatively climate and environment-aware decades of the 80's and 90's but I've realised that only governments can enact sensible environmental laws. Like for instance how China banned single serving plastic usage.

lim_nick 2y ago
Would love to hear some more about your realization. Any thoughts on what it is about either governments or sensible environmental laws that makes this the case? edit: After rereading I realized I misinterpreted your post. I read "enact" to mean "enact and enforce" but in a sense you are correct that only governments can enact legislation. I see now you made no claims about ability to design enforceable policy.
trgn 2y ago
A tragedy of the commons can only be solved top down.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  Actually, that's not the case, and wasn't even the argument made in Garrett Hardin's original essay on the topic, which suggested instead privatisation as a frequently-effective mechanism. Those who are opposed to that approach on the basis of criticisms of enclosures acts and the end of traditional commons have many arguments on their side, but the general effectiveness of privatisation in that particular case is not amongst them. (Hardin is also pointedly arguing about a far larger problem, including of commons which are less readily closed such as ocean fisheries, and of the total global human population of Earth, in which privatisation might not hold, or for which other approaches, some of which are strongly criticised today, might be applied.) The one dynamic which solving a tragedy of the commons requires is that it not be possible to privatise gains whilst socialising costs, which drives the entire logic of the tragedy. How that is arrived at still leaves multiple options.
IX-103 2y ago
I think the proliferation of SUVs in America is almost completely due to environmental laws. There are different fuel efficiency standards for cars and for trucks. Since the standards for trucks are so much looser, someone had the bright idea to build a car body on a truck frame. That way they only had to meet the truck standards. Later laws were changed to recognize SUV as a separate class, but the standards are still just a gradual improvement over truck standards, and not near where car requirements are.
- hypeatei 2y ago
  This is it. If someone is curious, look into the "SUV loophole" that automakers are using to skirt emissions regulations.
  - adolph 2y ago
    For more on the loophole along with what might happen next: https://www.capitalone.com/cars/learn/finding-the-right-car/what-is-the-suv-loophole-and-will-it-close/2654 https://www.capitalone.com/cars/learn/finding-the-right-car/... While the loophole isn't going away completely, the tougher rules may cause some manufacturers to rethink trends and add more small cars to their lineups. However, it's more likely that the opposite will happen. Americans love SUVs and trucks; even pandemic pricing didn't convince many shoppers to switch to a smaller car. Instead, we've seen manufacturers building even larger electric vehicles
- lolinder 2y ago
  I'm having a hard time understanding why consumers went for SUVs in this interpretation. Did they just really want to pollute more? Do regular cars have too high a gas mileage for their liking? It certainly wasn't that the SUV was able to become the cheaper option! Skirting emissions laws only works as a complete explanation if it can account for consumer behavior. My sense from talking to people who own them is that they chose them because they could function as a truck or as a minivan depending on what they need to do at the time, without having to own both. That's a much less exciting explanation than yours, but it does account for both consumer behavior and manufacturer behavior. Emissions laws may very well have increased manufacturer margins on these vehicles, but they're filling a real need in people's lives.
gruez 2y ago
>It's sad that SUV's proliferated, Sales for true "SUVs" (ie. cars that are built on top of a truck platform) have stayed relatively stable, and most of the "SUVs" you see are actually crossovers[1]. This might seem like a pointless distinction, but crossovers are closer to cars than SUVs, and aren't as bad for the environment as you think. The best selling crossover is the Toyota RAV4[2], which gets 30 mpg. The best selling sedan (Toyota Camry) gets 32 mpg, or 6.7% more. [1] https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/research/the-rise-of-the-crossover-the-segment-thats-really-driving-the-auto-industrys-sales/ https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/research/the-rise-of-th... [2] https://www.caranddriver.com/news/g43553191/bestselling-cars-2023/ https://www.caranddriver.com/news/g43553191/bestselling-cars...
- tonyg 2y ago
  32 mpg isn't great compared to e.g. a boring Toyota hybrid.
  - potatochup 2y ago
    Agreed. My 1972 MGB got 28mpg. I realize cars have improved in many ways since then (crash safety, NOx emissions, comfort) but I feel like in 50 years we stopped caring about efficiency as much.
    - whaleofatw2022 2y ago
      Many of the MPG winds of the 90s and 00s were eaten back up by mandated safety standards. A 2020 focus weighs 10-20% more than a 2000 MY one, for example. My 1998 SC2 Weighed ~2400 pounds and got MPG in the low 30s (35+ on the highway). > NOx emissions Managing that often impacts fuel economy. Ask VW group =)
  - creato 2y ago
    You can also get hybrid crossover SUVs that are going to be off by a similar factor from a hybrid sedan.
  - lolinder 2y ago
crote 2y ago
> Like for instance how China banned single serving plastic usage. Even that probably isn't sensible. Banning single-use plastic leads to a shift to single-use paper, single-use wood, or single-use metal - all of which are even worse for the environment. The problem isn't the "plastic" part, the problem is the "single-use" part.
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  Bad for the environment has multiple facets to it. For example, we already know that plastics form a lot of the trash in the ocean; but now we also know that these plastics shed microplastics pervasively as well.
- Dudhbbh3343 2y ago
  Rather than bans, all these materials with environmental externalities should be taxed at an appropriate rate. Then the market can find the optimal material for each use case.
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    This presumes that the process which establishes taxation levels is completely independent of the current profitability and power of those companies involved in their present creation. The history of negative-externalities-generating industries --- lead, asbestos, tobacco, alcohol, CFCs, amongst others --- suggests that this may not be the case.
- Hnrobert42 2y ago
  How is single use paper even worse for the environment than single use plastic?
  - Contortion 2y ago
    Paper is environmentally expensive to produce and recycle. If it's worse than plastic is surely debatable but it's definitely not significantly better. https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/paper-plastic1.htm https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-scienc...
paulddraper 2y ago
SUVs proliferated because of environmental laws. Sedans/minivans are held to more stringent fuel efficiency standards, particularly after the Obama-era EPA regulations. [1] This has promoted the sale of larger vehicles/trucks. [1] https://newrepublic.com/article/180044/epa-small-cars-sedan-suvs https://newrepublic.com/article/180044/epa-small-cars-sedan-...
notfed 2y ago
I think you mean "it's sad that cars proliferated". Whether people have SUVs or Sedans doesn't move the doomsday clock by much.
- potatochup 2y ago
  I dunno. A Toyota RAV4 hybrid gets 41/38 city/highway mpg, but a Prius gets 57/56. That's 46% more efficient. Gas is just so cheap in the USA it barely matters.
cscurmudgeon 2y ago
> Like for instance how China banned single serving plastic usage. It is not that clear cut in that case. > In fact, life-cycle assessments on items such as single-use plastic bags have shown that there is a discrepancy between actual re-use rates of alternative bags and the re-use rate to break even on environmental grounds. Paper bags need to be re-used four times, LDPE bags five times, non-woven PP bags 14 times and cotton bags 173 times. Their actual re-use rates are about half that, making them less sustainable than single-use plastic bags, which may also be used by consumers as bin liners. https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/3620887-would-a-single-use-plastic-ban-be-counterproductive https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/3620887-would...
- xenophonf 2y ago
  I'd read the linked article very critically: 1. It's an opinion piece, not evidence-based and peer-reviewed research. 2. It's written by a lobbyist who's parent organization gets funding in part from neo-reactionaries, including the Charles G. Koch Foundation. 3. The same author argues elsewhere for Europe and the U.S. to "put all their climate ambitions in the back burner, refine more oil and cooperate to deliver it quickly and effectively"; cf. https://web.archive.org/web/20220908091610/https://la-chronique-agora.com/pourquoi-etats-unis-ne-nous-fournissent-pas-plus-petrole/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220908091610/https://la-chroni.... 4. The opinion piece cites another opinion piece written by the same author for Newsmax, a non-credible far-right media company. 5. It also cites "Five Misperceptions Surrounding the Environmental Impacts of Single-Use Plastic," published in _Environmental Science and Technology_, an impactful peer-reviewed scientific journal, but the article is not without its detractors and must be read critically as well; cf. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c07842 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c07842. 6. The opinion piece redundantly cites a web page written by the author of "Five Misperceptions...". Said web page makes the same arguments as the ES&T article. 7. The opinion piece quotes a number of unrelated facts and figures.
  - cscurmudgeon 2y ago
    Should we apply this level of examination for every HN comment. Responding to you. 1. Opinion pieces can cite evidence-based and peer-reviewed research 2. Ad hominem 3. Ad hominem 4. Ad hominem 5. Ad hominem and Straw Man: 6. and 7. Straw man
overstay8930 2y ago
> banned single serving plastic usage This is not sensible and has a negligible impact on the environment - it almost always is worse, actually. Kinda like how single use plastic bags are better for the environment than a single reusable cotton bag purely because reusable bags would need to be used for a decade to break even with 10,000 single use plastic bags, which almost never happens.

lim_nick 2y ago

Would love to hear some more about your realization. Any thoughts on what it is about either governments or sensible environmental laws that makes this the case? edit: After rereading I realized I misinterpreted your post. I read "enact" to mean "enact and enforce" but in a sense you are correct that only governments can enact legislation. I see now you made no claims about ability to design enforceable policy.

trgn 2y ago

A tragedy of the commons can only be solved top down.

dredmorbius 2y ago
Actually, that's not the case, and wasn't even the argument made in Garrett Hardin's original essay on the topic, which suggested instead privatisation as a frequently-effective mechanism. Those who are opposed to that approach on the basis of criticisms of enclosures acts and the end of traditional commons have many arguments on their side, but the general effectiveness of privatisation in that particular case is not amongst them. (Hardin is also pointedly arguing about a far larger problem, including of commons which are less readily closed such as ocean fisheries, and of the total global human population of Earth, in which privatisation might not hold, or for which other approaches, some of which are strongly criticised today, might be applied.) The one dynamic which solving a tragedy of the commons requires is that it not be possible to privatise gains whilst socialising costs, which drives the entire logic of the tragedy. How that is arrived at still leaves multiple options.

IX-103 2y ago

I think the proliferation of SUVs in America is almost completely due to environmental laws. There are different fuel efficiency standards for cars and for trucks. Since the standards for trucks are so much looser, someone had the bright idea to build a car body on a truck frame. That way they only had to meet the truck standards. Later laws were changed to recognize SUV as a separate class, but the standards are still just a gradual improvement over truck standards, and not near where car requirements are.

hypeatei 2y ago
This is it. If someone is curious, look into the "SUV loophole" that automakers are using to skirt emissions regulations.
- adolph 2y ago
  For more on the loophole along with what might happen next: https://www.capitalone.com/cars/learn/finding-the-right-car/what-is-the-suv-loophole-and-will-it-close/2654 https://www.capitalone.com/cars/learn/finding-the-right-car/... While the loophole isn't going away completely, the tougher rules may cause some manufacturers to rethink trends and add more small cars to their lineups. However, it's more likely that the opposite will happen. Americans love SUVs and trucks; even pandemic pricing didn't convince many shoppers to switch to a smaller car. Instead, we've seen manufacturers building even larger electric vehicles
lolinder 2y ago
I'm having a hard time understanding why consumers went for SUVs in this interpretation. Did they just really want to pollute more? Do regular cars have too high a gas mileage for their liking? It certainly wasn't that the SUV was able to become the cheaper option! Skirting emissions laws only works as a complete explanation if it can account for consumer behavior. My sense from talking to people who own them is that they chose them because they could function as a truck or as a minivan depending on what they need to do at the time, without having to own both. That's a much less exciting explanation than yours, but it does account for both consumer behavior and manufacturer behavior. Emissions laws may very well have increased manufacturer margins on these vehicles, but they're filling a real need in people's lives.

gruez 2y ago

>It's sad that SUV's proliferated, Sales for true "SUVs" (ie. cars that are built on top of a truck platform) have stayed relatively stable, and most of the "SUVs" you see are actually crossovers[1]. This might seem like a pointless distinction, but crossovers are closer to cars than SUVs, and aren't as bad for the environment as you think. The best selling crossover is the Toyota RAV4[2], which gets 30 mpg. The best selling sedan (Toyota Camry) gets 32 mpg, or 6.7% more. [1] https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/research/the-rise-of-the-crossover-the-segment-thats-really-driving-the-auto-industrys-sales/ https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/research/the-rise-of-th... [2] https://www.caranddriver.com/news/g43553191/bestselling-cars-2023/ https://www.caranddriver.com/news/g43553191/bestselling-cars...

tonyg 2y ago
32 mpg isn't great compared to e.g. a boring Toyota hybrid.
- potatochup 2y ago
  Agreed. My 1972 MGB got 28mpg. I realize cars have improved in many ways since then (crash safety, NOx emissions, comfort) but I feel like in 50 years we stopped caring about efficiency as much.
  - whaleofatw2022 2y ago
    Many of the MPG winds of the 90s and 00s were eaten back up by mandated safety standards. A 2020 focus weighs 10-20% more than a 2000 MY one, for example. My 1998 SC2 Weighed ~2400 pounds and got MPG in the low 30s (35+ on the highway). > NOx emissions Managing that often impacts fuel economy. Ask VW group =)
- creato 2y ago
  You can also get hybrid crossover SUVs that are going to be off by a similar factor from a hybrid sedan.
- lolinder 2y ago

crote 2y ago

> Like for instance how China banned single serving plastic usage. Even that probably isn't sensible. Banning single-use plastic leads to a shift to single-use paper, single-use wood, or single-use metal - all of which are even worse for the environment. The problem isn't the "plastic" part, the problem is the "single-use" part.

bobthepanda 2y ago
Bad for the environment has multiple facets to it. For example, we already know that plastics form a lot of the trash in the ocean; but now we also know that these plastics shed microplastics pervasively as well.
Dudhbbh3343 2y ago
Rather than bans, all these materials with environmental externalities should be taxed at an appropriate rate. Then the market can find the optimal material for each use case.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  This presumes that the process which establishes taxation levels is completely independent of the current profitability and power of those companies involved in their present creation. The history of negative-externalities-generating industries --- lead, asbestos, tobacco, alcohol, CFCs, amongst others --- suggests that this may not be the case.
Hnrobert42 2y ago
How is single use paper even worse for the environment than single use plastic?
- Contortion 2y ago
  Paper is environmentally expensive to produce and recycle. If it's worse than plastic is surely debatable but it's definitely not significantly better. https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/paper-plastic1.htm https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-scienc...

paulddraper 2y ago

SUVs proliferated because of environmental laws. Sedans/minivans are held to more stringent fuel efficiency standards, particularly after the Obama-era EPA regulations. [1] This has promoted the sale of larger vehicles/trucks. [1] https://newrepublic.com/article/180044/epa-small-cars-sedan-suvs https://newrepublic.com/article/180044/epa-small-cars-sedan-...

notfed 2y ago

I think you mean "it's sad that cars proliferated". Whether people have SUVs or Sedans doesn't move the doomsday clock by much.

potatochup 2y ago
I dunno. A Toyota RAV4 hybrid gets 41/38 city/highway mpg, but a Prius gets 57/56. That's 46% more efficient. Gas is just so cheap in the USA it barely matters.

cscurmudgeon 2y ago

> Like for instance how China banned single serving plastic usage. It is not that clear cut in that case. > In fact, life-cycle assessments on items such as single-use plastic bags have shown that there is a discrepancy between actual re-use rates of alternative bags and the re-use rate to break even on environmental grounds. Paper bags need to be re-used four times, LDPE bags five times, non-woven PP bags 14 times and cotton bags 173 times. Their actual re-use rates are about half that, making them less sustainable than single-use plastic bags, which may also be used by consumers as bin liners. https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/3620887-would-a-single-use-plastic-ban-be-counterproductive https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/3620887-would...

xenophonf 2y ago
I'd read the linked article very critically: 1. It's an opinion piece, not evidence-based and peer-reviewed research. 2. It's written by a lobbyist who's parent organization gets funding in part from neo-reactionaries, including the Charles G. Koch Foundation. 3. The same author argues elsewhere for Europe and the U.S. to "put all their climate ambitions in the back burner, refine more oil and cooperate to deliver it quickly and effectively"; cf. https://web.archive.org/web/20220908091610/https://la-chronique-agora.com/pourquoi-etats-unis-ne-nous-fournissent-pas-plus-petrole/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220908091610/https://la-chroni.... 4. The opinion piece cites another opinion piece written by the same author for Newsmax, a non-credible far-right media company. 5. It also cites "Five Misperceptions Surrounding the Environmental Impacts of Single-Use Plastic," published in _Environmental Science and Technology_, an impactful peer-reviewed scientific journal, but the article is not without its detractors and must be read critically as well; cf. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c07842 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c07842. 6. The opinion piece redundantly cites a web page written by the author of "Five Misperceptions...". Said web page makes the same arguments as the ES&T article. 7. The opinion piece quotes a number of unrelated facts and figures.
- cscurmudgeon 2y ago
  Should we apply this level of examination for every HN comment. Responding to you. 1. Opinion pieces can cite evidence-based and peer-reviewed research 2. Ad hominem 3. Ad hominem 4. Ad hominem 5. Ad hominem and Straw Man: 6. and 7. Straw man

overstay8930 2y ago

> banned single serving plastic usage This is not sensible and has a negligible impact on the environment - it almost always is worse, actually. Kinda like how single use plastic bags are better for the environment than a single reusable cotton bag purely because reusable bags would need to be used for a decade to break even with 10,000 single use plastic bags, which almost never happens.