6 ms·
This topic came up on HN a couple of years ago [0], and I posted a comment that was well received. So here it is again, edited for the present context and updat
by pash 13y ago
This topic came up on HN a couple of years ago [0], and I posted a comment that was well received. So here it is again, edited for the present context and updated with my recent thoughts:
People do seem to misinterpret MPG ratings. A study published in Science in 2008 [1] found that participants consistently overvalued vehicles with high MPG ratings. They assigned values linear in MPG rather than linear in its inverse.
The study's authors told participants to "assume you drive 10,000 miles per year for work, and this total amount cannot be changed." The participants were then asked to come up with values for vehicles of varying fuel-efficiencies. That is just the sort of optimization problem people face when choosing which car to buy, and apparently a fuel-efficiency metric that puts the amount of fuel in the numerator makes the problem easier to solve because expenditure is proportional to the amount of fuel burned, at least when distance driven is taken as given.
But in reading many of the words expended on this topic over the last couple of years, my lasting impression is that this a lot of hullabaloo about the wrong problem. It's the lack of attention paid to the "miles" part of the equation that most needs fixing. If the goal is to reduce carbon emissions (or any of the other negative externalities of driving), then taking distance driven as fixed frames the problem in a way that obscures the real solution: we should be encouraging people to drive less.
Yes, reordering your daily life to drive fewer miles is more disruptive than simply buying a car that goes farther on a gallon of gas. And, granted, once you've chosen your style of life, minimizing the amount of gas you burn as you go about your daily routine is the thing to do (even if your optimization problem is a purely financial one). All the same, it's ludicrous to ignore the basic inefficiency of the suburban lifestyle that predominates in America while we wait for automotive engineers to come up with clever solutions to pricey gas and to carbon emissions that are twice as high per capita as in similarly wealthy countries.
Elon Musk isn't going to save us all by himself. Surely living closer to where you work, using mass transit, cycling, and walking more must be part of the solution as well. ... So maybe houses and apartments should come with a "miles per day" rating suggesting how far you'd travel getting to and from shops, restaurants, entertainment venues, and your place of work every day you live there. ...
0. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4020885 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4020885
1. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5883/1593.summary http://www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5883/1593.summary (paywalled); http://nsmn1.uh.edu/dgraur/niv/theMPGIllusion.pdf http://nsmn1.uh.edu/dgraur/niv/theMPGIllusion.pdf [PDF]
- jseliger 13y agoGreat comment. I'll add an observation: we should be encouraging people to drive fewer miles To do this we basically need denser neighborhoods, as Edward Glaeser points out in The Triumph of the City (http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Healthier/dp/159420277X?ie=UTF8&tag=thstsst-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957)—but http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Health... he points out, as does Matt Yglesias in The Rent is Too Damn High, that the big problems are with local zoning requirements, which by and large forbid density increases. There are lots of local battles going on regarding density, and I agree that these are good things: "living closer to where you work, using mass transit, biking, and walking more," but they can all be encourage or discouraged by zoning. In most of America they're discouraged. In the meantime better mileage is at least an improvement.
- jimmaswell 13y agoA lot of people simply don't want to live in a crowded city in an apartment crowded on every side with other apartments. I'd prefer a location in a low-density suburban area (with a lot of forest around me) where I could get to the city in a few minutes.
- ghouse 13y agoWhich is fine. But I'd prefer not to subsidize your lifestyle choice I do now through my taxes that subsidize your fuel, roads, and emergency services.
- MrRecycle 13y agoAnd I don't want to subsidize your police force, welfare programs, or subway with my taxes, but I'm not out there complaining about urban hipsters. More power to them. If you don't like suburbs, don;t live there, and leave them alone.
- robotresearcher 13y agoThe net subsidy is usually from city to suburbs and countryside. Besides, many suburbanites work or take entertainment in the city, where they get utility from the city services.