Remix.run Logo
melling 18 hours ago

Cheap and plentiful fossil fuels.

We’re rolling back CAFE standards too.

nradov 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

CAFE standards were always a stupid idea. If we want to reduce fuel usage then increase the tax on fuel instead of punishing manufacturers for selling vehicles that consumers want to buy.

post-it 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is, respectfully, corporate propaganda. Consumers buy the vehicles that are available and advertised. It's in the best interest of manufacturers to convince/compel consumers to buy larger, more expensive vehicles with higher margins, and that's exactly what they're doing.

amluto 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

How many CAFE compliant “light trucks” do you see around?

CAFE is a great example of a well-meaning regulation failing because the people who developed and approved it didn’t think through the obvious consequences.

13 hours ago | parent | next [-]
[deleted]
anvuong 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

ambicapter 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"It's your fault you didn't expressly disallow what I ended up doing to get around what you asked me not to do"

readthenotes1 15 hours ago | parent [-]

If you make a game someone's going to play it.

Allowing light trucks to turn the SUVs and replace sedans is not an "unintended consequence"--it's either stupidity or graft (not xor).

There are several laws that are "wtf -- is this the best we can do?"

traderj0e 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How can that be if they all offer extensive lines of small and efficient cars that a good number of people drive? Besides, collusion doesn't seem likely given the amount of foreign competition. The majority of Americans have made it clear that they want bigger autos, at least with the usual gas prices. Sorry if that's corp propaganda.

Separately I've heard emissions laws blamed for large sedans losing to small SUVs and trucks due to double standards, but I doubt it would've made a difference, even though I personally prefer large sedans.

scq 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Ford no longer makes traditional passenger cars. They now only sell SUVs, trucks, and sports cars.

You can see this if you go to https://shop.ford.com/showroom/ and select sedan or hatchback in the left filters. No results.

stickfigure 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If gasoline is more expensive, customers will demand more efficient vehicles.

We aren't mindless zombies buying whatever we see on TV. I'm old enough to remember when Japanese small cars practically took over the market in the 70s and 80s due to gas price shocks. It can happen again.

Certhas 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If gasoline is expensive because of carbon taxes, people will vote for a party that tells them that climate change is not a problem, and that, if they win, gasoline will be cheap again.

stickfigure 14 hours ago | parent [-]

You can say the same about CAFE standards, or anything else government does? This is a silly argument.

sneak 14 hours ago | parent [-]

The reason so many people buy huge trucks in the USA is specifically because heavy machinery (above a threshold) is exempt from such standards.

debo_ 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Tell that to the literal constant flow of old men I see driving pristine F150s in the metropolitan center of the Canadian city I live in.

asa400 15 hours ago | parent [-]

They probably won't buy Honda Civics, but they (or their children, more realistically) might buy the electric equivalent of an F150 if the market produces one that can fulfill what they perceive their needs to be.

I just bought a (small, hybrid) truck because I need to do some truck stuff. I 100% would have bought an electric if the market produced one with comparable capability and competitive price, but we're not there yet, and I don't have Rivian money (yet! lol maybe someday).

My point being: there is still a huge demand for trucks from both a capability and culture standpoint, and very little supply of a cost-comparable product that doesn't take gas or diesel. Rivian is around double what most people want to pay, and the F150 Lightning was marketed poorly and had bad towing/hauling range compared to gas/diesel equivalents.

I'm not here to defend "truck culture" but I do believe that if you offer people a better product, they will figure it out and buy it. An electric truck with 400+ miles of towing range, an onboard 2kW+ inverter, 500 ft-lbs of torque, and fast charging for the same price as a comparable gas F150 will sell. Unfortunately the battery energy density and EV supply chain economies of scale aren't there yet in North America.

United857 9 hours ago | parent [-]

  U u u
Teever 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> We aren't mindless zombies buying whatever we see on TV.

But we are. I don't want to turn this into a political slap fight but it became apparent to me the extent in which people are swayed by advertising when I read an article that talked about how one party in the US was concerned that the other was going to win an important seat becase the other party had done a recent spending surge on ads in last few days before election day and they were concerned that they couldn't match it.

That article right there forever changed my view of the average person on the street. In a highly polarized campaign and political environment with months to years of knowing who the candidates and policies are and they can still be swayed by millions in TV and radio ads? Like it sounds like these people could literally be on their way to vote for a candidate and then switch their mind at the last second because they hear an ad on the radio as they're pulling into the polling station.

That's absurd -- but it's real.

People are completely enthralled by advertisements to the point where they'll buy a stupid truck that they can't fit anywhere, that they need a ladder to climb into, that has terrible sight lines, simply because advertising tells them to.

nradov 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Nah, it's not real. Your claim isn't supported by the data. Political advertising can help a bit at the margins but in the 2016 Presidential election the losing campaign spent about twice as much on advertising as the winner. Very few voters were swayed by last second radio ads.

(I would support a Constitutional amendment to restrict campaign contributions and effectively overturn the Citizens United v. FEC decision.)

Teever 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Again, I don't want to get into a political slap fight here, I want to keep this on the subject of advertising.

It sounds to me like you're confusing the magnitude of advertising spending with effectiveness of advertising techniques.

Some people have found more effective ways to advertise to people, we know all this, it isn't uncharted conversation territory. We all know about micro-targetting based on personalized data, dominating certain niche mediums like AM radio to target people when they're driving and coordinated pushes with people in industry.

The point is that advertising works. It works disconcertingly well.

This is why people buy stupidly impractical automobiles that they don't need.

sneak 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Which is it? If your first claim is true, why do we need to amend anything?

They seem like mutually exclusive claims, to me. Am I missing something?

traderj0e 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If you don't want to make this about politics, use a product advertising example instead of politics which is not even comparable.

Advertised products will sell more, but only to a certain point. Like someone who wants an SUV and knows nothing else might buy the one from Chevy instead of Mitsubishi because of advertising.

testing22321 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> customers will demand more efficient vehicles

The problem is those vehicles don’t exist, because the manufacturers only want to build the high margin gas guzzlers.

Look at fuel economy of US made vehicles vs those in Europe. It’s beyond a joke.

traderj0e 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Whatever your standard is for an "efficient" vehicle, more efficient things than those 15-20mpg trucks or SUVs do exist in the US. Every automaker sells a serious car that gets at least 30mpg combined if gas-only, or like 50mpg if hybrid.

testing22321 7 hours ago | parent [-]

The really wild part is you think that’s good.

You’ve never driven a BYD because your government blocks them. You’ve also never driven a fuel efficient car because they hardly exist in the US

ndisn 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You can’t convince (almost all) consumers to spend money on something that they do not want.

post-it 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Of course you can. And for the rest, you just discontinue the product they want so they have no choice.

tyre 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You can, but it’s easier to convince them to want something that they don’t need or is actively harmful.

adrianN 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You can make them want things. Ad money is what powers some of the most successful companies.

sneak 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Car insurance. Low flow showerheads. Fuel-inefficient vehicles. Electric dryers. Electric stoves. Appliances that don’t last. Lawn care.

Taxes. Social Security.

The list is gigantic. Your claim could not be more false.

traderj0e 12 hours ago | parent [-]

People want car insurance because it's a law, low-flow showerheads if water is expensive, and electric appliances if gas is expensive or outlawed. And some want fuel-inefficient vehicles because they like them and gasoline isn't very expensive, while plenty of other people opt for MPG.

iso1631 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's the entire point of the trillion dollar advertising industry

nradov 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Bullshit. There are many competing auto manufacturers. No one is compelled to buy larger, more expensive vehicles. There are smaller, cheap vehicles available to those who want them. If I want a little penalty box like a Hyundai Elantra or Nissan Sentra the local dealers have base models in stock and ready to sell today.

Larger vehicles are more comfortable, safe, and practical (for anyone who doesn't need to worry about parking issues). It doesn't take advertising to convince consumers about that, it's just reality.

post-it 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

A Hyundai Elantra of today is significantly bigger than it was ten years ago. It also used to be the second-tier model above the Accent, which was discontinued.

Ditto with the Sentra and the Versa.

This is my point exactly.

jagraff 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Large vehicles are safer for the occupants of the vehicle, however they do increase danger for pedestrians and drivers of other vehicles in a collision. There is a reasonable argument that reducing vehicle size would save lives overall

sneak 14 hours ago | parent [-]

This is a myth. Larger vehicles are not safer for their occupants; they merely feel that way.

Supermancho 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> This is a myth. Larger vehicles are not safer for their occupants; they merely feel that way.

I'm pretty sure it's not, because physics. A tank is safer than a bike for the poilot, when there is a collision. This data is a little muddled, but follows common sense.

Large SUVs and Pickups: These vehicles have the lowest occupant fatality rates, averaging 14 deaths per million registered vehicles for SUVs compared to 48 per million for sedans. Large luxury SUVs often register statistically zero deaths in specific three-year studies.

nradov 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Nope, not a myth. While the data is noisy and there are some confounding factors, the IIHS driver death rates show a clear correlation between larger size and fewer deaths.

https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-and-...

Tangurena2 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Domestic manufacturers used to build & sell compact pickup trucks. Nowadays, the only pickups on the market are huge fatmobiles. The profit margin in trucks is much higher than the profit margin on passenger cars.

nradov 17 hours ago | parent [-]

You can buy a Ford Maverick compact pickup truck from your local dealer today.

The profit margins on larger trucks are higher precisely because that's what consumers want. No one is forcing them to buy those vehicles.

satvikpendem 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Compare the Maverick to a Japanese kei trucks, they so impressed the current president that he signed an executive order allowing them, if they're manufactured in the US.

fuzzfactor 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Good example of what they have in Japan right now.

The Maverick is quite sizable compared to the original Ford Ranger too, which was still bigger than the regular Japanese trucks that were all over the US after oil skyrocketed the first time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukmzZ5DXBqQ

linkregister 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Pedestrian deaths, including children, have risen in lockstep with light truck adoption in the United States, while they have fallen in countries without this phenomenon.

stickfigure 17 hours ago | parent [-]

It isn't about weight, it's way stupider than that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpuX-5E7xoU

Tall grilles are a purely aesthetic choice. We could create safety standards for pedestrian impacts and end this inane trend. And still drive trucks!

adrianN 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The VW Up electric sold really well but was discontinued.

17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
amiga386 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Vehicle emission and fuel efficiency standards are a great idea. The stupidity was allowing a "light truck" exception at all. It made the manufacturers turn to manufacturing and promoting what should be work vehicles to rich idiots who need nothing larger than a regular car (but can easily be upsold on something they don't need)

America is already fucked, given how awful its urban sprawl is. Trucks used for commuting and not haulage just makes it double fucked.

kingstnap 12 hours ago | parent [-]

The exception being blamed on "stupidity" makes it sound like an oversight.

It was not an oversight. It was corruption.

Certhas 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

We shouldn't prohibit dumping toxic waste in the river, we should just tax it!

I am familiar with the EU situation. The carbon tax you would have needed to achieve the effect of fleet emission standards would have been political suicide.

And that is not just psychological. People who buy used cars and drive their cars until they fall apart are well correlated with people who can't afford high carbon tax. Buyers of new cars are the people who can. Carbon Tax would mean massive redistribution of the money raised. Yet another political mine field.

bee_rider 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What if consumers want to buy Chinese electric cars? Are we going to remove that bit of protectionism?

linkregister 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Great catch!

There's a trend toward advantaging entrenched interests to the detriment of the overall economy and interests of the population.

17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
a_random_name 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah, but "increasing taxes" always rouses the rabble.

adrr 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Increasing prices doesn't effect demand right? $10+ per pack cigarettes in California hasn't had any affect on smoking rates.

deaux 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not sure if you're facetious but there are plenty of examples of rising cigarettes' prices leading to reduction in smoking, or similarly a sugary soda tax reducing consumption of sugary soda (UK is a prime example).

fragmede 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2025-02-cigarette-pricing-pol...

A 2025 study showing that it did.

the_sleaze_ 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Always gonna happen. Oil margins are gigantic and they'll use every dime of runway they can. Electric is better in every single way and batteries tech is only making that more true every day. The dinosaurs won't go quietly into the night.