American's will literally do anything but build public transportation.
this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2024
78 points (100.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5240 readers
722 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Taking cars off the road by reducing vehicle reliance seems like such a cost-effective solution that we just don’t want to consider.
Either way, you want the people who will not convert to public transportation to use more efficient cars, so it's not a bad thing.
The country is just too big for that to happen everywhere. It would be immensely helpful in some cities and it's disappointing that it's being neglected.
Is that it?
It's one of a large number of actions. Individually, most of these aren't much. Added together, they're a lot.
My 2006 ford fiesta got more than 50mpg. Even accounting for the smaller US gallon, the idea that car manufacturers need any more time, and cannot build them today, was my point.
$600 less in gas costs over the lifetime of a car? Isn't that a rather small amount? Less than one tank of gas per year... Are they comparing a 50 mpg car to a modern car or to a hypothetical future car with better gas mileage?
They're comparing a 45 mpg car to a 65 mpg car I believe, I think they're just re reporting this press release. Still sounds a little low though, some back of the napkin math assuming gas is $3/gallon would still suggest you'd save that much after only like 30,000 miles. Savings would be more if you drove your car further than that over its life or if gas was more expensive.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/new-fuel-economy-standards-model-years-2027-2031
The Washington post article and the nhsta press release are confusing, 50 mpg isn't the standard, that's just the average mpg for the mix of cars and trucks they expect to be sold in 2031.
The standards are increasing to 65 mpg for cars over time (there are yearly increases that gradually get there) and 45 mpg for light trucks/suvs. Heavy trucks and vans are also getting higher percent increases in required mpg average, though begining from a lower floor. The mix of all of the vehicle classes bring sold together will average to 50 mpg, which is where the Washington post gets that number.
Nyt article and the actual rule draft both have a lot more details.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/07/climate/biden-mileage-electric-vehicles.html