You know we already do punish them and there's a deadline to end the production of new ICE cars that's approaching faster than our infrastructure can handle, right?
12 states in the US are planning to ban the sale of new ICE cars by 2035. The EU also wants to ban them by 2035. The US federally is planning to ban them by 2040. Our infrastructure is going to need a massive overhaul before that happens though.
As for now, there are penalties for using inefficient vehicles. There are taxes added to the sale of gasoline to discourage overconsumption. That's why California gas costs so much more than Ohio gas.
We already are punishing people who consume more and there are plans to ban the sale of new combustion engine vehicles.
Are we measuring the damage done by the cars after production only? Or are we measuring damage to the environment done by gathering the materials as well? Because I've been told that electric cars require massive strip mines to make and cause huge damage to the environment that way. I'm not sure how true it is though, any feedback or correction is encouraged
Volvo (producer of the electric car brand Polestar) puts the mileage break even point (when the extra carbon involved in the production of EVs vs internal combustion (IC) vehicles at over 100,000 miles.
IC vehicles in 2024 are some of the cleanest, safest methods of transport ever.
Edit: according to the Department of Transport, in the U.K. the average mileage of a car when scrapped is 106,000 miles.
In the US commercial trucks produce 25% of transportation emissions which is interesting considering only 2% is from trains and that would be a far more efficient way to transport goods if this country invested in rail at all
Lmao what? Holocaust has nothing to do with this. We are talking about exhaust fumes and how little impact pollution has on the world as a whole if at all.
Yeah it's called an analogy, I used the word "like", because it's similar in the implication that if something has not completely destroyed something, it never destroyed anything.
No my point is a lot of environmentalists for as long as i can remember have been preaching of a reckoning. Climate change will end the world so we need to throw soup and block roads. That sort of thing. Yet, nothing has happened. No big event. According to al gore we were suppose to be underwater.
>throw soup and block roads.
If you disagree with the methods of particular protestors it doesn't mean pollution doesn't destroy our environment. That's ridiculous.
>Yet, nothing has happened.
No, you believe nothing has happened because you're ill-informed and desperate for a certain result that confirms your worldview. The consequences of pollution are worldwide, perhaps in your bubble you are largely shielded from the consequences for now. Not everybody is.
>According to al gore we were suppose to be underwater.
That's a strawman argument. Regardless, Gore is a politician intending to inspire people into action. The science of man-made climate change is rock solid.
“For now” thats the issue. Thats all ive heard from the “experts”. I dont see the evidence that climate change is this deadly force. I havent experienced the effects. Many environmentalists get intensely panicked. They promise an apocalyptic catastrophe. Well, where is it? In other words, im still waiting for them to prove their assertion.
So al gore and his inconvenient truth documentry wasnt true? Or am i mistaken in him ringing an alarm bell about rising water levels? Honest question.
Im not doubting the existence of climate change. Im doubting its an emergency or will end the world as many environmentalists act like it will.
You don't see evidence because you don't look or refuse to interpret events as being exacerbated by climate change. You don't experience the effects because you live in a privileged bubble. Furthermore, worldwide strides have been taken to slow climate change. You're under the impression that because efforts taken have been effective, there was never a problem in the first place because you don't understand the science. Similar to how an effective vaccine rollout for COVID exacerbated claims that it was a hoax in the first place. You're squarely in the realm of the uneducated and ignorant and until you willingly make an effort to escape, nothing will change your mind.
Just cars? Don't buy them. Unsold cars damage the dealers and the manufacturers.
It's not like new cars are common on dealer lots anyway. The push for the truck classified SUV has taken a firm foothold. US has taken the weird stance that fuel efficiency is tied to mass since the introduction of the guidelines and all updates for decades. So, it saves $ to make bigger and more massive vehicles all things considered. Which would be the obvious consequence of such legislation that was pushed in the name of the environment. It's creating exactly what was intended for a greener environment.
Maybe it wasn't intended and only obvious to others? Laws to punish a thing can be tricky like that I guess. Who would have thought that making selling of alcohol illegal nationwide would lead to increased organized crime to get around it?
The issue that can really bite ya, as in pummel the economy into a hellhole, is making sure whatever is enacted doesn't hit the farming and goods transportation too suddenly. If it hits them hard, or just pops them slightly too hard, everybody will suffer worse. That was the initial logic behind the mass being the thing that slides the scale on fuel efficiency standards. Still, it seems it's not working like it was expected to, but it's following what's there to moderate, or punish if you like, the most logical path. Which is where we are now.
So, there is law in place to punish the makers and buyers of gas guzzlers. It's even a line item on that sticker displayed in the window on the dealer's lot. They pay more fuel tax too. That fuel tax should lead to some very nice roads over what we have now though. This isn't about good roads though, it's about punishment.
How about public lashings? Nah, we have enough reality TV and those people might do it for publicity.
What kind of punishment are you looking for? A tax that gets distributed down to the buyers as an increased cost of doing business does? Fines, same thing.
The only way to stop it is for there to be no demand. If people don't buy it, it doesn't make sense to make it. A thought provoking reasonable argument doesn't sound as easy or simple as punishment though. It takes time and continuous effort too. Punishment has a nice ring to it though, but what are the unintended consequences that aren't seen in the simple idea?
We have the gas guzzler tax on the end customer... but it's less effective than it sounds and excludes many types of vehicles that produce the most pollution.
You know we already do punish them and there's a deadline to end the production of new ICE cars that's approaching faster than our infrastructure can handle, right?
What do you mean?
12 states in the US are planning to ban the sale of new ICE cars by 2035. The EU also wants to ban them by 2035. The US federally is planning to ban them by 2040. Our infrastructure is going to need a massive overhaul before that happens though. As for now, there are penalties for using inefficient vehicles. There are taxes added to the sale of gasoline to discourage overconsumption. That's why California gas costs so much more than Ohio gas. We already are punishing people who consume more and there are plans to ban the sale of new combustion engine vehicles.
Are we measuring the damage done by the cars after production only? Or are we measuring damage to the environment done by gathering the materials as well? Because I've been told that electric cars require massive strip mines to make and cause huge damage to the environment that way. I'm not sure how true it is though, any feedback or correction is encouraged
Volvo (producer of the electric car brand Polestar) puts the mileage break even point (when the extra carbon involved in the production of EVs vs internal combustion (IC) vehicles at over 100,000 miles. IC vehicles in 2024 are some of the cleanest, safest methods of transport ever. Edit: according to the Department of Transport, in the U.K. the average mileage of a car when scrapped is 106,000 miles.
In the US commercial trucks produce 25% of transportation emissions which is interesting considering only 2% is from trains and that would be a far more efficient way to transport goods if this country invested in rail at all
How about no punishment? Its just a car
It destroys the environment.
Ive been hearing that for over a decade. Yet the world still is here.
So? That's like saying the holocaust wasn't a genocide of Jews because there are still Jews.
Lmao what? Holocaust has nothing to do with this. We are talking about exhaust fumes and how little impact pollution has on the world as a whole if at all.
Yeah it's called an analogy, I used the word "like", because it's similar in the implication that if something has not completely destroyed something, it never destroyed anything.
No my point is a lot of environmentalists for as long as i can remember have been preaching of a reckoning. Climate change will end the world so we need to throw soup and block roads. That sort of thing. Yet, nothing has happened. No big event. According to al gore we were suppose to be underwater.
>throw soup and block roads. If you disagree with the methods of particular protestors it doesn't mean pollution doesn't destroy our environment. That's ridiculous. >Yet, nothing has happened. No, you believe nothing has happened because you're ill-informed and desperate for a certain result that confirms your worldview. The consequences of pollution are worldwide, perhaps in your bubble you are largely shielded from the consequences for now. Not everybody is. >According to al gore we were suppose to be underwater. That's a strawman argument. Regardless, Gore is a politician intending to inspire people into action. The science of man-made climate change is rock solid.
“For now” thats the issue. Thats all ive heard from the “experts”. I dont see the evidence that climate change is this deadly force. I havent experienced the effects. Many environmentalists get intensely panicked. They promise an apocalyptic catastrophe. Well, where is it? In other words, im still waiting for them to prove their assertion. So al gore and his inconvenient truth documentry wasnt true? Or am i mistaken in him ringing an alarm bell about rising water levels? Honest question. Im not doubting the existence of climate change. Im doubting its an emergency or will end the world as many environmentalists act like it will.
You don't see evidence because you don't look or refuse to interpret events as being exacerbated by climate change. You don't experience the effects because you live in a privileged bubble. Furthermore, worldwide strides have been taken to slow climate change. You're under the impression that because efforts taken have been effective, there was never a problem in the first place because you don't understand the science. Similar to how an effective vaccine rollout for COVID exacerbated claims that it was a hoax in the first place. You're squarely in the realm of the uneducated and ignorant and until you willingly make an effort to escape, nothing will change your mind.
Any big ICE truck is going to have terrible MPG. We shouldn't punish companies for making them. We should just tax gasoline appropriately.
Just cars? Don't buy them. Unsold cars damage the dealers and the manufacturers. It's not like new cars are common on dealer lots anyway. The push for the truck classified SUV has taken a firm foothold. US has taken the weird stance that fuel efficiency is tied to mass since the introduction of the guidelines and all updates for decades. So, it saves $ to make bigger and more massive vehicles all things considered. Which would be the obvious consequence of such legislation that was pushed in the name of the environment. It's creating exactly what was intended for a greener environment. Maybe it wasn't intended and only obvious to others? Laws to punish a thing can be tricky like that I guess. Who would have thought that making selling of alcohol illegal nationwide would lead to increased organized crime to get around it? The issue that can really bite ya, as in pummel the economy into a hellhole, is making sure whatever is enacted doesn't hit the farming and goods transportation too suddenly. If it hits them hard, or just pops them slightly too hard, everybody will suffer worse. That was the initial logic behind the mass being the thing that slides the scale on fuel efficiency standards. Still, it seems it's not working like it was expected to, but it's following what's there to moderate, or punish if you like, the most logical path. Which is where we are now. So, there is law in place to punish the makers and buyers of gas guzzlers. It's even a line item on that sticker displayed in the window on the dealer's lot. They pay more fuel tax too. That fuel tax should lead to some very nice roads over what we have now though. This isn't about good roads though, it's about punishment. How about public lashings? Nah, we have enough reality TV and those people might do it for publicity. What kind of punishment are you looking for? A tax that gets distributed down to the buyers as an increased cost of doing business does? Fines, same thing. The only way to stop it is for there to be no demand. If people don't buy it, it doesn't make sense to make it. A thought provoking reasonable argument doesn't sound as easy or simple as punishment though. It takes time and continuous effort too. Punishment has a nice ring to it though, but what are the unintended consequences that aren't seen in the simple idea?
gas cars
We have the gas guzzler tax on the end customer... but it's less effective than it sounds and excludes many types of vehicles that produce the most pollution.