this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2023
654 points (100.0% liked)

World News

45416 readers
3787 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 172 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not surprising since car manufacturers lobbied to get them classed as light trucks to dodge the stricter emissions and safety regulations that apply to general cars. Then marketed the hell out of them as there is more profit to be made due to them not needing to comply with as many regulations. And now they are everywhere and are way worst than cars in almost every way.

Funny how yet again the capitalist class chooses profits over any other metric leading to s shittier world overall. Almost like there is a pattern happening in every industry...

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago (3 children)

This guy does lots of videos relating to government and public roads.

This video sheds interesting light on the piece of the problem you've identified. It's also the reason for a massive increase in pedestrian deaths. Seems like cars got bigger to circumvent a law enacted in an attempted to cut auto emissions, but had several adverse consequences.

https://youtu.be/fEj-pyjA2oo?si=J5utF5B0y7zqpK1H

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/fEj-pyjA2oo?si=J5utF5B0y7zqpK1H

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 95 points 1 year ago (4 children)

BUT THA SAYFTEE OF MAH FERMLEEE

[–] [email protected] 67 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I heard a man once say, no shit, no kidding, that he bought his wife the biggest vehicle they could afford because she was a bad driver.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago

I knew a lady involved in a rollover accident in one of those old, flawed Ford Explorers back in the day. When she recovered, her solution to deal with her trauma and make herself feel safer on the road was...to buy an even bigger SUV with an even higher center of gravity.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago

The irony is that I have seen news articles about parents killing their own kids while taking their SUV out of the driveway. And yes, they had bought those because it was "safe" for the kids. The following is just one example you can find many more on the internet.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/investigations/driveway-danger-kids-being-injured-and-killed-in-frontover-suv-blind-zone-incidents/3119237/

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago

And unfortunately there's plenty of truth to this at least for those inside the vehicles. Driving my tiny hatchback in Texas can be really scary some days, the lifted trucks in particular have TERRIBLE visibility and simply can't see sedans. Their headlights are often higher than the roof of most sedans. It's so selfish and makes driving a worse experience for everyone else, propagating them too to get a massive light truck/SUV.

My parents recently sold their sedan for a SUV soley for the added safety and I honestly understand where they're coming from. If I didn't trust my reaction times as well as I do I'd want the same thing despite it making the roads less safe for others in the process.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Unpopular opinion: For more than 90% of the population a car with an Otto engine volume of less than 1.5l is enough. Anuthing above should be taxed heavily.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago

Cars should be taxed proportional to the fourth power of their kerb weight, in line with the road wear they cause.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago

Popular opinion with me

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I've been a fan of little, simple vehicles for a while now. I have had a Geo Metro, Mitsubishi Mirage, and now I have a Suzuki Samurai. In all of these vehicles, I have had to deal with the same issue, when trying to get up to speed: The slowpokes in front of me. No matter how slow I go in my 65 hp little SUV, I end up waiting on someone in a much faster vehicle to get out of the way.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I drive a Prius and agree completely. It's fuel efficient and extremely utilitarian. I can fit ten foot lumber in it, or my two big stupid dogs and our luggage for trips. Even when my wife drives like a maniac, we still get around 45 mpg. We typically end up passing slow moving vehicles on freeway on ramps, despite it having a maximum acceleration of 0-60 mph in about 10 seconds.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

a loophole in the cafe standards says the longer the wheelbase the less the fuel economy has to be and the manufacturers find it more cost effective to make bigger vehicles rather than develop efficient engines.

https://www.wired.com/story/the-us-wants-to-close-the-suv-loophole-that-supersized-cars/

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Motor emissions could drop by 100% if we banned ICE vehicles already.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Yeah but short term that would be worse for the environment, interestingly enough:

"Almost 4 tonnes of CO2 are released during the production process of a single electric car and, in order to break even, the vehicle must be used for at least 8 years to offset the initial emissions by 0.5 tonnes of prevented emissions annually."

https://earth.org/environmental-impact-of-battery-production/

Do also note that estimated life cycle CO2 for BEVs are lower but not significantly so than ICE vehicles. The numbers do however improve significantly as we move to a more carbon neutral energy grid. Without construction improvements that reduce emissions the cap is at around 1/3 the total pollution for a BEV vs ICE. IF the electricity is produced and delivered without any CO2 costs.

The only real, long term, solution is to rethink transportation. Or some groundbreaking new battery tech.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I want to point out that the author of the article you are citing is not an environmental scientist or a climate change expert, but an economist with an interest in the field. The article is not a peer reviewed piece of work, it is more or less equivalent to a blog piece with citations. She is not citing peer reviewed research as far as I can tell, but instead a series of linked 'studies' (including drafts and organizational white papers) of questionable scientific value.

After reviewing, I would not be inclined to put much if any stock in her analysis.

Here is a peer reviewed article for nature, that finds BEVs are actually much , much lower in CO2 production even during pre use than ICE vehicles.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27247-y#Fig3

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Thank you for your review. I don't really agree with your criticism though since your main arguments against the linked article can easily be abused to discredit anything that hasn't been studied in the exact form discussed. We will never have scientific papers on every possible dimension and perspective on a problem and as such understanding will need to be built by engaged members of society connecting dots in good faith and debate about it as you and I do now. There is nothing inherently bad about a blog with citations.

I also notice how what you link is not at all equivalent. They add in the infrastructure needed to supply vehicles with the fuel they consume, which is of course a valid addition. That addition then offsets the difference in production by adding on disproportionately more to ICE vehicles. What we then end up in is that we still see that building BEVs is still not going to solve our crisis. But they are for sure better than ICE, and this isn't something I nor the article disputes. My claim that it would be worse for the environment short term also holds true because the gain for the environment only comes after the production cost increases has been offset and, as the paper you linked added, gasoline infrastructure can be decommissioned.

The paper you linked also doesn't look into Lithium nor Kobalt which are problematic to say the least, if not from a CO2 perspective. Nor does it say anything about the feasibility of an even more rapid phase out (because a phase out is happening right now, and rather rapidly at that, we can't go much faster without other significant risks).

In summary, the article and the linked paper are not in conflict, from my reading.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The paper I linked doesn't look into all possible aspects because it's a peer reviewed scientific work, which unlike blog posts tend to have narrow scopes and aren't written to debunk every aspect of random peoples thoughts on the topic.

The long and short of this is that people need to be much, much more discerning in which information to trust and which to disregard. The author of your article had a Ph.D. , they could seek to publish their research in serious journals, but they'd need to actually do the hard work of finding reliable, evidence based , peer reviewed sources to do that. Instead we get a blog post the links out to other blog posts that link to yet more blogs, occasional draft papers, and decidedly non scientific works.

If I were to trust this author writing in this medium, why not trust anti-science fossil fuel interests who use the same mediums and communication strategies?

Are you familiar with the concept "the medium is the message"?
For me, it's a big no thanks, especially on important issues like the adoption of BEVs.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I fully understand the need to filter out information as being to much of a burden to actually verify/dispute. And I don't think any less of you for sticking to the safest material in terms of trust, i.e. peer reviewed papers in acclaimed publications.

But at the same time we can't really wait around for consensus and full understanding of every matter before making informed decisions either. Now, once again, I'm pro BEVs, I just don't see them as the solution to climate change because even with 100% BEVs our planet can't sustain personal transportation as it works right now. I haven't written anything here with the intent to discredit BEVs, I'm just trying to steer focus to what I consider more important issues to craft policy and solutions around. Like personal transportation, wasteful consumption and more.

If you're asking why I trust this author more than others it's because they seem to argue in good faith, the cited sources aren't horrible. The opinions aren't hyperbolic or presented without any nuance. It doesn't ring any of my warning bells that causes me to outright dismiss.

And as closing I have no issues with your dismissal of the source and I don't even think we're in disagreement.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m not a bot! I’ve tried to reduce this comment down by removing some text. Here’s my summary:

“Scientists can’t be doing everything everywhere at once so we should believe capitalists when they pull numbers out of their asses”

I’ve reduced this comment down by 89%!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Good not a bot!

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If Americans wouldn’t be so allergic to public transport, it’d be way easier to move away from the whole concept of personal vehicles (except bikes and scooters of course).

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Yeah, the solution is not taking the car for every trip, and having car sharing available so you don't need to manufacture so many cars.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

As others have pointed out, your linked article doesn't have any scientific weight and is hardly a source of truth. But even if it is correct, it is still better to move pollution outside of cities. There are no reasons to continue using ICE vehicles.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Let me guess, you live in a city and forget that not everyone lives in a city?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Have you been to cities in North America? Full of massive trucks and SUVs for no good reason. Look up marketing.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (7 children)

I used to live in the middle of nowhere and walk 1 hour to the nearest shop. But an EV or walk. No excuses.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Damn, that's crazy that you have the time to so seriously inconvenience yourself so you can feel good about this.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

And entire world's economy would drop by 100%. World is not ready to transition into EVs, and most likely will never be. In my opinion what Toyota is doing is the right approach. Higher quality ICE engine which can directly burn hydrogen. They already have the engine, just need to push it hard enough so R&D pays off. Hydrogen is expensive and hard to make (in terms of efficiency), but it's infinitely more scalable than batteries, and cleaner too. But with higher popularity price will drop.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Latest figures are that green hydrogen accounts for 0.04 percent of total hydrogen production.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

ICE is here too stay. It's pure gasoline usage that will probably fall out of fashion. Toyota is experiencing with ammonia based engines that cut down on emissions almost entirely.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (6 children)

The only benefit of ICE over BEV is quick refueling, and that only matters if you're roadtripping.

The solution is fast-charging BEVs. Edmunds just released a roundup of EV charging times, and showed that with some Hyundais/Kias, you can get 100 miles of range juiced up in 7-8 minutes. Obviously, yes, that's still slower than dumping some dead dinos in your gashole and taking off, but it's still pretty quick.

With further technological refinements over time and infrastructure built to give you something to do during 15-20 minute charges, road trips will be perfectly feasible without ICE and will actually probably be more pleasant.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

There is no large well of ammonia that we can use for fuel. Transforming green electricity into a liquid fuel, whether hydrogen, ammonia or something else invariably results in large efficiency losses compared to battery technology.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Also the rest of the world thinks we are weird and love giant cars now. We don't really have much of an option for normal sized cars

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I wonder what the criteria for SUV is for these studies?

I’m probably an outlier but I switched from a compact sedan to a compact SUV that’s 10 inches shorter in length, 4 inches higher in height, and 1 inch wider than my old car. They are about the same in weight, within a couple hundred pounds, and the new car is about 80g/km lower in emissions.

I technically own an SUV but it’s not super different from a hatchback car.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

These aren't the SUVs most people in North America are buying. They don't even sell regular cars anymore just trucks and SUV monsters.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

I noticed the same trend here in the Netherlands so don't worry too much.

Pickup trucks are still a rare sight here though.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If we are going to leave the carve out for SUVs and Work Trucks, we need to at least:

A) repeal the tariffs on light trucks such as the Isuzu light truck.

B) require a business licence to purchase these "work vehicles", and require a CDL to drive them.

That will reverse this trend tout suite.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] samokosik 21 points 1 year ago

Despite being someone who is a huge SUV fan and who adores off road cars such as G class, Toyota Land Cruiser, Ineos grenadier, I genuinely hate to see them as "cars for shopping" in the city driven by women with blonde hair who has no idea what a differential is. SUVs belong to off road or long trips, not to cities where they have the highest fuel consumption.

PS: tbh, cars don't really belong to cities anyways

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago

"How to make a car as big as possible without increasing the amount of space inside it."

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

We're so fucked.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

i wonder what else could have been made of the materials in trucknutz

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

SUVs are just minivans with a small lift and a bit more thought put into body style

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is the best summary I could come up with:


A report by the Global Fuel Economy Initiative (GFEI) showed SUVs now represented a majority of the new car market (51%), and the average LDV weight had reached an all-time high of more than 1.5 tonnes.

Automotive companies market SUVs intensively as they provide the most profit: they are sold at premium prices but have a proportionally lower manufacturing cost.

The authors of the report called for governments to place restrictions on vehicle sizes to reverse the SUV trend.

The reduction in emissions from the motor industry has been driven by an uptake of electric vehicles (EVs), which reached 15% of market share in 2022.

The report also said markets with strong growth in this area, such as China and Europe, had the largest annual energy efficiency improvements of close to 6%.

Dan Sperling, the founding director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis, said: “Reversing the trend toward bigger and heavier vehicles is key to achieving more sustainable mobility.


The original article contains 409 words, the summary contains 165 words. Saved 60%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›