Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 104 posts

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#11

Post by toast0 »

tmnvix wrote: post #5
baseline-shift wrote: post #2

Great news. Long needed simple fix for climate. The highest sector for GHG emissions in California for example, is transport.

As much as I agree that this is great news, I would like to see something that isn't focused exclusively on emissions - or even weight for that matter. As important as those are, I would also like to see something that focuses on size as well. There is so much potential in small vehicles, but it is stymied by the proportion of over-sized vehicles on the road. Something to short circuit the 'visibility arms race' woul…

The thing is, the efficiency standards of the past two decades greatly shaped the sizes of vehicles produced. Bigger footprint -> lower required efficiency -> easier to meet requirements.

There's some amount of buyers prefer larger vehicles too, but buyers can't buy small vehicles if there are none on the market, and manufacturers won't make them when small vehicles are hard to fit into their fleet economy numbers.

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#13

Post by cozzyd »

hackernewds wrote: post #9
cozzyd wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of taxing fuel, governments should tax mileage * weight (or perhaps mileage * weight^alpha for some alpha...)

Why? Truck seamlessly and scalably move cargo for thousands of customers at once. Distributing that to hundreds of smaller trucks for tax efficiency would be worse for the env

It wouldn't make sense to distribute to smaller trucks for tax efficiency when considering the cost of the extra trucks, drivers, and loading/unloading. And besides, trucks already pay more in fuel tax.

A mileage tax is going to be a necessity with electrification in the future, and it doesn't make sense for all weight-classes to pay the same tax as they don't do equal damage to roads.

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#14

Post by parineum »

cozzyd wrote: post #6
tmnvix wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I agree that this is great news, I would like to see something that isn't focused exclusively on emissions - or even weight for that matter. As important as those are, I would also like to see something that focuses on size as well. There is so much potential in small vehicles, but it is stymied by the proportion of over-sized vehicles on the road. Something to short circuit the 'visibility arms race' woul…

Instead of taxing fuel, governments should tax mileage * weight (or perhaps mileage * weight^alpha for some alpha...)

Here's a radical idea... don't tax either.

Adding a disincentive creates an unpredictable incentive. Just add an incentive to the thing you actually want and be done with it.

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#15

Post by JumpCrisscross »

parineum wrote: post #14
cozzyd wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of taxing fuel, governments should tax mileage * weight (or perhaps mileage * weight^alpha for some alpha...)

Here's a radical idea... don't tax either. Adding a disincentive creates an unpredictable incentive. Just add an incentive to the thing you actually want and be done with it.

> add an incentive to the thing you actually want and be done with it

Doing both lets those causing the harm to subsidise those providing the solution. Finding everything out of general revenue means taking public-transport riding city folks’ funds to pay for suburbanites’ electric SUVs.

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#17

Post by AlecSchueler »

derdlick wrote: post #16

So regulations on small cars forced people to buy larger vehicles, and their solution is even more regulations, just this time on larger vehicles? How about just relax regulations on the smallest vehicles, making them more feasible?

Surely those regulations still serve a purpose?

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#18

Post by bdcravens »

Paul-Craft wrote: post #10
Daishiman wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Transport is one the lowest-hanging fruits for fixing climate change with domestic heating.

[flagged]

The US has the second most CO2 emissions [1], and roughly 28% of that total comes from transportation [2]. That means our transportation emissions are higher than most countries' total emissions. Reducing that number by 25% would be the equivalent of the UK eliminating 100% of its emissions.

1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/270499/co2-emissions-in-...

2. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-...

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#19

Post by thecopy »

cozzyd wrote: post #13
hackernewds wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Truck seamlessly and scalably move cargo for thousands of customers at once. Distributing that to hundreds of smaller trucks for tax efficiency would be worse for the env

It wouldn't make sense to distribute to smaller trucks for tax efficiency when considering the cost of the extra trucks, drivers, and loading/unloading. And besides, trucks already pay more in fuel tax. A mileage tax is going to be a necessity with electrification in the future, and it doesn't make sense for all weight-classes to pay the same tax as they don't do equal damage to roads.

>equal damage to roads.

That's an understatement. Afaik damage to the road scales with weight to the _FOURTH_ power.

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#20

Post by thecopy »

Paul-Craft wrote: post #4
baseline-shift wrote: post #2

Great news. Long needed simple fix for climate. The highest sector for GHG emissions in California for example, is transport.

This is not in any way a "fix." It's a bandaid on a shotgun wound, at best.

What would you suggest the US policy makers do instead?
Post reply on HN