Don't worry, we'll just get even larger trucks that nobody actually wants to bypass these standards.
The larger truck exist b/c of the standards. It's more economical to change the weight class of a vehicle than it is to make the vehicle more environmentally friendly.
Edit: "more economical" -> "more environmentally friendly"
I'm 70% sure that the larger truck exists because exceptions have literally been made to the law on purpose due to lobbying, which is why every company pivoted to them.
As far as I am aware, current fuel economy standards are primarily determined by the size of the wheel base. Some years ago, the EPA went from a reasonably managed chart to a specific formula that gets a little extreme on the ends.
So you end up with craziness like a 95 ranger required to have 60mpg to meet the standard, and a 2024 f35 super mega ultra cab long bed to have like 3mpg to meet standards. (Numbers are made up, but that is the main idea as I understand it)
Large trucks exist because of wheel base allowance. Small, slow, borderline useless cars exist to keep fleet average low.
Supposedly they want us all in EVs, but American manufacturers aren’t producing shit except for Tesla which are safety hazards, and they effectively banned Chinese competition that could have actually accomplished it. US car manufacturers will likely ignore these new standards by pushing more “light trucks” that are exempt.
Light trucks aren't exempt, but have a different standard. The article posted lacks a lot of detail. First off, 50 mpg is just the expected average given the mix of "light trucks" and cars. The actual standards are 65 mpg for cars and 45 mpg for "light trucks."
The new standards require American automakers to increase fuel economy so that, across their product lines, their passenger cars would average 65 miles per gallon by 2031, up from 48.7 miles today. The average mileage for light trucks, including pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles, would have to reach 45 miles per gallon, up from 35.1 miles per gallon.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/07/climate/biden-mileage-electric-vehicles.html
So actually the light truck standard isn't far off of the 50 mpg figure this article inexplicably comes up with even though that's not the standard for either cars or light trucks under the new rules.
Heavy trucks and vans also are included in the policy with a greater percent increase than for cars and light trucks (though beginning from a lower floor).
Aptera, baybeeee.
Also, ev prices are way down and their efficiency is going to keep going up.
https://electrek.co/2024/04/18/ev-prices-down-18-last-year-drastic-price-cuts/
American vendors aren't producing more EVs because EVs don't have mass appeal. See the currently tanking EV market and crashing prices on these vehicles. The market clearly cannot bear mass adoption of EVs at this time because the buyers for all those EVs we were making don't exist.
Why? A mix of reasons. Poor infrastructure. Range anxiety in a car-centric nation. Total incompatibility with some lifestyles like apartment living at a place without a charger.
Half of all EVs cost >$54,000. Give us the $10,000 Chinese ones and they'll sell like hotcakes.
When there's that big of a difference in price, people can afford to put in chargers or take extra steps to make it work.
American vendors aren't producing more EVs because EVs don't have mass appeal
You've got that backwards: there's less people buying American EVs than there should because there aren't enough and cheap enough options from American companies.
Just about every other car maker on the planet has several popular EVs on offer, though, so they're shooting themselves in the foot long term to avoid the expense of pivoting short term.
the market clearly cannot bear mass adoption of EVs at this time
Again, you're wrong. I suspect you're taking the bad build quality of Teslas specifically beginning to hurt their sales as a sign that all EVs are unviable. That's not reality.
the buyers for all those EVs we were making don't exist.
Again, other way around: people WANT EVs, but American companies are hardly making any good ones available. Almost all other car makers are, though, at increasingly competitive prices too.
Teslas are perfectly safe. Stop making excuses lol.
Are they though?
The employee training the company offers is “woefully inadequate,” Reveal reported in its investigation. Turley told me she was never taught how to do her job and only shown videos that included a history of the plant and information about Tesla, but nothing about the work she would be doing. “You pretty much have to learn from the people that’s in there,” she said. Cleon Waters also said in his filing that he was never given any training for his job assembling parts of car motors. California safety regulators cited Tesla eight times for deficient training between 2013 and 2018.
-- Possibly the least offensive thing in this article: https://www.thenation.com/article/society/tesla-racism-sexual-harassment/
Does that sound like a vehicle that is "perfectly safe" to you? A vehicle built by people who have to learn on the job?
Jesus dude, nobody is talking about the factory and what you linked has zero effect on the vehicle safety. This is some desperate whatsboutism lolol.
And pickup trucks will be the size of a Mack truck.
Will be? I've seen literal Mack trucks smaller than some of today's "regular" pickups...
I miss S10 sized trucks.
I’d love a truck like that little B-series Mazda had when I was in high school in the 80s. Or the little Toyotas. I just need something with a bed that gets decent mileage. Not something with 6 tires, needs a step ladder to get into, and enough room for 8 people. My penis is big enough already. 😂
The fuel savings translate into about $600 less in gas costs over the life of a new vehicle, NHTSA projects.
I don't understand this. Let's be extra safe and say I currently drive a car that gets 30 mpg 15k miles per year and the average fuel price was $3.60. If I switched to a vehicle that got 50 mpg, my savings per year alone would be $720.
15,000 mi / 30 mi/g x $3.60/gal = $1,800
15,000 mi / 50 mi/g x $3.60/gal = $1,080
$1,800/yr - $1,080/yr = $720/yr
Still being extra safe, let's assume the car only makes it 100k miles, that's a savings of ~$4,800 for the life of the vehicle.
100,000 mi / 15,000 mi/yr = 6.67 yr
6.67 yr x $720/yr = $4,802.40
$4,800 > $600
Again, this is being safe with a car that is fuel efficient, a person that travels a relatively short amount, and with low fuel prices. What am I misunderstanding??
Maybe that is compared to the current fuel efficiency standard? The current standard for cars is 46 mpg.
if it doesnt apply to suv's then it is useless
it is slightly less strict on SUVs but it does apply to them. Smaller cars are going to require a 10% increase by 2031 but SUVs and pickups will only require 6%
Stupid EPA laws sacrificed all the cool lightweight sports cars and utility trucks for giant hunks of useless metal which people use exclusively to drive on the highway.
Big 3 already deleted all their compact car production teams, they make all their bank from SUVs and mega sized trucks.
This will change basically nothing.
Why don’t politicians ever set these targets in their own terms?
This is six years away from when he’ll get back in, effectively punting the problem to the next president.
R&D, engineering, manufacturing process changes, supply chain changes (I think this pretty much requires hybrid) all the way from mining, etc takes time. The world can't change on a dime.
So?
He could set a midpoint in his own term.
3 years is nothing for this kind of change. Things take way more time than you think.
The rules, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, call for improvements over a five-year span starting with 2027 models
So they did exactly what you suggested. We also have current rules in place that are increasing fuel efficiency over time. It's not just nothing and then meet this standard by 2031, it's improving by 2% per year, every year, starting in 2027 (the beginning of the time period for the newest set of rules). The article posted is just very light on details. The article is just quoting where they would be at, in 2031, with those yearly goals. So current rules are that cars be at 55 mpg by 2027, and the new rules rate beginning that year, would be 56 in 2028 etc until at 61 mpg for cars in 2032 (and 45 mpg for light trucks)
https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/new-fuel-economy-standards-model-years-2027-2031
10% yearly increases for heavy trucks and vans as well.
Biden for sure won’t get back in he’ll be like 260 years old at that point
What targets exactly? Should every policy be limited to just their term? That completely removes the possibility of any target that takes a long time to reach. It would be a waste of time and resources to do smaller increments and then revisit them.
Almost every policy put into place will have effects that future presidents have to deal with. Do you actually care about this in principle or do you just not like this policy?
My old Geo Metro could do that.
My mom said the same thing. She also said that 4 moderately strong people could move her geo metro if it was parked in the wrong spot.
Iirc, the original target was supposed to be something like 58 mpg; he's lowered it. We're fucking doomed, all of us, because a bunch of rich boomers don't like change.
Not sure why this is news. The current economy standard is 46 mpg.
Keeping on the right path is still a good thing. Also, it's news because it's new. That's what that word means.
I like the idea in principle, but hasn't the market already said that it cannot produce more efficient ICE vehicles? We can legislate better cars, but can we actually build such cars and sell these? This sounds off (hybrids exist), but bear with me and let me explain.
As another commentator wrote, it's much more cost effective to simply sell larger cars to go around the rules. Why is it better to sell much larger, much more expensive cars? Maybe it's because there is not a good, cost effective solution in this problem space. Many consumers don't want to buy electric cars due to lack of infrastructure, and it's a complete non-starter if you can't charge at home such as if living in an apartment. Right now, the EV market is seeing trouble moving inventory. Automakers prefer not to produce or sell smaller cars because it doesn't make sense for some reason, and part of that reason could be an impracticality of a small, low cost, mass market, yet efficient car that people will actually buy. Maybe a small hybrid that meets this goal is still too expensive for enough of the consumers who want to buy a compact car. The trend to larger cars might be telling us something.
Overall, I think I favor the legislation, but I'm concerned that we're not thinking this through enough. We can legislate the requirement. Are we also taking steps to expand charging access and have a plan to make such cars with consumer appeal outside of the premium segment?
Automakers prefer not to produce or sell smaller cars because it doesn't make sense for some reason
it's mainly two things:
automakers and their dealers make significantly more profits off of big cars and trucks,
and then also the typical buyer mindset that 'bigger is better'.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.