R.I.P. old, dead, antiquated word

The shift toward massive trucks and SUVs in the U.S. is not a conspiracy as you stated, but it's not purely consumer preference either. It's a direct, documented, and mathematically verifiable consequence of how the U.S. government rewrote fuel efficiency regulations in 2011.

Prior to 2011, CAFE standards were simple: a car company’s entire fleet of "light trucks" had to average a certain MPG number (e.g., 24 mpg). It didn't matter how big or small the individual trucks were. The Obama administration reformed these rules to close loopholes... but they inadvertently created a new one. They switched to a "footprint-based" standard.

And the curve is very steep. If you build a truck or SUV with a small footprint (like the old Ford Ranger or Chevy S-10), the government mandates an incredibly high MPG target, often close to what a high efficiency sedan would get. As the vehicle gets bigger, the MPG target drops significantly.

This means that if a manufacturer tries to build a small pickup or SUV today (about the size of a 1990s Ranger), the CAFE formula might mandate a target of ~40-50 MPG. Achieving such a high MPG requires expensive hybrid technology and advanced lightweight materials. This adds at least $10k to the cost which makes those vehicles virtually unsellable.

Why the U.S. government didn't fix this issue 10+ years ago is a mystery to me. The result has actually been hugely increased gas consumption and CO2 emissions, rather than the desired effect of lower gas consumption and CO2 emissions.

Signed, someone who would love a small AWD SUV, but they're just not economically justifiable (in the U.S.)

Of the dozens and dozens of anti-consumer and terribly damaging mega-mergers over the last 40+ years, this is the one that people absolutely lose their shit over.

I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry.

Brawndo!

It's What Code Craves!

+1

I switched from iPad to Chromebook and couldn't be happier.

No, this is wrong. There are, probably more often than not, multiple people using the same source IP address, from the point of view of the website.

Don't rural folks, who live in far cleaner and greener areas, typically overwhelming vote conservative?

And it's the pollution-heavy urban areas that typically overwhelmingly vote liberal?

Why discriminate against people with "only" mental health conditions?!

Mental health conditions are often one of the very worst things to live with. Why shouldn't those people be allowed to end their lives?!

How did society get to the point where we don't even own our own lives, and we need permission from government to end them?!

It helps pay for tax cuts for the wealthy.

It'll be so great when it trickles down!

A country not wanting to be transparent about this is evil.

Sheesh, the world is turning fascist at a concerning rate.

I didn't say it would be a good/economical option for everyone. Just pointing out an option that might work for some people who would like an EV as their primary vehicle.

I never said you should want that. Just pointing out an option for people considering an EV that also take the occasional long trip.

Then by all means keep your ICE. I also have an ICE vehicle.

In my two car household, one ICE and one EV would be a great solution, but we'd need to run a very expensive power line from one side of the house to the other side, on top of investing in an expensive charger. We can't justify that expense.

EVs aren't for everyone, but they can be ideal for a lot of people.

Web browsers -- any programs, really -- having access to all the files in a user's home directory by default also seems like a huge security issue...