The new standards require American automakers to increase fuel economy so that, across their product lines, their passenger vehicles 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. Selling electric vehicles and hybrids would help bring up the average mileage per gallon across their product lines.

  • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    This is mpg across a product line. Not per vehicle and apparently without regard to production level or pricing. And since it’s an average across a product line an automaker could add a hybrid deluxe version at 300% markup that no one buys and still achieve compliance. Theoretically an automaker could actually worsen fuel economy if they added EV or hybrid versions to the product line.

    I can’t even sarcastically joke these standards were written by industry.

    • Bgugi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I think you’re wrong about the averaging rules… This appears to be an update to the CAFE targets which average based on unit quantity across all cars and all light trucks you manufacture. You can’t manufacture 10 one-off “hypermiler” sku’s to offset your millions of cars.

      That said, CAFE is still a worthless law that has ruined the American automobile market in more ways than one, and this policy update will likely do almost nothing to improve emissions.

      • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I did look into it and yes, it does look like the averaging is done harmonically and not arithmetically. That’s how it cuts the outlier strategy.

        So I guess the theory of gaming the system that hard is not as possible or at least mitigated to an effective degree.

        Still though, even that they’re using harmonic mean doesn’t deviate to far from the reality this regulation was written by industry.

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Queue up “the Democrats are outlawing gas cars” handwringing by the conservative simps.

      I’m good with this change but we have to admit that functionally its not too far off the mark. Even the article notes “…strict new limits on tailpipe pollution that are designed to ensure that the majority of new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States are all-electric or hybrids by 2032…”

      So while ICE isn’t being directly “outlawed” they are changing the rules to get a very similar result; the “conservative simps” won’t be wrong exactly when they say it.

      • cranakis@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Or gas vehicle manufacturers could spend real money on environmental r and d to meet the mark in the time allowed. Whatever it takes to lower our greenhouse gas emissions.

        The push for more E.V.s comes as the world’s leading climate experts say that retiring the internal combustion engine is critical to staving off the most deadly effects of global warming.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Whatever it takes to lower our greenhouse gas emissions

          This attitude is why we need to be really, extremely sure about this climate change thing. Since we are sacrificing everything else to it, if it turns out to be a false alarm we will have fucked ourselves royally for no reason.

  • Lemming6969@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    We need laws to ban non-business ownership of trucks and large SUVs. They can only be privately rented or licensed by a business. Fuck solo commuters hauling nothing in huge vehicles.

    • Bgugi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I think that would leave too many loopholes open. I think the most effective path would be to:

      Schedule a progressive increase in fuel prices: End subsidies on fossil fuels Implement a tax that reflects the environmental damage caused by fossil fuel use. Add on a tax that provides remediation of historical fossil fuel damages.

      Take that schedule, add it to the purchase and maintenance costs of a vehicle, and require reporting this total cost of ownership as the most prominent figure in all advertising.

    • ExFed@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I’d rather establish licensing/training requirements for light truck operation. Nobody likes it when someone takes away their stuff. But convince them that the only people allowed to operate such heavy machinery are “elite” and they’ll gladly take pride.

      Normal passenger car driver’s licenses in most of North America have such a comically low bar because people need them for life. You lose your license, you can’t live. It’s not just harder. You physically cannot get to work, get food, meet friends, etc. It’s bonkers. Solving that problem is hard. But making sure that people who really absolutely shouldn’t be driving something as dangerous as a truck can’t get one “just because it’s cool” is a different, much easier solved problem.