this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
203 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19072 readers
3668 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. 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.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Why would they do that? Ford literally stopped making cars in the US because it was more profitable to make trucks.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

Well conceivably closing the truck loophole would put a stop to that. But it’s conceivable that instead of Ford responding to the new “innovate or die” law by innovating, it’ll respond by dying.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

🙄 we should study it or something. /s

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Way smarter people than you or I have already came to the conclusion that man-made climate change is a real thing. This isn't a false alarm.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)
  • you already quoted 2 possible technologies: Bev or phev.
  • hydrogen would also fit. companies who think that’s still a practical solution are free to try it
  • solar powered cars would also fit. Good luck with that
  • if you can make “Mr Fusion” a reality, it would also fit