358
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 May 2024
358 points (98.9% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
4484 readers
412 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
Out walking yesterday and I realized you can't see around because you can't see over these monstrous trucks and SUVs. You used to be able to see over the tops of sedans.
Fuel economy is still better than that of the 60s and 70s despite it though. I think height has little to do with it. We need more robus bike lanes and routes, better transit systems, and most of all: get the big ships under control. I remember reading somewhere that a few of the largest ships create a significant amount of our world pollution. For any gain we may make on automobiles, the top percenters will find a way to reverse that with more of their environmentally unfriendly garbage.
That's my opinion.
Now imagine what the fuel economy would be without the monstrous height and weight.
It is glorious.
You miss my meaning. I'm not arguing that taller vehicles like a suburban are equivalent to a Nissan leaf.
That's because I think you're missing what's relevant. Comparing it to fuel efficiency from the 70s is not the right metric. It's meaningless.
You're the one that mentioned now and what used to be.
Height. And I did not say the 60s or 70s either. I really don't see this being productive anymore. (Well never was.)
Height absolutely matters because frontal area, along with Cd, affects drag directly. Drag is the primary force that needs to be overcome at higher speeds per the road load equation. Your opinion has nothing to do with it, it's all just basic physics. You're right though that fuel economy has been mostly increasing for decades, but that is in spite of vehicle largess, not because size is irrelevant. Imagine how much better off we'd be if folks didn't commute in trucks for no reason at all. And a big yes to transit, biking, and human centered development.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1237-may-9-2022-fuel-economy-all-vehicle-classes-has-improved
I understand how drag works, I was more referring to what seemed to me as a comment on how increased height in vehicles has made fuel economy worse, when that is not exactly true. Yes it does decrease economy, especially if compared to the height of a car, but if we are referring to "used to", the newer taller vehicles are still more economical than their shorter older predecessors
There are however billions more vehicles since the 70s, so I think it's kinda a moot point.