I’ll note that 2.5°C of warming by 2100 is a significant improvement over the trajectory we were on a decade ago, even if still far from where we need to be

  • yeehaw@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • someguy3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Now imagine what the fuel economy would be without the monstrous height and weight.

      • yeehaw@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        You miss my meaning. I’m not arguing that taller vehicles like a suburban are equivalent to a Nissan leaf.

        • someguy3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          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.

            • someguy3@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Height. And I did not say the 60s or 70s either. I really don’t see this being productive anymore. (Well never was.)

    • spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      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

      • yeehaw@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        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