Lamenting the decline of the car

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by lio45

It is true that most of these truck buyers don't actually use their trucks.

I'm the opposite - I only use my truck(s) (one at a time...) when I need them, and they're work trucks. I'd never buy a newer truck - way too nice to use as a truck.

I've got nothing against tradespeople having trucks, or people that actually use them for what they are designed to do.

It is those people that insist on a heavy truck but never seem to haul anything. 10 tons of vehicle to move 240 lbs of person. Seems like a revolting waste of resources.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

probably not, but if you've seen one Huge-Gaping rightinyourface Pickup Truck Grill, you've seen it all. Predictably driven by a guy losing his hair, gaining a paunch, wearing a goatee, and toting some bud lite. Overweight wife/gf riding shotgun, with the redolent smell of Tim Hortons Double-doubles and fast food burgers wafting out of the windows.

.

I'm surprised it took four pages for the first self righteous anti truck rant.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Seems like a revolting waste of resources.

It is. And it could be fixed somewhat easily - people wouldn't drive such needlessly capable, overkill vehicles if we put a realistic pricetag on that capability (a.k.a. carbon tax that's substantial enough).

If everyone is daily-driving a huge truck, including tons of white collar people, it tells us that gas is just too cheap, whatever the price of gas is. It's that simple.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by esquire

Winnipeg is similar... which is why I wince when I see someone driving an expensive sports or luxury car here, especially in the winter. It seems so pointless, seeing an Audi R8 or the like trundling along at rush hour, doing 25 km/h down Osborne, with the impeccably tuned suspension allowing the driver to feel every pothole.

I flew out to Winnipeg with my dad to pick up his new "used" car a couple years ago. I'm not going to say what car it was, apparently 1 of 7 that were available to dealerships in Canada with almost 550hp...but the previous owner traded it in after 3,000km for a Range Rover. The sales lady said that after one summer of driving it the guy realized it wasn't made for Winnipeg roads. It's been surviving Edmonton roads just fine.....but yeah, you do need to be extremely aware of pot holes and stuff.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by lio45

It is. And it could be fixed somewhat easily - people wouldn't drive such needlessly capable, overkill vehicles if we put a realistic pricetag on that capability (a.k.a. carbon tax that's substantial enough).

If everyone is daily-driving a huge truck, including tons of white collar people, it tells us that gas is just too cheap, whatever the price of gas is. It's that simple.

I think it says more that our standard of living is so exceptionally high that we can afford to drive vehicles like this. We should be celebrating how good we have it, not artificially limiting our choices.

[lio45]

Celebrating that we can waste, by wasting...? I beg to differ.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

We should be celebrating how good we have it, not artificially limiting our choices.

Also, as milomilo and others would tell you, in a properly-designed carbon tax framework, there wouldn't be any formal "limitation" - all previously available behaviors would still continue to be available. You'd just be charged something that more closely matches said behavior's environmental footprint, and the whole thing would be revenue-neutral.

No downside, except for those who waste.

Generally, it would be like switching from an all-you-can-eat format for $15 to a pay-what-you-eat format where the average customer eats for $10 and is full. Basically, it's a winning change for everybody, except for those who liked to take many plates and leave half of each plate, and intend to continue to like that. Those people's restaurant bills would be the ones going up...

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by esquire

You must be kidding?! The Impala was like a early 90s car lurching into the 21st century before it was redesigned sometime around 2013. It was a dependable car but the appearance was lacking for a car at that price point. GM moved it firmly in to the 21st century... it's a nice, attractive car that compares very favourably to the Ford Fusion. A bit bigger than the Fusion, not quite as big (at least it feels like it isn't) as the Taurus.

I own a Ford Edge and it has been remarkably reliable. 6 years and routine maintenance only.

I've owned both Ford Fusion and Chev Impala and I was very impressed with both cars. Powerful, solid and were good in snow and ice.

I own a regular cab short box 4x4 pickup (I live alone now) which I use regularly for hauling bikes, camping and towing trailers when I need to. Its a nimble little vehicle with tons of power and I like it a lot. My only drawback is that its too big for the garage on the house I'm renting so having it sit outside in the Ottawa winter is not something I like to see.

[J.OT13]

On paper, charging a huge carbon tax on those huge tricks to prevent those who don't need it sounds good, but we would be penalizing the blue-collar workers and businesses that do need them. On the other hand, if we start regulating who gets to buy theses based on needs (using a carbon tax or other) seems a little communist.

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

I think it says more that our standard of living is so exceptionally high that we can afford to drive vehicles like this. We should be celebrating how good we have it, not artificially limiting our choices.

Smokem if you gottem right!

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by lio45

Celebrating that we can waste, by wasting...? I beg to differ.

Of course, the owning and use of a truck someone doesn't need isn't the actual problem, just the wasteful use of gas. If someone invents a much more fuel efficient or electric truck, and people want it, by all means let them have it.

There's a market failure right now in that there's almost no cheaper, more fuel efficient trucks on the market. If you look at the costs and specs, you'd be mad to buy a Tacoma when an F150 is cheaper and better (paper specs wise, at least) in pretty much every way.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lio45

It is. And it could be fixed somewhat easily - people wouldn't drive such needlessly capable, overkill vehicles if we put a realistic pricetag on that capability (a.k.a. carbon tax that's substantial enough).

If everyone is daily-driving a huge truck, including tons of white collar people, it tells us that gas is just too cheap, whatever the price of gas is. It's that simple.

What do you think the emissions of a mini van are like?

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by lio45

Also, as milomilo and others would tell you, in a properly-designed carbon tax framework, there wouldn't be any formal "limitation" - all previously available behaviors would still continue to be available. You'd just be charged something that more closely matches said behavior's environmental footprint, and the whole thing would be revenue-neutral.

No downside, except for those who waste.

Generally, it would be like switching from an all-you-can-eat format for $15 to a pay-what-you-eat format where the average customer eats for $10 and is full. Basically, it's a winning change for everybody, except for those who liked to take many plates and leave half of each plate, and intend to continue to like that. Those people's restaurant bills would be the ones going up...

It's easy for people to support small doses of carbon pricing when it comes to personal vehicles, but if this logic is extended to all facets of our day to day lives we might as well go back and live on a farm like our great grandparents did...or go live in some shit hole third world country where you haul water from a well every morning.

I'm at least honest and consistent about it. I know my presence has huge implications on the environment. I accept it. I'm not going to arbitrarily draw a line based on my own agenda so I can look down from my high horse.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

It's easy for people to support small doses of carbon pricing when it comes to personal vehicles, but if this logic is extended to all facets of our day to day lives we might as well go back and live on a farm like our great grandparents did...or go live in some shit hole third world country where you haul water from a well every morning.

I'm at least honest and consistent about it. I know my presence has huge implications on the environment. I accept it. I'm not going to arbitrarily draw a line based on my own agenda so I can look down from my high horse.

No one is talking about going back to sod huts, though. lio is talking about some seriously low hanging fruit. A guy driving an F-250 to his office job is not any worse off from a quality of life standpoint if he's driving a CR-V or a Civic instead. He's still sitting in the car, listening to Nickelback and sipping his coffee, and getting to go where he wants.

[milomilo]

Yeah, for all the outrage, the currently proposed federal carbon tax of $50 a ton in 3 years time is equivalent to an extra 10c/l on gas. Even if we double that, gas will still be easily affordable if you have a business need, but someone just carting around air might think twice.

[240glt]

^ There's most definitely some virtue signaling going on in this thread though, there's no doubt about that.

People's vehicle choices are a pretty easy target for drive-by disapproval and condemnation (pun intended) when there are far more factors involved in determining one's environmental footprint.

Let's talk about significantly jacking up the price on airline flights and put massive tariffs on imported foods and goods and see what the reactions would be here.

As always somewhere in the middle between the righteousness and dismissiveness is where the actual conversation lies.

[milomilo]

As far as I can tell, the only airline fuel that is subject to the carbon tax is for flights wholely within provinces falling in the federal carbon tax framework (so not BC, Alberta, Quebec). That's a massive failing, one of the most polluting things we do isn't accounted for.

[SHOFEAR]

No one is talking about going back to sod huts, though. lio is talking about some seriously low hanging fruit. A guy driving an F-250 to his office job is not any worse off from a quality of life standpoint if he's driving a CR-V or a Civic instead. He's still sitting in the car, listening to Nickelback and sipping his coffee, and getting to go where he wants.

How many daily driven F250's is equivalent to David Suzuki flying around to his half dozen seasonal residences?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by 240glt

Let's talk about significantly jacking up the price on airline flights and put massive tariffs on imported foods and goods and see what the reactions would be here.

For what it's worth, I would be OK with that.

But as I said before, switching to a smaller, more fuel efficient vehicle is probably the easiest, least painful change one could make in this regard.

[240glt]

Originally Posted by esquire

For what it's worth, I would be OK with that.

But as I said before, switching to a smaller, more fuel efficient vehicle is probably the easiest, least painful change one could make in this regard.

In a binary view, probably. But that's failing to understand a whole litany of variables including people's incomes (A brand new truck is less polluting than a 15 year old smaller car) Personal circumstances such as having kids or, say, having to travel distances in inclement weather to take care of relatives, just to name a few. There are a ton of ways to reduce your environmental footprint. We take the big SUV downtown every day but there's usually myself, the S.O. and our neighbor in the car. So that's three people in one car, if we all jammed into a Yaris it would be even more efficient, yes. But at some point, our personal choices take over. And that's for everyone.