Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

shastaxc t1_jbjjbiy wrote

Yes, that's what would happen once a majority of vehicles in the road are electric. You have to roll out these types of regulations slowly for them to work well. Targeting it at EVs to start makes sense because the manufacturers are consumers are aligned in the interest of going green. Only after a significant proportion of vehicles have this feature can you then extend the regulation to gas powered vehicles, when public opinion is on the government's side and can shame/boycott manufacturers into committing to the new feature. Otherwise, they will find the cheapest way to implement it, or lobby against it, or self sabatoge the feature (like making it difficult or expensive for the owner to maintain) in order to eventually turn public opinion and have the regulation removed.

−1

rosen380 t1_jbjlirs wrote

But that was the point I was making -- EVEN IF you could get these installed in every vehicle IMMEDIATELY (which we can't) and EVEN IF there was virtually no CO2 emissions related to building them and installing them and taking care of used filters (and there would be some), they'd have almost literally no impact.

It would be equivalent to enacting some sort of legislation that would reduce the average annual driving for Americans from 13,476 miles to 13,472 miles.

Sure, it is better if people drive even 4 miles less than they do now and every little bit helps, but in this instance we are talking about an absurdly tiny little bit.

5

shastaxc t1_jbjtsa2 wrote

With the math you provided earlier, it should be equivalent to driving 144 hrs less for every car. It doesn't seem like much, true. But when combined with every vehicle also producing 0 emissions and consuming 0 gas in the hypothetical where all vehicles are EV, it then contributes to negative emissions. This sort of regulation in a vacuum does not make much of an impact. It requires other changes. But 100 of these incremental improvements would make a difference.

0

rosen380 t1_jbjvh2w wrote

144 **MINUTES**, not **HOURS**. And to save you the math, that is out of 525,000 minutes per year. literally measured in hundredths of a percent.

The environmental impact of switching from an ICE to an EV is literally hundreds to thousands of times greater than the impact of having versus not having this carbon sequestration device.

It takes 100 similar improvements just to get to rounding error!

​

What's next? A nickel per hour increase to minimum wage to help the poor?

0

shastaxc t1_jbk0bw0 wrote

I feel like you're mistaking my conversation as an argument so I'm gonna stop here. Congrats on winning the argument.

0