The people who sell the fuels have approximately zero influence over the people who sell the trucks. Truck manufacturers try to optimize overall operating costs because that's the primary metric their customers look at. Adding active aerodynamic surfaces to trucks would cut fuel consumption slightly, but nowhere near in half (as londons_explore suggested); that's simply not plausible. And it would be another thing to break.

>The people who sell the fuels have approximately zero influence over the people who sell the trucks

I wish that were the case:

https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2022/05/gas-war-republican...

> Last week, a group of Republican attorneys general decided to sue the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over its decision to reinstate the waiver allowing California to set its own limitations on exhaust gasses and zero-emission vehicle mandates that would exceed federal standards.

What's your point? That article isn't relevant to my previous comment. Nothing is stopping truck manufacturers from increasing fuel efficiency. They're free to do so, regardless of whether or not California imposes emissions requirements that are stricter than the federal standard.

Somehow I have a hard time trusting “thetruthaboutcars.com” as a trustworthy, unbiased source.

That site isn't too bad, but the article is almost completely unrelated to the point that was raised.

Republican attorneys concerned about the EPA overstepping its authority (right or wrong) don't sell the fuels or sell the trucks.

I'd argue they do.

Big Oil lobbies government hard to not price in externalities (carbon tax).

Therefore diesel is cheaper than it might be under a carbon tax. Truck manufacturers optimise max length & volume, so flat front and back, rather than diesel efficiency.

>Truck manufacturers optimise max length & volume, so flat front and back, rather than diesel efficiency.

I don't think they do optimize volume, because they could certainly have larger trailers.

The correct metric seems to be diesel consumed per kg/cargo mile.

> I don't think they do optimize volume, because they could certainly have larger trailers.

No they cannot, at least in Europe. The outer dimension of trucks are regulated, such that street planners know what to plan for and truckers know they can pass a street.

People think ya can pop a wind farm anywhere, but ya have to be able to drive the 100m plus single piece blades there, they don't fit on regular trucks, and doesn't always go as planned.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-19/wind-turbine-blade-bl...

Exactly, the benefits are fairly marginal. Its a bit like those foldout truck tails, they do have a marginal benefit but they cause truckers enough pain that many avoid them.

Back in the day the people working to shut down electric street cars were the same people making and selling cars and buses and tires and oil for the oil changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...

Oh yeah, because batteries and solar panels contain the long term pollution they create in their price right? All of these prices have a lot of factors involved and none of them are actually related to their pollution aspect. In fact pricing things ONLY in carbon emissions as people would like to do nowadays is maliciously deceiving.

Batteries and solar panels are (broadly) affected by the same carbon fees and pollution regulations as other products.

Yes, those fees should be higher, and pollution regulations should be even stricter, but if they were, (which they should be!) it would only further speed the uptake of solar and batteries, because they are less polluting than their rival technologies.

> In fact pricing things ONLY in carbon emissions as people would like to do nowadays is maliciously deceiving.

I don't think anyone is suggesting this, though it may actually be better overall than not pricing carbon at all, so it's an interesting thought experiment.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good...