Sales for true "SUVs" (ie. cars that are built on top of a truck platform) have stayed relatively stable, and most of the "SUVs" you see are actually crossovers[1]. This might seem like a pointless distinction, but crossovers are closer to cars than SUVs, and aren't as bad for the environment as you think. The best selling crossover is the Toyota RAV4[2], which gets 30 mpg. The best selling sedan (Toyota Camry) gets 32 mpg, or 6.7% more.
[1] https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/research/the-rise-of-th...
[2] https://www.caranddriver.com/news/g43553191/bestselling-cars...
My 1998 SC2 Weighed ~2400 pounds and got MPG in the low 30s (35+ on the highway).
> NOx emissions
Managing that often impacts fuel economy. Ask VW group =)
Hybrids are great, but it is sidestepping the point that the poster was trying to make.
Later laws were changed to recognize SUV as a separate class, but the standards are still just a gradual improvement over truck standards, and not near where car requirements are.
In substantial parts of the US, the geography and climate recommend an AWD with high ground clearance. Most modern SUVs are not built on truck frames and have fuel efficiency similar to sedans. Decades ago this market was originally met either by modifying a 4WD truck to make it passenger friendly (e.g. "true SUV" like the Ford Bronco) or a handful of low-cost Japanese cars, notably Subaru. There was a vast market gap between these two options.
Most modern SUVs don't resemble either but instead split the difference. They are essentially sedans modified to support AWD and high ground clearance. The 2WD versions are essentially a minivan without the sliding doors. A "true" SUV has 4WD and a frame built more like a truck but these are relatively rare in the SUV market.
There are still no electric cars that address the old Subaru market, so in the US we will be stuck with SUVs for quite some time.
Skirting emissions laws only works as a complete explanation if it can account for consumer behavior.
My sense from talking to people who own them is that they chose them because they could function as a truck or as a minivan depending on what they need to do at the time, without having to own both. That's a much less exciting explanation than yours, but it does account for both consumer behavior and manufacturer behavior. Emissions laws may very well have increased manufacturer margins on these vehicles, but they're filling a real need in people's lives.
For us, we wanted a vehicle that could tow a Camper Trailer, and one that could hold my daughter’s wheelchair easily, as well as her friends. A minivan would have fulfilled the wheelchair requirement, but it’s my wife’s dream vehicle, and I really want my youngest daughter to get the same camping trip experiences despite having special needs (like water and a sterile environment to wash up and catheter her, so a camper is a necessity if we want to “camp”).
Something like the Cybertruck wasn’t even a consideration, because it can haul maybe 90 miles for a camper trailer, based on what I’ve seen in testing.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40699325
This isn't a diamond ring situation where someone created demand out of nothing.
So what are we to conclude? Yes, the majority of US car buyers will literally buy the biggest gas guzzling pollution spewer they can afford. Call it revealed preferences, although it's hardly obscured - hell, a large number of people vote on the premise that gas must be $5 forever.
This would be a sufficient explanation if and only if SUVs were cheaper than trucks. They're not, so the rising popularity of SUVs cannot be because skirting emissions regulations allowed selling a cheaper gas guzzler.
(This is aside from the fact that is referenced by another comment further up [0] that most modern SUVs aren't actually significantly less fuel efficient than traditional vehicles.)
While the loophole isn't going away completely, the tougher rules may cause some manufacturers to rethink trends and add more small cars to their lineups.
However, it's more likely that the opposite will happen. Americans love SUVs and trucks; even pandemic pricing didn't convince many shoppers to switch to a smaller car. Instead, we've seen manufacturers building even larger electric vehicles
Even that probably isn't sensible. Banning single-use plastic leads to a shift to single-use paper, single-use wood, or single-use metal - all of which are even worse for the environment. The problem isn't the "plastic" part, the problem is the "single-use" part.
For example, we already know that plastics form a lot of the trash in the ocean; but now we also know that these plastics shed microplastics pervasively as well.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-scienc...
Short term global warming seems far bigger issue than plastic waste (which is manageable)
The history of negative-externalities-generating industries --- lead, asbestos, tobacco, alcohol, CFCs, amongst others --- suggests that this may not be the case.
Those who are opposed to that approach on the basis of criticisms of enclosures acts and the end of traditional commons have many arguments on their side, but the general effectiveness of privatisation in that particular case is not amongst them.
(Hardin is also pointedly arguing about a far larger problem, including of commons which are less readily closed such as ocean fisheries, and of the total global human population of Earth, in which privatisation might not hold, or for which other approaches, some of which are strongly criticised today, might be applied.)
The one dynamic which solving a tragedy of the commons requires is that it not be possible to privatise gains whilst socialising costs, which drives the entire logic of the tragedy. How that is arrived at still leaves multiple options.
edit: After rereading I realized I misinterpreted your post. I read "enact" to mean "enact and enforce" but in a sense you are correct that only governments can enact legislation. I see now you made no claims about ability to design enforceable policy.
Sedans/minivans are held to more stringent fuel efficiency standards, particularly after the Obama-era EPA regulations. [1] This has promoted the sale of larger vehicles/trucks.
[1] https://newrepublic.com/article/180044/epa-small-cars-sedan-...
It is not that clear cut in that case.
> In fact, life-cycle assessments on items such as single-use plastic bags have shown that there is a discrepancy between actual re-use rates of alternative bags and the re-use rate to break even on environmental grounds. Paper bags need to be re-used four times, LDPE bags five times, non-woven PP bags 14 times and cotton bags 173 times. Their actual re-use rates are about half that, making them less sustainable than single-use plastic bags, which may also be used by consumers as bin liners.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/3620887-would...
1. It's an opinion piece, not evidence-based and peer-reviewed research.
2. It's written by a lobbyist who's parent organization gets funding in part from neo-reactionaries, including the Charles G. Koch Foundation.
3. The same author argues elsewhere for Europe and the U.S. to "put all their climate ambitions in the back burner, refine more oil and cooperate to deliver it quickly and effectively"; cf. https://web.archive.org/web/20220908091610/https://la-chroni....
4. The opinion piece cites another opinion piece written by the same author for Newsmax, a non-credible far-right media company.
5. It also cites "Five Misperceptions Surrounding the Environmental Impacts of Single-Use Plastic," published in _Environmental Science and Technology_, an impactful peer-reviewed scientific journal, but the article is not without its detractors and must be read critically as well; cf. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c07842.
6. The opinion piece redundantly cites a web page written by the author of "Five Misperceptions...". Said web page makes the same arguments as the ES&T article.
7. The opinion piece quotes a number of unrelated facts and figures.
1. Opinion pieces can cite evidence-based and peer-reviewed research
2. Ad hominem
3. Ad hominem
4. Ad hominem
5. Ad hominem and Straw Man:
6. and 7. Straw man
This is not sensible and has a negligible impact on the environment - it almost always is worse, actually.
Kinda like how single use plastic bags are better for the environment than a single reusable cotton bag purely because reusable bags would need to be used for a decade to break even with 10,000 single use plastic bags, which almost never happens.
Like for instance how China banned single serving plastic usage.