[vineyardmike]

Generally, the people most at risk for fire are not particularly wealthy - they live out in the exurbs. Generally I’m not too supportive of socially subsidizing an expensive lifestyle, but let’s be clear that “everyone who drives” collectively generated this risk through pollution.

[lolinder]

> let’s be clear that “everyone who drives” collectively generated this risk through pollution.

No, let's be clear that everyone who lives in the developed and developing world collectively generated this risk by living in said world.

In the US, the transportation sector as a whole accounts for only 29% of our collective greenhouse gas emissions [0]. Within that sector, passenger cars only account for 20% of the 29%, or 5.8% of our total greenhouse gas emissions in the country.

That's still a lot of greenhouse gases, but it's barely the tip of the iceberg of our total generation in the US, and the US itself only accounts for ~12% of the world's emissions.

Picking on passenger cars for pollution is similar to picking on green lawns during drought: sure, it's something that your average Joe can stop doing to feel like they're helping, and people who water their lawns make for a fun villain if you're into that kind of thing, but even if you managed to get that use case down to 0% of what it is currently you wouldn't even have begun to solve the actual problem.

[0] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

[khuey]

> In the US, the transportation sector as a whole accounts for only 29% of our collective greenhouse gas emissions [0]. Within that sector, passenger cars only account for 20% of the 29%, or 5.8% of our total greenhouse gas emissions in the country.

You need to account for light duty trucks here too. Merely including "passenger cars" is wrong since enormous numbers of Americans are driving pickups/SUVs/etc as their personal vehicles. That would push personal transportation to 16.5% of our total GHG emissions.

[lolinder]

True, but that's a separate category for two reasons:

1) Because the emissions profiles of said vehicles are dramatically different, and it's unfair to drivers of low-emissions passenger cars to conflate them. "Everyone who drives" can't be said to be equally culpable if the minority that drive SUVs and trucks produce more than 2/3 of personal-transportation emissions.

2) Because the usage profiles are different. Yes, many light trucks are driven as personal vehicles, but they're also used for real work that even non-drivers are reaping the benefits from. When the cable guy or the plumber comes to your apartment building to make a repair, they come in a light truck.

I wish the numbers broke down emissions by usage type instead of or in addition to vehicle type, but we don't have that. As is, I'm comfortable saying that somewhere between 5.8% and 16.5% of our emissions come from personal transportation, and I don't believe that that alters my argument in any meaningful way.

[hackernewds]

By that logic you could further include semi trucks that deliver groceries by extension. Pick your side.

[lolinder]

I'm thoroughly confused. I'm saying that many uses of light trucks (such as plumbers and cable guys) should not be categorized as personal transportation. Why does me excluding such uses lead to a logical extension that includes semi trucks?