[throw10920]

Did you read the parent comment?

> so the little Jimny is emitting 146g/km but somehow there is no problem to buy a G-Class that is emitting 358g/km

This is an example of a manufacturer discontinuing a more efficient vehicle while continuing to sell a larger vehicle that is significantly less efficient.

That's the opposite of what you want. So, no, this is not an example of regulation working well.

[mft_]

This refers to two different manufacturers, with two different approaches.

To meet the overall tougher targets (95g/km average) Suzuki is discontinuing certain models which release higher levels of CO2 to reduce their average. This is presumably the intention of the regulation - to drive manufacturer behaviour.

Mercedes is, OOTH, pooling with other manufacturers who presumably have emissions to spare, and likely paying them royally for it[0]. They're not alone in this approach, but some would argue it's against the spirit of the regulation, even if it ultimately complies with the letter.

[0] https://www.motor1.com/news/747225/tesla-earns-1billion-sell... - note that Tesla doesn't pool with Mercedes; this is just an example of the value

[edmundsauto]

If we Zoom out and look at the net-net efficiency, is there a Steelman argument? I’m wondering if this is a locally based optimization that provides manufacturers with more flexibility to optimize across their fleet.

[throw10920]

I don't quite understand. Even if the intent was to to provide manufacturers more flexibility, the fact that a much more efficient line was discontinued as a result of the regulations implies that the result was less efficiency.

Maybe I misunderstood. Could you explain your idea in more detail?

[edmundsauto]

Is there an interpretation where people credibly thought it was better to aggregate at the fleet grain rather than individual levels? Ie is there a good faith argument?

Not saying it was a great argument. But for the Meta-signal.

Ie on tariffs there is a reasonable explanation possible. It requires one to completely disregard almost all economic theory and history… but it does seem possible that a sufficiently economically naive person might reach this conclusion.

[throw10920]

> Is there an interpretation where people credibly thought it was better to aggregate at the fleet grain rather than individual levels? Ie is there a good faith argument?

"Good faith argument" implies that I think that the regulators were acting in bad faith. I don't! I believe they had the best intentions - sorry if I made it seem otherwise.

I'm just using the fact that the outcomes were negative to make the point that, even with the best intentions, if you're not careful with how you act, your actions can have negative results.

I totally get the logic of "it was better to aggregate at the fleet grain rather than individual levels" - I think a naive person would have done something similar - but it didn't work out, and it shows that you need to apply way more thought, effort, and analysis than you might naively assume.