https://www.meche.engineering.cmu.edu/_files/images/research-groups/whitefoot-group/WS-FootprintFuelEconomy-EP.pdf?shem=sswnst

https://me.engin.umich.edu/news-events/news/cafe-standards-could-mean-bigger-cars-not-smaller-ones/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy

https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/10/how-cafe-killed-compact-trucks-and-station-wagons/?shem=sswnst

https://www.transportpolicy.net/standard/us-light-duty-fuel-economy-and-ghg/

The footprint-based system means that selling more small vehicles does not necessarily help manufacturers meet the standards. Smaller vehicles are subject to more stringent requirements, such that a manufacturer of smaller vehicles has a lower CO2 standard while a manufacturer of larger vehicles has a higher CO2 standard. Footprint systems encourage improvements in efficiency, regardless of vehicles size, and have relatively little impact on vehicle size mix. Unlike a weight-based standard, a footprint-based standard encourages use of lightweight materials while maintaining the vehicle size, without subjecting the manufacturers to a higher CO2 requirement.

Because car companies send lobbyists to Congress and pay to influence bills.

There is a law in the US that says trucks must meet a certain Miles per gallon fuel economy. But there is a loop hole that says trucks over a certain size are not included in that law. So as long as the trucks are ridiculously big they don’t need to worry about their fuel economy.

Edit: it’s the CAFE law.

Both are interesting and both are generally how Batman is. It depends on the run. Sometimes he’s dark and grows into a paragon, and sometimes the reverse is true. Totally depends on the author.

This seems disingenuous. You don’t have to date anyone you don’t want, and you don’t have to be friends with anyone you don’t want. Why did you decide that was the place to draw the line? You do not have to date Bob from accounting for any reason. But you also don’t deserve a job along side Bob if you go on talking about how he doesn’t deserve a place in our society.

Ones rights doesn’t supercede anothers. You can be a Nazi in your own home, but once you start sprewing hate publicly you are infrining the freedoms of others. This is already the law. But people want to change this law, and are using transphobia to do so, in much the same way they use fear of pedophiles to errode your rights.(trans people harm kids, we must ban trans people to protect kids, is the essential arguement.)In essence You claim that if we stop trans-hate speech, we are losing our rights, but in reality those who are sprewing trans-hate are actively trying to remove your rights and just using transphobia as a means to an end.

Hate speech is always about removing freedoms and rights. Either through violence or legislation. If you want to talk about lines drawn: should we stop Bob from screaming “gas the Jews” in his own home? What about outside a synagogue? What about on the Senate floor? Which of these seems more of an infringement of a Jewish person’s rights?

It appears you havent read your own link there.