Within the “truck” class of vehicles, EPA fuel efficiency standards are based on weight. It’s easier to build heavy trucks and SUVs that meet those standards, than light trucks.
Effectively, the US government legislated heavier trucks and SUVs.
Probably? You know you could actually look it up, it’s well documented. Obama’s EPA rules are responsible for this. They’re well intentioned but poorly designed
Lolol bruh i could care less about unenforced EPA “regulations”.
I said “probably… more likely” as a counterpoint and a joke really.
Why don’t you research the personal conflicts of interest for my point first that I was talking about before you go all “dO yOuR rEsEaRcH”?
Ya’know what ill help you out since you didnt provide any burden of proof like an arguer SHOULD do.
Bush administration unveiled a controversial National Energy Plan, which consisted chiefly of $33 billion in public subsidies and tax cuts for the oil, coal, and nuclear power industries, as well as provisions to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for industrial oil drilling.
Ofc they’re both guilty, they are the establishment and two sides of the same coin.
Doesn’t mean one can’t have more vested interest potentially.
Also lol what EPA rules did Bush even try to pass tho? Besides opening the Arctic for drilling primarily.
Within the “truck” class of vehicles, EPA fuel efficiency standards are based on weight. It’s easier to build heavy trucks and SUVs that meet those standards, than light trucks.
Effectively, the US government legislated heavier trucks and SUVs.
Video that explains it.
Thanks Obama!
Probably Bush more likely. Oil 🛢 fanatics
Probably? You know you could actually look it up, it’s well documented. Obama’s EPA rules are responsible for this. They’re well intentioned but poorly designed
They were poorly designed on purposes tho
That’s how all laws in the US come out after lobbies get done editing them for their benefit as expense of the taxpyer.
deleted by creator
Lolol bruh i could care less about unenforced EPA “regulations”. I said “probably… more likely” as a counterpoint and a joke really. Why don’t you research the personal conflicts of interest for my point first that I was talking about before you go all “dO yOuR rEsEaRcH”?
Ya’know what ill help you out since you didnt provide any burden of proof like an arguer SHOULD do.
Bush administration unveiled a controversial National Energy Plan, which consisted chiefly of $33 billion in public subsidies and tax cuts for the oil, coal, and nuclear power industries, as well as provisions to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for industrial oil drilling.
Ofc they’re both guilty, they are the establishment and two sides of the same coin. Doesn’t mean one can’t have more vested interest potentially. Also lol what EPA rules did Bush even try to pass tho? Besides opening the Arctic for drilling primarily.