Exactly that's what rating is for: To know how much you can tow.

You can say out it loudly (or post it publicly, as proven right now.

They didn't. They went up variable amounts, often higher, depending on what they were. And those prices went up YEARS before this legislation was passed, so the link you're implying is imaginary.

Unless SCOTUS officially rules "Unconstitutional", essentially. That's the check and balance we have.

You seem to have a problem understand the word "over". It isn't a lump sum at the end of the decade, it is accumulated over the 10-year period -- like like the spend.

Congress and their powers to tax and spend in general. That doesn't vary by specific technologies like solar vs oil, etc.

We wait for the patch^B^B^B^B^Bconcrete sarcophagus.

Not free, paid for by large corporations. The Inflation Reduction Act raises $300 billion over a decade by requiring large corporations to pay a 15 percent minimum tax on their profits and by enacting a 1 percent excise tax on stock buybacks and redemptions.

See? In the U.S., many small cars which would be able to tow some serious loads, are not rated at all for towing. If they were, people would not use that argument very often. But apparently, in the U.S. mind, non-trucks are not able to tow.

If you can't sell off your old car at a decent price (and your car dealership also has the lot full of them), your calculation for the next truck has to include a higher deterioration, which makes buying your next truck more expensive. And financing the truck with a loan also might get harder, because your bank might also look into the resale value of your truck, because if they impound it, they don't want to sell it at too much of a loss.

Statistics. If you see a work trailer only on 1% of the trucks out there, you can be statistically sure that only 1% of all trucks are actually using their towing capacity.

I never understood the towing capacity argument. My tiny compact with a 1.6 liter Diesel engine has a towing capacity of 3400 pounds.

Exactly. I drive a 1996 Honda Civic. If I were to buy a new car, that is the sort of car that I would be interested in. The sort of car that is inexpensive and capable of driving at freeway speeds. If the government would let me buy a Toyota Hilux for $12K I would do that tomorrow. Instead I get enormous pickups and SUVs that get through the loopholes in our current EPA standards and that cost more than my first house.

I just spent a week in Peru where Chinese cars are quite popular, and the taxi drivers that I talked to were pretty happy with theirs. The mentioned, time and again, that, for the price they were great cars. They were definitely popular. I would buy one of those. They tend to have manual transmissions, which I know how to drive, and which I trust not to leave me stranded.

If I could buy an electric vehicle for $10K I would do that. It wouldn't be my only vehicle, but it probably would be my primary vehicle. I love the idea of electric vehicles, but it doesn't make sense to replace my ridiculously inexpensive (paid for and hyper reliable) Civic with an expensive electric vehicle, or my far more useful Honda Odyssey mini-van. It sort of makes sense to replace the Civic with an electric vehicle, however, if the price is right.

Wrong. It is not the cause of Global Warming, and it is not caused by Global Warming. So far you would be right. But it is a problem whose consequences get worse due to Global Warming. So yes, it has to do with Global Warming.

You are not here. You are at a place where a back-of-the-envelope calculation states is the minimum required. The real thing is probably at least twice as large.