Reply to the sibling comment about little to no negative externalities:
Sports cars sure do have negative externalities. I live next to a custom car mod shop in the boonies. People hoon around here like there's no one else alive. They put my life and the lives of my family at risk on the regular. That is most definitely a negative externality.
Sure, if you’re talking about high-power trucks (F350, Ram 3500). A Ford Maverick hybrid will get far better fuel consumption.
I think more sports cars are burning out, revving loudly (or getting modified to take out their mufflers), and the damage from going a lot faster creates more damage.
It might depend on where you live. Nine times out of then when a vehicle with an obnoxiously loud and high revved gear vehicle drives by it's a truck. Probably more like 95% of the time.
It’s crazy to me. If you hate automobiles, trucks still make the most sense- if you’re just carrying people and a grocery or two you should probably be on a bike or ebike.
That is quite a European take there. Most places in the US do not have safe pedestrian infrastructure mandating "share the road" policies with bicycles which puts you into direct contact with motor vehicle traffic, and suburban spread means you're probably not close enough to walk to your grocer.
Bikes and cars can easily coexist on streets, and if the street is too big/busy I bet there's a parallel side road that is much better. If you are too lazy to walk to your nearest grocer, ride a bike.
It is true that some sacrifices and brief periods of discomfort must be made if you care for the environment, this is nothing new and generally accepted.