Avg fleet MPG: Today verses the Model T

[G-spotter]

Gaseous

[tvashtarkatena]

Again, JayB's signature technique of zeroing on only one aspect of an argument to the exclusion of the larger issue is hauled out of its worn scabbard.

 

It's no secret to anyone at this point that high mileage vehicles, including (but not exclusive to) hybrids are rising, and SUV sales are flagging. That's the primary reason why ALL THREE American auto companies are on the financial ropes right now; lack of demand for what they produce the most of, and that would be larger, lower mileage vehicles.

 

So I'll spell it out for you: We could have had 80 mpg cars in mass production by now. The Big Three produced working diesel hybrid concept cars prior to the introduction of the Prius that met that performance criteria. We do not, solely because of a failure of government to enforce real CAFE standards. The price as been a financial collapse of our auto industry, which is also our biggest (and last remaining manufacturing sector of any size), accelerated global warming, and an abysmally expensive and failed war for oil.

 

An unfettered free market focuses almost exclusively on quarterly results. This produces the kind of disaster we now face, because it's not a quarter by quarter kind of world. Long term thinking and planning, for the environment, economy, and greater welfare is exactly what government is better at doing...when it doesn't have it's head up its ass, that is.

 

Now, look at what the GOP, the party of inaction, reaction and denial, now offers for model year 2008: Rudy? Mitt "Gosh, I love America!" Romney? H-h-h-huckabee? Can you not offer anyone who isn't at face value a complete joke?

 

You fuckers should march on Washington in disgust.

[JayB]

It's not that they can't build them, it's that people don't want to buy them. Trying to move this one on the producer side instead of the consumer side is dumb. If this is the goal, then adding a $1 a gallon tax on retail sales of gasoline would make much more sense, and would spread the costs onto all of society instead of concentrating them on a single industry that merely caters to consumer preferences. You'd also have to exempt commercial users and build in tax credits for lower income people in order to avoid making this tax inflict unnecessary pain on poor people who need to drive and can't swing down and pick up a Prius on a whim.

 

CAFE standards make about as much sense as fighting obesity by penalizing grocery stores unless fruits and vegetables make up at least 40% of their sales volume.

 

Good point there. Human nutrition and automotive fuel efficiency are pretty much the same thing. In fact, I drink far less gasoline today, compared to the past, and it's really improved the mileage my bicycle gets. No equivocation here at all.

 

The point is that consumer demand determines what manufacturers produce, and what retailers sell.

 

Holding manufacturers responsible for what people want to buy is about as rational as blaming Andean peasants for our drug problem.

 

 

[Jim]

The assumption that market forces will somehow, sooner or later, deal with improvement of gas milage is false. Look at the wonderful job the marketplace has done to date regarding any type of environmental issue where the true costs are spread over the wider social fabric. Emissions, water pollution, etc. It will take government intervention to move forward. Of course they will yelp. Gotta keep paying those bonuses to the executive level for doing nothing.

 

Raise the CAFE standards by at least 20% over 5 yrs, surcharges for the gas guzzlers. You just have to pay the premium.

 

The people who pay the most for this will be your friends in the UAW.

 

What? Are you kidding me? Like it could actually get worse? Have you checked the profits and percent slope of the decline of the American car makers lately? Hmmmm. Why are the foreign car companies selling so much better over the past 20 years? Quality and efficiency. The Big Three's gamble on throwing an oversized shiny body onto a pickup frame has been diasterous in the long run. I guess in the short run some of the execs made out pretty well though.

[JayB]

Again, JayB's signature technique of zeroing on only one aspect of an argument to the exclusion of the larger issue is hauled out of its worn scabbard.

 

It's no secret to anyone at this point that high mileage vehicles, including (but not exclusive to) hybrids are rising, and SUV sales are flagging. That's the primary reason why ALL THREE American auto companies are on the financial ropes right now; lack of demand for what they produce the most of, and that would be larger, lower mileage vehicles.

 

So I'll spell it out for you: We could have had 80 mpg cars in mass production by now. The Big Three produced working diesel hybrid concept cars prior to the introduction of the Prius that met that performance criteria. We do not, solely because of a failure of government to enforce real CAFE standards. The price as been a financial collapse of our auto industry, which is also our biggest (and last remaining manufacturing sector of any size), accelerated global warming, and an abysmally expensive and failed war for oil.

 

An unfettered free market focuses almost exclusively on quarterly results. This produces the kind of disaster we now face, because it's not a quarter by quarter kind of world. Long term thinking and planning, for the environment, economy, and greater welfare is exactly what government is better at doing...when it doesn't have it's head up its ass, that is.

 

Now, look at what the GOP, the party of inaction, reaction and denial, now offers for model year 2008: Rudy? Mitt "Gosh, I love America!" Romney? H-h-h-huckabee? Can you not offer anyone who isn't at face value a complete joke?

 

You fuckers should march on Washington in disgust.

 

This is getting better with every post.

 

So what has prevented the Big Three from reaping the gains that they'd realize by selling these wonder-vehicles when, per your claims - the single most important factor driving consumer preferences now and off into infinity is fuel efficiency? Presumably the costs to develop the said wonder-vehicles were greater than zero, so you that if nothing else they'd want to sell a few of them to help offset the R&D costs, or license the technology to all of the other automobile companies around the world that would be willing to pay for such advances, since the only reason the wonder-cars didn't appear on the US market is because of our woeful failure implement mileage standards that are consistent with global norms. Hell - it's not like the Big Three don't have operations in Europe, where fuel costs are at or above your desired threshold? Why haven't they unleashed the secret wondercars on the market there?

 

 

 

[Jim]

It's not that they can't build them, it's that people don't want to buy them. Trying to move this one on the producer side instead of the consumer side is dumb. If this is the goal, then adding a $1 a gallon tax on retail sales of gasoline would make much more sense, and would spread the costs onto all of society instead of concentrating them on a single industry that merely caters to consumer preferences. You'd also have to exempt commercial users and build in tax credits for lower income people in order to avoid making this tax inflict unnecessary pain on poor people who need to drive and can't swing down and pick up a Prius on a whim.

 

CAFE standards make about as much sense as fighting obesity by penalizing grocery stores unless fruits and vegetables make up at least 40% of their sales volume.

 

Good point there. Human nutrition and automotive fuel efficiency are pretty much the same thing. In fact, I drink far less gasoline today, compared to the past, and it's really improved the mileage my bicycle gets. No equivocation here at all.

 

The point is that consumer demand determines what manufacturers produce, and what retailers sell.

 

Holding manufacturers responsible for what people want to buy is about as rational as blaming Andean peasants for our drug problem.

 

 

The crass assumption that all that is to consider is dollars and cents is what has not worked before. If your trying to solve a wide-ranging environmental problem the market place will drag and drag until the last dollar has been squeezed out of the rag, even if the short-term profit runs them into a dead end.

 

Emission standards were going to break the automobile industry. Same with clean air and water standards, seat belts, the first round of CAFE standards, etc. The marketplace does not care about environmental effects - it cares about profit. Government must play a role in moving the markets. Let them have gas guzzlers, just put a hefty surcharge on it and demand reasonable CAFE standards, which haven't been significantly updated in 20 yrs.

[tvashtarkatena]

The assumption that market forces will somehow, sooner or later, deal with improvement of gas milage is false. Look at the wonderful job the marketplace has done to date regarding any type of environmental issue where the true costs are spread over the wider social fabric. Emissions, water pollution, etc. It will take government intervention to move forward. Of course they will yelp. Gotta keep paying those bonuses to the executive level for doing nothing.

 

Raise the CAFE standards by at least 20% over 5 yrs, surcharges for the gas guzzlers. You just have to pay the premium.

 

The people who pay the most for this will be your friends in the UAW.

 

More dodge and weave, JayB style. Or would that be duck and cover?

 

This is not a discussion about unions. It's not a discussion about home insulation, which is (no shit, Sherlock) a good idea. It's a discussion about CAFE standards, and why they are a very, very good idea. So far, you've got nothing on topic in the rebuttal department.

 

Why? Because, basically, you're a one note song. The market is good, government is bad. Why, then, don't we have privatized armed forces (OK, I mean ALL our armed forces). Or fire/police? Or roads? Water supplies? Or any one of many VITAL services that are too important to hand over to the private sector?

[tvashtarkatena]

Again, JayB's signature technique of zeroing on only one aspect of an argument to the exclusion of the larger issue is hauled out of its worn scabbard.

 

It's no secret to anyone at this point that high mileage vehicles, including (but not exclusive to) hybrids are rising, and SUV sales are flagging. That's the primary reason why ALL THREE American auto companies are on the financial ropes right now; lack of demand for what they produce the most of, and that would be larger, lower mileage vehicles.

 

So I'll spell it out for you: We could have had 80 mpg cars in mass production by now. The Big Three produced working diesel hybrid concept cars prior to the introduction of the Prius that met that performance criteria. We do not, solely because of a failure of government to enforce real CAFE standards. The price as been a financial collapse of our auto industry, which is also our biggest (and last remaining manufacturing sector of any size), accelerated global warming, and an abysmally expensive and failed war for oil.

 

An unfettered free market focuses almost exclusively on quarterly results. This produces the kind of disaster we now face, because it's not a quarter by quarter kind of world. Long term thinking and planning, for the environment, economy, and greater welfare is exactly what government is better at doing...when it doesn't have it's head up its ass, that is.

 

Now, look at what the GOP, the party of inaction, reaction and denial, now offers for model year 2008: Rudy? Mitt "Gosh, I love America!" Romney? H-h-h-huckabee? Can you not offer anyone who isn't at face value a complete joke?

 

You fuckers should march on Washington in disgust.

 

This is getting better with every post.

 

So what has prevented the Big Three from reaping the gains that they'd realize by selling these wonder-vehicles when, per your claims - the single most important factor driving consumer preferences now and off into infinity is fuel efficiency? Presumably the costs to develop the said wonder-vehicles were greater than zero, so you that if nothing else they'd want to sell a few of them to help offset the R&D costs, or license the technology to all of the other automobile companies around the world that would be willing to pay for such advances, since the only reason the wonder-cars didn't appear on the US market is because of our woeful failure implement mileage standards that are consistent with global norms. Hell - it's not like the Big Three don't have operations in Europe, where fuel costs are at or above your desired threshold? Why haven't they unleashed the secret wondercars on the market there?

 

 

 

Actually, during the Clinton years, the Feds paid most of the development of those concept cars, Einstein. It was a government/private sector partnership. Guess who cancelled the project upon taking office? That would be your guy; the fucking cretin you and yours voted into office. Instead, now we have the 'Hydrogen Economy'. OMFG, Please.

 

So much for your 'cost of development' argument.

 

Way to go for supporting all this shit, genius. Your philosophies, put into practice, have really put this country back on its feet.

Edited November 8, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[JayB]

The assumption that market forces will somehow, sooner or later, deal with improvement of gas milage is false. Look at the wonderful job the marketplace has done to date regarding any type of environmental issue where the true costs are spread over the wider social fabric. Emissions, water pollution, etc. It will take government intervention to move forward. Of course they will yelp. Gotta keep paying those bonuses to the executive level for doing nothing.

 

Raise the CAFE standards by at least 20% over 5 yrs, surcharges for the gas guzzlers. You just have to pay the premium.

 

The people who pay the most for this will be your friends in the UAW.

 

What? Are you kidding me? Like it could actually get worse? Have you checked the profits and percent slope of the decline of the American car makers lately? Hmmmm. Why are the foreign car companies selling so much better over the past 20 years? Quality and efficiency. The Big Three's gamble on throwing an oversized shiny body onto a pickup frame has been diasterous in the long run. I guess in the short run some of the execs made out pretty well though.

 

I think that it could actually get worse, and that attempting to regulate CO2 emissions via CAFE standards would do this very thing, since most of the cars that they make that people actually want to buy fall into the very category that would be affected the most.

 

Also - what makes you think that if you eliminate all but the most fuel efficient cars from the marketplace, that people won't neutralize quite a few of the gains thus realized by simply driving more, carpooling less, etc - since they'll be able to increase their driving in direct proportion to the extent to which their fuel economy increases?

 

If your aim is to discourage fuel consumption, rather than the production of certain kinds of vehicles, then imposing the costs on fuel consumption, rather vehicle acquisition makes much more sense.

 

 

[JayB]

The assumption that market forces will somehow, sooner or later, deal with improvement of gas milage is false. Look at the wonderful job the marketplace has done to date regarding any type of environmental issue where the true costs are spread over the wider social fabric. Emissions, water pollution, etc. It will take government intervention to move forward. Of course they will yelp. Gotta keep paying those bonuses to the executive level for doing nothing.

 

Raise the CAFE standards by at least 20% over 5 yrs, surcharges for the gas guzzlers. You just have to pay the premium.

 

The people who pay the most for this will be your friends in the UAW.

 

More dodge and weave, JayB style. Or would that be duck and cover?

 

This is not a discussion about unions. It's not a discussion about home insulation, which is (no shit, Sherlock) a good idea. It's a discussion about CAFE standards, and why they are a very, very good idea. So far, you've got nothing on topic in the rebuttal department.

 

Why? Because, basically, you're a one note song. The market is good, government is bad. Why, then, don't we have privatized armed forces (OK, I mean ALL our armed forces). Or fire/police? Or roads? Water supplies? Or any one of many VITAL services that are too important to hand over to the private sector?

 

As I said in my response to Jim, if you want to discourage fuel consumption, you raise the cost of fuel. If you want to discourage the production of a subset of passenger vehicles, you raise the cost of those vehicles.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

 

I think that it could actually get worse, and that attempting to regulate CO2 emissions via CAFE standards would do this very thing, since most of the cars that they make that people actually want to buy fall into the very category that would be affected the most.

 

Um...wut????

 

Also - what makes you think that if you eliminate all but the most fuel efficient cars from the marketplace, that people won't neutralize quite a few of the gains thus realized by simply driving more, carpooling less, etc - since they'll be able to increase their driving in direct proportion to the extent to which their fuel economy increases?

 

 

Yeah, there is a huge pent up demand for being stuck in traffic in this country. Ask anyone. The one thing Americans consistently scream for is more time in their cars. I'm sure if fleet mileage went from 20 to 40 mpg, people would suddenly and inexplicably start driving 30,000 instead 15,000 miles per year.

 

Oh, and there is that small experiment that several hundred million people in Europe did with fuel efficient cars that contradicts your prediction.

 

If your aim is to discourage fuel consumption, rather than the production of certain kinds of vehicles, then imposing the costs on fuel consumption, rather vehicle acquisition makes much more sense.

 

Expand your thinking. It's not either/or, it's both. I'm in favor of strict CAFE standars AND high fuel taxes, you know, like I recommended several posts ago.

 

 

Edited November 8, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[Jim]

The assumption that market forces will somehow, sooner or later, deal with improvement of gas milage is false. Look at the wonderful job the marketplace has done to date regarding any type of environmental issue where the true costs are spread over the wider social fabric. Emissions, water pollution, etc. It will take government intervention to move forward. Of course they will yelp. Gotta keep paying those bonuses to the executive level for doing nothing.

 

Raise the CAFE standards by at least 20% over 5 yrs, surcharges for the gas guzzlers. You just have to pay the premium.

 

The people who pay the most for this will be your friends in the UAW.

 

What? Are you kidding me? Like it could actually get worse? Have you checked the profits and percent slope of the decline of the American car makers lately? Hmmmm. Why are the foreign car companies selling so much better over the past 20 years? Quality and efficiency. The Big Three's gamble on throwing an oversized shiny body onto a pickup frame has been diasterous in the long run. I guess in the short run some of the execs made out pretty well though.

 

I think that it could actually get worse, and that attempting to regulate CO2 emissions via CAFE standards would do this very thing, since most of the cars that they make that people actually want to buy fall into the very category that would be affected the most.

 

Also - what makes you think that if you eliminate all but the most fuel efficient cars from the marketplace, that people won't neutralize quite a few of the gains thus realized by simply driving more, carpooling less, etc - since they'll be able to increase their driving in direct proportion to the extent to which their fuel economy increases?

 

If your aim is to discourage fuel consumption, rather than the production of certain kinds of vehicles, then imposing the costs on fuel consumption, rather vehicle acquisition makes much more sense.

 

 

Oh give me a break. You've reached the usual absurd creshendo. CAFE standards have shown clearly that they improve fuel effecienty. Look at our past records and the European standards. The obvious problem that marketplace gurus like yourself have is that choices will be limted. Too bad, so sad. There is more at stake than some SUV driver's vanity.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

tvash, did you forget your meds today?

 

someone is OTR!!

 

[JayB]

Again, JayB's signature technique of zeroing on only one aspect of an argument to the exclusion of the larger issue is hauled out of its worn scabbard.

 

It's no secret to anyone at this point that high mileage vehicles, including (but not exclusive to) hybrids are rising, and SUV sales are flagging. That's the primary reason why ALL THREE American auto companies are on the financial ropes right now; lack of demand for what they produce the most of, and that would be larger, lower mileage vehicles.

 

So I'll spell it out for you: We could have had 80 mpg cars in mass production by now. The Big Three produced working diesel hybrid concept cars prior to the introduction of the Prius that met that performance criteria. We do not, solely because of a failure of government to enforce real CAFE standards. The price as been a financial collapse of our auto industry, which is also our biggest (and last remaining manufacturing sector of any size), accelerated global warming, and an abysmally expensive and failed war for oil.

 

An unfettered free market focuses almost exclusively on quarterly results. This produces the kind of disaster we now face, because it's not a quarter by quarter kind of world. Long term thinking and planning, for the environment, economy, and greater welfare is exactly what government is better at doing...when it doesn't have it's head up its ass, that is.

 

Now, look at what the GOP, the party of inaction, reaction and denial, now offers for model year 2008: Rudy? Mitt "Gosh, I love America!" Romney? H-h-h-huckabee? Can you not offer anyone who isn't at face value a complete joke?

 

You fuckers should march on Washington in disgust.

 

This is getting better with every post.

 

So what has prevented the Big Three from reaping the gains that they'd realize by selling these wonder-vehicles when, per your claims - the single most important factor driving consumer preferences now and off into infinity is fuel efficiency? Presumably the costs to develop the said wonder-vehicles were greater than zero, so you that if nothing else they'd want to sell a few of them to help offset the R&D costs, or license the technology to all of the other automobile companies around the world that would be willing to pay for such advances, since the only reason the wonder-cars didn't appear on the US market is because of our woeful failure implement mileage standards that are consistent with global norms. Hell - it's not like the Big Three don't have operations in Europe, where fuel costs are at or above your desired threshold? Why haven't they unleashed the secret wondercars on the market there?

 

 

 

Actually, during the Clinton years, the Feds paid most of the development of those concept cars, Einstein. It was a government/private sector partnership. Guess who cancelled the project upon taking office? That would be your guy; the fucking cretin you and yours voted into office. Instead, now we have the 'Hydrogen Economy'. OMFG, Please.

 

So much for your 'cost of development' argument.

 

Way to go for supporting all this shit, genius. Your philosophies, put into practice, have really put this country back on its feet.

 

That's even better. The government gave the Big Three a free good and they failed to deploy it despite favorable market conditions in a number of major markets, or to license to others, because...why exactly. They hate profits?

[tvashtarkatena]

Apparently, they do hate profits, given their horrible financial performance of late.

 

American auto companies have proven, by their financial lack of performance, that they cannot look forward. Despite your religiousity on the subject, government can help them in this department. Had the Bush administration not derailed the diesel hybrid project, the Big Three might very well not be in the sorry position they are in now.

 

So far I'm still waiting for an anti-CAFE argument that might just convince a 4 year old...if he were a bit slow.

Edited November 8, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

HYDROGEN IS THE FUTURE!

 

[JayB]

The assumption that market forces will somehow, sooner or later, deal with improvement of gas milage is false. Look at the wonderful job the marketplace has done to date regarding any type of environmental issue where the true costs are spread over the wider social fabric. Emissions, water pollution, etc. It will take government intervention to move forward. Of course they will yelp. Gotta keep paying those bonuses to the executive level for doing nothing.

 

Raise the CAFE standards by at least 20% over 5 yrs, surcharges for the gas guzzlers. You just have to pay the premium.

 

The people who pay the most for this will be your friends in the UAW.

 

What? Are you kidding me? Like it could actually get worse? Have you checked the profits and percent slope of the decline of the American car makers lately? Hmmmm. Why are the foreign car companies selling so much better over the past 20 years? Quality and efficiency. The Big Three's gamble on throwing an oversized shiny body onto a pickup frame has been diasterous in the long run. I guess in the short run some of the execs made out pretty well though.

 

I think that it could actually get worse, and that attempting to regulate CO2 emissions via CAFE standards would do this very thing, since most of the cars that they make that people actually want to buy fall into the very category that would be affected the most.

 

Also - what makes you think that if you eliminate all but the most fuel efficient cars from the marketplace, that people won't neutralize quite a few of the gains thus realized by simply driving more, carpooling less, etc - since they'll be able to increase their driving in direct proportion to the extent to which their fuel economy increases?

 

If your aim is to discourage fuel consumption, rather than the production of certain kinds of vehicles, then imposing the costs on fuel consumption, rather vehicle acquisition makes much more sense.

 

 

Oh give me a break. You've reached the usual absurd creshendo. CAFE standards have shown clearly that they improve fuel effecienty. Look at our past records and the European standards. The obvious problem that marketplace gurus like yourself have is that choices will be limted. Too bad, so sad. There is more at stake than some SUV driver's vanity.

 

The argument was never that they don't improve the fuel efficiency of the vehicles sold under regulations that impose extra costs on less fuel efficient vehicles, but that if your aim is to discourage fuel consumption - it's more rational and effective to tax fuel.

 

There are people with inefficient vehicles that hardly drive them at all, and people with efficient vehicles that drive them `~50,000 miles per year. Who is emitting more C02? Why should the person who wants a large vehicle for short trips pay more for the privilege of owning such a vehicle, much less subsidize drivers of small vehicles with his purchase? Unless a large vehicle emits CO2 when standing still, there's no rational justification for taxing the acquisition of the vehicle instead of the consumption of the fuel.

 

This clearly has more to do with a desire to restrict the production of a subset of passenger vehicles that you dislike than it does decreasing CO2 emissions, which could be accomplished via a fuel tax with much more efficiency, fairness, and with less damage to the domestic auto industry than manipulating CAFE standards.

[Crux]

The United States reached peak domestic oil production in 1974. Soon thereafter, in 1977, President Jimmy Carter successfully promoted comprehensive legislation to facilitate a joint public/private sector development of alternative energy sources and improvement of domestic energy efficiency.

 

The next president, Ronald Reagan, scrapped the program in favor of putting the nation's creative and industrial resources into weapons development and military expansion.

 

Here we are.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Why should the person who wants a large vehicle for short trips pay more for the privilege of owning such a vehicle, much less subsidize drivers of small vehicles with his purchase?

 

Ditto for folks who load up their large vehicles with several passengers versus folks driving by themselves in a smaller car.

 

[JayB]

Apparently, they do hate profits, given their horrible financial performance of late.

 

American auto companies have proven, by their financial lack of performance, that they cannot look forward. Despite your religiousity on the subject, government can help them in this department. Had the Bush administration not derailed the diesel hybrid project, the Big Three might very well not be in the sorry position they are in now.

 

So far I'm still waiting for an anti-CAFE argument that might just convince a 4 year old...if he were a bit slow.

 

You do realize that your argument here about their failure to manufacture the diesel hybrid, or license the technology to, say European manufacturers who are operating in the very regulatory environment that you claim would make this kind of vehicle's dominance of the US market inevitable - literally rests on the claim that all auto makers in all markets are averse to realizing the profits that they'd realize upon bringing this technology to market.

[Jim]

 

There are people with inefficient vehicles that hardly drive them at all, and people with efficient vehicles that drive the `~50,000 miles per year. Who is emitting more C02? Why should the person who wants a large vehicle for short trips pay more for the privilege of owning such a vehicle, much less subsidize drivers of small vehicles with his purchase? Unless a large vehicle emits CO2 when standing still, there's no rational justification for taxing the acquisition of the vehicle instead of the consumption of the fuel.

 

This gets better with every post. While you have a marketplace wet dream why not invoke the spaghetti monster iniative as well. You can always "what if" an individual case that has no application or evidence. Continue herr marketplace miester.

[rbw1966]

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the most successful vehicles manufactured by US auto makers (i.e. SUVs) also the most fuel-inefficient?

[tvashtarkatena]

 

The argument was never that they don't improve the fuel efficiency of the vehicles sold under regulations that impose extra costs on less fuel efficient vehicles, but that if your aim is to discourage fuel consumption - it's more rational and effective to tax fuel.

 

The European experiment (and our own history) proves that it's more effective to do both.

 

There are people with inefficient vehicles that hardly drive them at all, and people with efficient vehicles that drive the `~50,000 miles per year. Who is emitting more C02? Why should the person who wants a large vehicle for short trips pay more for the privilege of owning such a vehicle, much less subsidize drivers of small vehicles with his purchase? Unless a large vehicle emits CO2 when standing still, there's no rational justification for taxing the acquisition of the vehicle instead of the consumption of the fuel.

 

This clearly has more to do with a desire to restrict the production of a subset of passenger vehicles that you dislike than it does decreasing CO2 emissions, which could be accomplished via a fuel tax with much more efficiency, fairness, and with less damage to the domestic auto industry than manipulating CAFE standards.

 

 

 

Nope. JayB tired technique # 3: putting words into the opponents mouth. Since you mentioned it, however...Larger vehicles, in general, do require more energy and resources to produce, so vehicle size, even if they do sit in the driveway, is still an issue. Yes, I know the Prius supposedly requires a lot of embodied energy, so save it. I'm not a Prius ad. For those how still need a fucking battle tank under their fat asses, however, not to worry. CAFE standards are fleetwide, leaving the auto makers a choice on individual model specs: you can still buy that Battlestar Galactica (and probably pay more for it) and leave it safely parked next to your organic vegetable garden. Furthermore, your Battlestar will probably get higher gas mileage than it does now.

 

Gas prices are slated to go up much faster than auto makers, who require 4 to 5 years to bring a new model to market, can move. In addition, global warming is similarly accelerating at a pace the market clearly has not been effectively react to. Long term, foreward thinking government policy is the solution to this kind of disconnect. Allowing auto makers navigate these times on their own...well, their stellar performance speaks for itself.

 

Read ANY reputable, independent (ie, not paid for by the oil/auto industry) report recommending policy solutions for energy independence and greenhouse gas reductions, and they all strongly recommend stricter CAFE standards as well as energy and/or emissions taxes. Again, for the third time, we need both.

Edited November 8, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[rob]

From the bus, I've been giving the stink-eye to single-occupancy motorists for some time now, but it doesn't seem to be making a difference.

[tvashtarkatena]

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the most successful vehicles manufactured by US auto makers (i.e. SUVs) also the most fuel-inefficient?

 

Not since gas prices skyrocketed. That was then, this is now. The auto makers milked that cow a little too long.