Oh don’t worry. If a new tax is needed, we will get one.

Wait- it’s my bike!

and to the comment about forcing car makers to build better cars, i am torn on that one. On one hand, if it were not for federal safely regs, we’d probaldy all be dead by now – as opposed to “only” 40,000 or us a year(gulp). So that seemed to work.

However, i think that a flat $4 a gallon tax on fuel would do a better job, and be easier to administrate. Even lawmakers can count to 4.

I actually agree with #1. My daily driver averages 30 mpg (1999 Ford Contour, 2.0l 4 cyl, 5 speed manual).

But I don’t agree with #2. We live in a democracy, and most Americans love big and/or fast and/or stylish wheels. Fuel economy is simply not an issue, even today gas is very small part of house hold budget. So any CAFE law passed would have so many loop-holes it would do nothing.

Indeed part of the SUV craze was caused by CAFE laws – people who wanted the ‘big iron’ simply bought pickups and SUV’s.

The only thing US loves more than gas is hypocracy. In opinion polls we often say we want to force automakers to offer better mileage – but what do we buy (and I don’t believe SUV’s were forced down anyone’s throats).

Well said!!!

They didn’t apply sustainable harvesting. That’s why the coast of Maine is rocky. The trees went down to the water until they were cut.

Improving efficiency does not and will not reduce anyone’s “dependence on foreign oil.” Improving efficiency increases the demand for energy, it doesn’t lower it! That’s basic economics, good grief it’s common sense, it has the exact same effect as lowering the price.

China has stiffer fuel-economy regulations than the US because that’s the sort of stupid thing authoritarian state s do. Note that at the same time a large part of our present elevated oil prices can be blamed on demand from China, demand that has been artificially inflatedby price controls meant to encourage growth(which of course led to shortages and rationing,) so don’t point to them any kind of model to follow! And all that the European regulations have done is increase air pollution and slightly delay the rise of car culture, car use is growing faster there than in the US.

Regulating C02 is a euphemism for rationing energy use, for tyrannical centralized control over every aspect of our lives, and we are told this is necessary by politicans and professional activists who spend more time flying than most of us do driving.

What really riles me is why supposed automotive enthusiasts don’t get this. The success of the automobile is the the most obvious symbol of the triumph of capitalism and personal freedom, it’s why socialists posing as “environmentalists” hate them so. There’s no point in trying to appease them!

It’s real simple, folks.

China has tighter emission and fuel economy standards because the air quality in their cities completely sucks and because they can.

Oh, and you want to run this game according to England’s rules? Fine, so long as you’re prepared the standard motor in your car being less than 1.5L.

Pistonheads whining about fuel economy never ceases to amaze me. First, you beat down on cars with small engines and lower power output, then you whine about how much gas American cars use. The comment about the Model A getting 25mpg and why a modern car cannot get twice that is especially telling. Modern technology is capable of making such cars without resorting to hybrid tomfoolery, but no one in the US wants to buy them. Remember the Chevy Sprint and Geo Metro? They did it with 30+ year old tech. The only reason GM kept them on the lots was to pull down their CAFE averages. They probably sold 100 Cavaliers for each Metro that went out the door. Hardly anyone wanted them. Oh, and you’ll also have to give up some of that beloved safety equipment too. You can’t have an straight internal-combustion engined car that’s built like a brick outhouse, has respectible 0-60 times, and gets that coveted 50mpg.

If you want better economy, and the buying public isn’t willing to buy the cars, then you have to resort to other “incentives”. Things like taxes and other regulations. Do US citizens want to go there?

The answer as I see it is battery-assisted fuel cells, but you can be sure the oil companies are doing everything they can to delay that until they’ve figured out some way to make a lot of money off them.

“Adults becoming children” – I often think we’re there already, too. We do not face up to our responsibilities and one of these is, as the chief economic and military power in the world, to set an example for the rest of the world in terms of protecting the environment. But precious few people get past, “I want it, I can afford it, I’m going to have it,” with no regard for consequences. This is why laws are, ultimately, necessary, to preserve the future of the country because individual initiative and acceptance of responsibility is sorely lacking. The adults are like whiny brats.

“Science becoming religion” – is another facet of that same phenomenon. Not that science has become religion, I’ve never heard of a credible case of a researcher with any kind of credibility failing to get a hearing for an unpopular or controversial idea. Sure, scientists can be petty, vain and selfish but science is still about integrating facts. No, it’s the noise from the “Adults becoming children,” “I want it, I can afford it, I’m gonna have it,” and they justify their childish intransigence with “Science has become religion.”

As with the “flat Earth” vs “round Earth” conflict, science isn’t the problem in the global warming debate. Imperfect knowledge is a limiting factor but it’s an ostrich-like refusal to ocnsider the problem that holds the greatest danger.

Our own President has finally admitted that global warming is a serious problem. But, like an over-indulgent parent, he does nothing to encourage self-discipline among Americans. He coasts along, in Big Oil and Big Coal’s pocket and the CO2 levels continue to climb.

One of the most difficult things for many people to understand is the idea of a social contract. Whether you know it or not, your life is dependent on a series of social contracts that have enabled you to get where you are today. Defense, transportation networks, air and water as clean as it is, your education, the fact that you can hire educated people, the very fact that we do not live in chaos, is all a result of the generations of Americans who went before you, who contributed to our current success and laid the groundwork for the future. Failure to recognize this is a grave danger to our shared future.

Without me and my ancestors and the other 300million people in this country and their ancestors, nobody would be driving an SUV. You’d have a lifespan of 45 years and you’d spend it looking at the back end of a draft animal.

There needs to be a Fuel Mileage Requirement along with an annual tax or registration fee, perhaps based on engine displacement, vehicle weight, etc., that puts pressure on car makers to produce more efficient cars and education to encourage people to change their behavior. Unfortunately, it would require getting the goons we send to D.C. off the auto lobbyist payrolls and actually having the courage and integrity to do something. Like that’ll happen.

There should also be an increase in the gas tax to get gas around $3-$4/gallon with the tax money going to energy research and improving some aspects of public transportation, such as rail service for more urbanized areas. Higher prices will drive people to more fuel efficient cars. I don’t like $3+ /gallon gas, but I think we need to take a longer view than how much gas will cost for commuting or vacation.

No one needs a 3-ton SUV or Hemi-engined truck to commute to their office. If they want one, that’s fine, just don’t whine about $100+ fill-ups.

I hope we are not heading there.

After reading a lot of these posts…Too Late… We are already there.

Just to add a couple of minor points:

The EPA city/highway mpg ratings (posted on the window sticker and used in advertising) were “adjusted” downward starting in the 1985 model year, so any comparisons with earlier models aren’t accurate. The EPA lopped 10% off the calculated city rating and 22% off the highway rating.

This means that a 1984 subcompact (or diesel Tempo) that attained 40 mpg on the “highway” had its mileage rating reduced to 31 mpg the next model year!

Ironically, the CAFE standard (on which penalties are assessed, for example) still uses the UNADJUSTED mileage calculations, so the whole scheme is based on what are known to be optimistic ratings.

With regard to small pickups, my 1998 Nissan Frontier regular cab, with 2.4 L 4-cylinder and 5-speed manual, is rated at 22/26 mpg.

On my commute, which is mostly highway, I get 26 mpg time after time. On the few longer trips I have taken with it, I get about 29 mpg, so several of you must be correct about the not-so-good aerodynamics. I do have a/c and power steering, so it’s a very handy vehicle to have.

I suppose only the ancient Ford Ranger can achieve such economy today, now that all of the other small trucks have “grown up.”

Oh, and did I mention a mild to moderate recession triggered by people throttling back on overall spending and rising unemployment due to companies trimming down their bottom lines in response to higher fuel, labor and materials costs?

Good point, but it loses sight of the goal (to reduce foreign dependence):
If we are subject to another oil price shock due to strained supply (for whatever reason), the entire extra cost of oil (which will be passed on to the consumer) goes to the producers – that is to say not the US, since it a net importer.

We know this will happen again, and probably again after that. So do we want this money to go to the oil producers (ie Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, and many other potentially unfriendly nations), or to the government?

The problem of proper use of tax funds is a legitimate concern, but doesn’t override the fundamental purpose; we can’t be assured tax funds will be used irresponsibly. Personally, I’d rather see that kind of money being used to implement universal health care – with the right resolve I think it’s possible.

“MY2006 light-duty vehicles are estimated to average 21.0 miles per gallon (mpg). This average is the same as last year and in the middle of the 20.6 to 21.4 mpg range that has occurred for the past fifteen years, and five percent below the 1987 to 1988 peak of 22.1 mpg.”

Two words come to mind: “National Disgrace”

Sadly, that’s true. And that’s a big part of the problem.

then companies will think twice about locating in ex-urbs. Employees will too. Suddenly, we will “discover” public transportation. Cities will be more than quaint places that are to be avoided.

I’m not. Neither are the companies and their employees. And the only actions garnered because of the above will be at the voting booths. The mere idea will be rescinded in short order and those who openly suggested such will be further castigated and ostracized.

The implementation of one or both will only result in the elevated costs in transport being offloaded to consumers — considering that the vast majority of goods are transported by truck. Those truckers are more than willing to ask for the higher costs in fuel to be passed on to the customer in the form of higher prices on goods.

Secondly, the greater revenue acquired from these new taxes will enable state and federal government to spend like never before. If you thought that government mismanaged taxpayer money, then wait until they get a whiff of these new fuel taxes.

Depending on how high these taxes are, the desired effect of weaning people off their own rides and pushing them towards “sensible behavior” such as taking the train, bus or carpooling will go unrealized. Instead, the law of unintended consequences springs forth…….in the form of a pissed-off electorate clamoring for politicians to throw into the bay. This would be the “fate worse than death or scandal” for career politicians.

Oh, and did I mention a mild to moderate recession triggered by people throttling back on overall spending and rising unemployment due to companies trimming down their bottom lines in response to higher fuel, labor and materials costs?

“you do have the right to buy a product at a price that is agreeable to you and the person selling the product.”

That’s true as far as it goes, as long as I don’t use it to infringe upon your rights. I have the right to buy a bullhorn, but I don’t have the right to stand outside your bedroom window at night and yell through it. I can buy herbicide, but I can’t pour it all over your yard. When it comes to global warning, we are all in each other’s yards. If you figure out a way to only inflict global warming on yourself, be my guest.

“Actually, if you owned the land you could cut down all the trees you wanted to.”

Again, true enough, but at least in Colonial New England, the town green and the fields and forest outside the village proper were viewed as communal resources unless specifically owned by someone. My point was that there may or may not have been a law against your cattle grazing the common down to the roots, but you were going to face considerable pressure from your neighbors not to do it.

Look, I’m not suggesting that any vehicle be mandated or prohibited. I am suggesting that we should all be conscious that we are using up a finite resource, with serious detrimental consequences to our future, when we burn petrochemicals — and that we should act responsibly in how we do so.

And I find it infuriating that in a time when our leaders are eavesdropping without warrant, imprisoning Americans without charge or trial, trying to steal elections and dragging us into bloody, expensive wars, what really gets some folks truly angry is the suggestion that we be encouraged to use less fuel.

then companies will think twice about locating in ex-urbs. Employees will too. Suddenly, we will “discover” public transportation. Cities will be more than quaint places that are to be avoided.

Surely you must be joking!? I reached for my wallet right there and then…

A few years ago, my Dad said something to me that caused me to look at this in an entirely new way. “What if we recognize the phrase ‘promote the general welfare’ as an imperative?” Well… and why not. The rest of the preamble is.”

And the rest of the constitution explains specifically what rights the people of the country have and establishes restrictions on what the federal government can do. For a proper understanding of how the government was to promote the general welfare and how it was not to do this, you need to go beyond the preamble. The Federalist Papers are a good source for the thinking of the people who wrote the constitution, and of course, the actual words of the constitution are a good source.

“For one thing, the highway tax doesn’t even start to pay for the highways we use.”

In the state of California where I live, you are absolutely right, the taxes on fuel don’t even start to pay for the highways we use; however, they are used for plenty of other state programs. It would be nice if we could force the state government to spend the taxes collected for the reported purpose of maintaining the roads to actually maintain the roads. Unfortunately, they ignore the laws that have been passed by the voters through this state’s proposition process, and continue to spend the money as part of the general fund.

“Using a finite commodity stupidly and wastefully is not a “right.” Eighteenth-century Americans no more had the “right” to cut down all the trees in the area for their personal fuel consumption than we currently have the “right” to pollute as much as we want, for whatever reason.”
Actually, if you owned the land you could cut down all the trees you wanted to. A smart land owner would not cut down every tree because what would he do in the years to come. As much as they understood the need for sustainable harvesting and were able to apply it with the technologies of the time, they did. Without a sustainable source of lumber, you couldn’t expect to stay in the lumber business for very long. No lumber meant no money which meant no food at that time. Failure was not the option then that it is now, as they could not count on the government to rescue them.

“And I would add that some folks seem confused about the difference between rights and privelges. Buying the products you want (and cars are a product, much as we love them) at the price you want is not a right.”
In this country it is a right for two parties to come together and exchange products. You may not have the right to purchase a product at a given price, but you do have the right ot buy a product at a price that is agreeable to you and the person selling the product. If you look beyond the preamble to the constitution you will see exactly what rights are enumerated and what restrictions are placed on the federal government.

Fortunately, there is a systemic mechanism for reducing fossil fuel use: a “carbon tax.” The tax could be phased in slowly enough to allow people to plan and change their behavior. The tax could create so much revenue that other taxes (sales tax, income tax, and social security tax) could be scaled back greatly. The tax could easily be effective enough that CAFE would be irrelevant and could be dismantled completely.