The Alliance supports an unprecedented 30 percent to 40 percent CAFE increase over the next 15 years. We believe it’s time to end the debate. We urge Congress to act now, so we can continue with the hard work needed to further our efforts to improve fuel economy. To find the basis for an argument that the auto industry feels otherwise, one would have to dig pretty deep into the archives.

Canadian car culture-- or lack thereof-- is one reason our nation doesn't favor inefficient and inappropriate vehicles. We love our cars, but we're not "in love." A Canadian would never write a song like "Route 66;' a paean to the Trans-Canada Highway during a January blizzard would only scare its listeners. Roadside diners are the dens of long-haul truckers, not shrines to the open road celebrated in movies like Thelma and Louise. Don't get me wrong: there are plenty of pistonistas north of the 49th parallel; custom Civics and classic Mustangs abound. But a healthy (if stubborn) kind of pragmatism dominates Canadian car buying. Even sports cars are bought with city potholes and snow in mind.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) sets, monitors and enforces CAFE legislation. The agency does NOT, however, calculate the fuel economy figures. That job falls to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA makes its determinations by measuring the amount of carbon dioxide coming out of a vehicle's tailpipe. (The higher a vehicle's fuel economy, the less CO2 it expels.) The federal government does not classify carbon dioxide a pollutant. Environmentalists do. They consider CO2 a planet-warming "greenhouse gas." Now, the politics…

"One of the reasons we have such high energy prices is there are no alternatives," Mr. Boardman pronounced. So America's Energy Czar has decreed that alternative energy is no longer the PC term for snatching government grant money. All those dismissive conclusions bedeviling solar, biofuel, hydro, and wind energy for the past thirty years or more—they're not "cost effective solutions"-- are now moot at the highest levels. It's joyous news for long-time supporters of US energy independence, but how will this translate into government policy?

It's no secret that hybrids get a lot more media attention than actual sales. Gas may be cresting $3 a gallon, but Americans still love their big cars, pickup trucks and SUV's. And while manufacturers love the profits on these large vehicles, they've all got to meet federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Otherwise, the automaker must pay large fines. [Since 1983, the EPA has collected $650,831,288.50 in CAFE fines from BMW, Jaguar, Mercedes, Porsche, VW and others.] The US Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 currently dictates that an automaker's US passenger cars must achieve a combined fuel economy average of 27.5 mpg. The combined average for their 'light trucks' (that's SUV's and pickups) must be 21.6 mpg.

Supporters point to Brazil. In less than two decades, the Brazilians have just about achieved energy independence. Now that they grow millions of acres of sugar cane for fuel production, and have converted the vast majority of their vehicles to ethanol-friendly propulsion, nothing can cut off Brazil's energy supply or screw up their economy-- save a strike by the sugar cane farmers. Or a climactic catastrophe. Or a huge rise in labor costs. Or land values. Meanwhile, Brazilian retailers sell E85 for a buck-a-gallon less than gas. America seems ready, willing and able to follow suit: to make the jump from fossil to bio-fossil fuel. So what's the hold-up?

It never ceases to amaze me how little Americans learn from history–- or hysteria. History lessons do not draw an audience, though. No media outlet is going to predict life returning to normal when they can release The Day After Tomorrow. By the time the oil crisis is over, some new apocalypse will be taking shape; most people will not even recognize that they were duped into thinking the world is running out of oil.

Of course, I certainly understand people who use public transportation for commuting. Well, maybe not understand, but at least sympathize. Even in America, Land of the Free, Home of No-Money-Down, not everyone can afford a car. The hassle and expense of parking is also a fearsome disincentive for auto ownership. But what I can't understand, at all, on any level, is why people give credence to the factually flawed logic used by environmentalists to promote public transport.

"Sports wagons" are an excellent example. The acceleration, braking, and handling of today's station wagons make SUV's look like yesterday's station wagons. Extreme machines like Audi's blistering S4 Avant, Mercedes E55 AMG estate and Dodge's Magnum SRT-8 will not only embarrass every SUV on the road, but many thoroughbred sports cars as well. Granted: the sports wagons' cornering abilities are limited by their extended wheelbase and gross curb weight. But none of them sports the SUV's 'tipping over truck' icon on the driver's visor. Nuff said?

Diesels, even the newest and cleanest, are inherently dirty engines. Particulates and NOx compounds are the worst offenders, but diesel exhaust is laced with other carcinogens like benzene, ring compounds and aromatics. The distinctive smell of diesel exhaust is largely a function of aldehydes, another family of unpleasantly harmful compounds.

Buyers pay a large premium for a hybrid Escape or a Prius, presuming that the increased fuel mileage makes them a better environmental citizen. While there's no question that the Toyota, Honda and Ford hybrids are more fuel efficient than their conventionally powered equivalents, the difference is nowhere near as great as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) numbers suggest.

Sure, a few "challenges" remain before the 750hL will replace the semi-electric Toyota Prius as the tree hugger's favourite. At the moment, only two specialist filling stations offer super-cooled hydrogen (LA and Munich). There are "safety issues" surrounding the use of a fuel that can freeze your fingers right off. Even so, BMW's self-confessed "transitional vehicle" marks the global automotive industry's path towards a hydrogen-powered future.

For decades, the UK government and "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" have accepted, promoted and adhered to the view that cars create unacceptable levels of pollution. Cars are, therefore, a bad thing. Driving should be actively discouraged like, say, child molesting. The vast majority of the electorate demonstrate their unequivocal disagreement by, wait for it, buying a car.