The second you christen a “better solution” by law, you put a halt to innovation. The hybrid may be the best solution for even most missions, but that doesn’t make it best for all. Furthermore, what are the environmental effects of over subsidizing something so that the suppliers start getting sloppy? Personally, I don’t think we need to push the Lithium miners to take short cuts to meet demand.

The hybrid will be subsidized enough by it’s better efficiency. Watch out for the temptation to be too clever and think we have the solution. Today’s solution may be tomorrow’s problem, so there is no reason to write today’s science into law. If you want lower consumption, then tax overconsumption. If you want lower pollution, then mandate it or tax it. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER let a politician get away with mandating a solution. It’s always a BAD idea.

And therein lies the problem. For a lot of people, in my experience, they look at the lower up front purchase costs. That is, hypothetically speaking, say you have two nearly identical cars. One is a four door sedan and the other is the same model with a hybrid engine which costs $3000 more, but gets 10% better mpg. By now you should see where this is going.

In overly simplistic but quite realistic analysis, many if not most will choose the lower cost car, due to many things, among them the (in)ability to get a higher loan amount foremost for folks. Gas would have to go a lot higher before people will choose the more expensive hybrid, or hybrids will have to cost the same or less than the non-hybrid.

Or, suppose we create a situation where existing gas taxes remain in effect for people filling up at the pump, but waive the taxes for the consumer filling up a hybrid. Not in a tax credit but right there at the pump. Might this be difficult at first to set up? Likely. However, I think this could possibly be effective if a driver sees that he or she could have saved $10 at the pump just by having the foresight to get a hybrid.

Ford needs to be a full-line car and truck manufacturer. They may not sell 900k F-Series trucks like they used to (was it just 2-3 years ago?), but each F-150 still brings in roughly $10k profit per unit –real money that Alan Mulally can use to, say, bring over the Fiesta and Focus and not worry (too much) about the F-cars’ ultimate profitability.

If Ford is profitable, then they don’t need to go hat in hand to the feds, do they? So… they need the F-150’s profits.

Of course, everyone here wants the F-150 (and the Silverado and the Tundra and the Ram) to be more fuel-efficient, but unregular’s problem is he doesn’t understand the balance between engineering and costs.

Ford could build an F-150 entirely out of aluminum tomorrow and it would get, say, 50% better mpg with existing powertrains –but would be so expensive (say, $40,000 at the most optimistic, assuming wonderful economies of scale) that no one would buy it –so all that wonderful fuel efficiency is tethered to the showroom floor.

I’m personally not a fan of trucks –but I’m even less of a fan of the NYT. The less we hear from them, the better.

LD: “I really can’t stand selfish jerk-offs that {unpopular act}. Don’t they know that their behavior is hurting the rest of us by {arguable negative consequence}? I wish that {unpopular act} was illegal — or at least taxed heavily — to stop them and help save the rest of us.”

CR: “Hey, it’s a free market . . . if I want to {unpopular act} I will. {unpopular act} makes me happy, and who are you to try and tell me I should compromise? I think you must be a socialist!

LD: “But what about {arguable negative consequence}? This is a negative externality and you’re skating without paying for it! Don’t you care?”

CR: “Sorry, but I don’t believe that {unpopular act} even causes {arguable negative consequence}!”

It seems that many or most posters here would support one side of this argument or the other on philosophical grounds. Which side are you on???

Rather than legislate away large trucks (which some people and businesses actually DO need), how come no one is willing to go to bat to allow us to easily import the nicely appointed subcompacts that are sold in other countries?

Honestly, the only reason I drive a bigger car than I really need is because – unless you move way upmarket – the smaller ones are so damned chintzy and uncomfortable.

Heh…

Well, I’ll be darned if I don’t find myself in agreement with you. I must check the temperature in Hell.

THEN I’ll be willing to look for some evidence of your baseless argument that my choice of transportation is somehow negatively impacting you.

So, let me understand this: until everyone is perfect, you refuse to acknowledge your obligation and shared responsibility in society?

The greatest evil in the world is one person trying to ENFORCE their will on another.

Yes, and it really depends on perspective, doesn’t it? That is to say: “who is doing the enforcing”? Your (and this is the collective “you”, not you personally) willingness to conspicuously consume enforces certain requirements on others, from increased air pollution to economic roller-coaster to blood oil.

Let’s be clear: we’re talking about your freedom, here. Not someone else’s freedom, which you’re choosing to disrespect or ignore because every other person on the planet isn’t a perfect angel, and thusly have no right to an opinion on you.

That seems rather self-centred, if you’ll pardon my opinion.

Even people who can’t do the math eventually figure out that gas is so cheap (even at $4 a gallon) that fuel efficiency is just not a big deal for most of them.

Was it Lexus that recently put out the ad about the several different costs to owning a car? That was genius. That is what works.

When I see you people quit sucking up the fruits of our industrialized society, and start producing all of your own food, shelter, clothing and everything else you use… In short, start living like the Mennonites (whom I actually respect),

THEN I’ll be willing to look for some evidence of your baseless argument that my choice of transportation is somehow negatively impacting you.

The greatest evil in the world is one person trying to ENFORCE their will on another.

I test drove an Odyssey just last weekend! It’s a great vehicle, and definitely on the list when the time comes. Thanks for the suggestion…Go Spartys! (Sorry, couldn’t resist!)

I don’t pay much attention to their automotive columns. I drive what I want/need to drive.

What about people like me who live in areas where all of the roads are dirt…

When storms come through, roads get washed out, people can get stranded and your fuel efficient subaru outback doesn’t have the ground clearance to tackle roads that have been washed away.

My pickup truck has all the capabilities that I need, I still don’t need it for work, but i need it to haul my log splitter, and to tow a cord of firewood home from the neighbors.

People that live in cities don’t need pickup trucks, but that doesn’t mean people like me who live in central New Hampshire should suffer for their bad decision making!!

Thank you and goodnight, Peter.

There is a legitimate need for the full size truck in the rural Midwest (that’s where I live). For example, the hobbyist farmer who needs to drive to the back side of his property. He needs the ground clearance of a full size truck. Contractors and construction workers need a vehicle with large towing capacities and off road capabilities.

But I don’t really expect any of you to agree with me. Bottom line is unless you need a full size pickup (and believe me, there are lots of times you do) you’ll never understand the need for them. I spent many years driving compact trucks and they are absolutely useless when you try to do hard work with them.

You do realize that by equating the two, you’ve just said that the US has been Marxist state since the first tax dollar was collected?

“We’re gonna spread the wealth around” – Barak Hussein Obama.

Pretty much the same thing.

And the whole thing about comments getting political was actually fueled by TTAC’s baiting headline and commentary, and the reason poor unregular got a little nuts is because he agreed with the article, and because he is seemingly in the minority view, got some good-natured ribbing for it. As much as I don’t agree with him, I didn’t read anything that was bad enough to ban him. Give the guy a break. I am also guilty of ribbing him, but it was all in good fun. Meant no harm! I’ve been on much nastier sites (LLN), and I’m glad that TTAC is keeping this one sane. But don’t take the fun out either!

Yes, I do. People do not exist in unidirectional system where their choices affect no one but themselves. You have a responsibility to society and to the environment, and to varying degrees, most people live within those responsibilities.

If you didn’t, you’d be a sociopath.

I guess I just want to step through this, please correct me if I’m not reading you correctly. So if a person driving, for example a 2009 Ford F-150, knows just what they’re consuming and polluting and acknowledge this and can justify their choice of vehicle, is this better, worse or equal to the ignorant consumer who gets the exact same truck without considering the same consequences?

We’re on the tricky ground of moral relativism here, but if you “better’ as in more moral, then probably, yes, if for no other reason than you have acknowledged your responsibility.

But you raise a good question: is it more or less moral to know and acknowledge what degree you’ve compromised responsibility versus just acting without thinking. I’d say that tactically it’s a wash, but it puts you in a better mental place to make those kind of decisions in the future.

Which leads into Geeber’s point:

And that is for individuals to decide, not professional busybodies who think that they “know” what other people need.

A lot of people don’t know where, when or how to decide that, hence the point of regulation. I cannot to climate studies, I cannot do carcinogen/teratogen/toxicity testing and I cannot measure air quality. I can do power usage testing, but that’s because I own the tools to do it–most people don’t. So I depend on government to, at the least, test and enforce disclosure.

Many people aren’t aware of the impact of their choices, choose to ignore them and/or would actively make the wrong choice if it benefited them. You need some sort of shared social framework to enforce responsibility. Some of these are pretty basic (”Thou shalt not kill”, etc) but many are subtle and complex enough that it takes a government to decide and enforce them (”Thou, as the CEO of thee company, shalt not manipulate thy stock price to thine advantage, under the following circumstances…”). Others aren’t immediately and/or locally evident and must be addressed on a strategic timescale (”Thou shalt not catch every fish in the ocean and inadvertently poison those thou dost not catch”).

People, especially in large groups, are not able to do this, because people, on average, suck. This little fact has frustrated ideologues on both extremities of the political spectrum. Until people become perfect little godlets, we’re going to need government and regulation. It’s the degree and interpretation, not the existence, that we should be debating.

As for the NYT article, I think Pch101 has made a very cogent response. I can add little.

As for some of the comments in this post: every once a while I find a good old-fashioned flame fest entertaining as hell, but I’m sure glad that Robert keeps his iron fist on the comments section because it gets old fast.

And that is for individuals to decide, not professional busybodies who think that they “know” what other people need.

And the government has enough to worry about without attempting to micromanage peoples’ lives. We tried this with Prohibition and the 55 mph speed limit; both failed miserably. And their failure was a good thing.

So do you mean a social responsibility?

I guess I just want to step through this, please correct me if I’m not reading you correctly. So if a person driving, for example a 2009 Ford F-150, knows just what they’re consuming and polluting and acknowledge this and can justify their choice of vehicle, is this better, worse or equal to the ignorant consumer who gets the exact same truck without considering the same consequences?

Perhaps I’m tired, but this sentence seems at odds with the rest of your post, which I agree with.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

While I’m not a fan of any of the people you listed, I’d rather be associated with them than Marxists like Obama and the NYT. I’m sure that by January we’ll all be banned from calling anybody names anyway, so I’m just getting my fill! :)