On the topic of who should be aloud to buy these trucks I have a fair solution. Since we allow them exemptions for their size (weight), that basically makes them commercial vehicles then we should require all drivers of these vehicles obtain and hold a commercial license.

Smaller pickups and SUVs would then have to follow passenger car emissions and mpg requirements, etc. There for they would be available to non-commercial licensees.

Larger pickups and SUVs that are exempt from the car regulations would require commercial licensees.

That way you can still get what ever vehicle you need. But it discourages people who don't have a legitimate use from buying beyond their needs. Bonus is the stricter commercial licensing may help weed out the worst drivers. Maybe not, but I can hope.

When a large pickup truck gets 12 mpg and the person does not need it for work, they are using the fuel of two vehicles. Insurance companies ask the person how many miles they drive, to set rates. The DMV could ask the same question every year when you register your vehicle. A small gas tax from the Feds and states is not enough of a reason for a gas guzzler owner to drive less, if they have the money. You could levy a registration charge for such vehicles, but that is after the fact. Why were they allowed to buy such a vehicle in the first place if they did not need it for work? I think that this may be one of the reasons for the CO2 laws that are being attempted in some states. Displacement, weight, fuel consumption and pollution are all related.

I may want to buy a large pickup to tow my boat, but if I can not show that I need it for work and routinely drive 20k miles per year, the answer is no. This is not a huge restriction of my personal freedoms, it is in the public good. I can have my boat towed by a towing service, rent a truck for the weekend, leave it docked/stored where I use it, or not have a boat at all. It is my choice, but buying a 12 mpg vehicle that I commute with most of the time, just so I can tow my boat a few weekends per year is using the fuel for two vehicles. Look at it this way, I could drive a large moving van 365 days per year to an from work, because I move some things one day per year. This does not make sense, when I could rent a moving van for that one day or hire a moving service. Not many people drive moving vans to work, but a lot of large pickups do not get a lot better mileage and there are millions of them out there.

I may want to buy a large pickup to tow my boat, but if I can not show that I need it for work and routinely drive 20k miles per year, the answer is no. This is not a huge restriction of my personal freedoms, it is in the public good.

Sorry, SJC - it's still a free enough country that we aren't obligated to prove 'need' for what we drive. You may be willing to cede this particular liberty over to the government for the 'public good', but most of the rest of us aren't...thank God.

"@Stan Peterson Kudos on not replying in kind to Treehugger's personal attacks

@Treehugger Namecalling and personal attacks will do nothing to further your arguements. Stan could have just as easily said that you kiss GORE's ample behind. To state that anyone has no place on this site is totally out of line"

You obviously haven't read some of Stan's previous posts.

I don't agree with banning people from buying large vehicles. When you start eating away at freedoms like that you are beginning a dangerous slide that could have impacts worse than the one you are trying to solve. Instead, simply make it more difficult, with more hoops to jump through, and tack on extra costs that incorporate the actual costs that those vehicles incur on others and the environment. Then it will become almost prohibitive.
- increased rates of respiratory and other diseases and the resultant changes to health insurance rates
- increased road infrastrucutre and maintenance
- add a large vehicle tax to help pay for the trillion dollar Iraq oil war that consumers have had to fit the bill for, but corporations have made the profits from.
- put a dollar value on the impacts of climate change and rising sea levels. This is a difficult thing to do, obviously, but some attempt could be made.

I like that idea a lot Jason.

BTW, the above was from me.

What you've described is nice, but when are we going to see one of these behemoth Trucks and SUV from GM get more than 40 MPG? You would think they could at least make the materials that make these vehicles lighter, but that's expecting too much from GM. Oh well, if GM wants to lose money then who are we to stop them.

On the topic of who should be aloud to buy these trucks I have a fair solution. Since we allow them exemptions for their size (weight), that basically makes them commercial vehicles then we should require all drivers of these vehicles obtain and hold a commercial license.

Smaller pickups and SUVs would then have to follow passenger car emissions and mpg requirements, etc. There for they would be available to non-commercial licensees.

Larger pickups and SUVs that are exempt from the car regulations would require commercial licensees.

That way you can still get what ever vehicle you need. But it discourages people who don't have a legitimate use from buying beyond their needs. Bonus is the stricter commercial licensing may help weed out the worst drivers. Maybe not, but I can hope.

This whole thread sounds a lot like yesterday's proposed law in Mississippi that would BAN obese people from eatng in fast food resturants. After all, their health issues effect everyone's health care costs, insurance rates, even employability, etc. I'm not sure how they planned on enforcing it (a scale in the "place order here" line, or maybe scanners at the drive thru that read the car tags at toll booths to set off the alarm that there is a fat person attempting to violate their anti-carbo(n)hydrate cap. Maybe obese people could buy offsets by hiring people to burn some on treadmills, or even people who "fast" and therefore reduce the overall dangers carbo consumption.
Seriously folks, this IS America. People are rushing OUR borders to get IN, not get out. Government intervention generally does more harm than good (how many coal fired plants is China building for the good of their citizens? - one a week).
I know, I know, I have no right to be on this board (but I bet I made some people smile).
Be well and God Bless,
Tagamet

In America you cannot tell people what they are allowed to buy and what they are not allowed to buy. If you want to change habits you need to affect their wallet. A $1 a gallon gas tax will change many but not all purchases. Some people will continue to buy large trucks but at $4 a gallon it will be FAR LESS people. Companies and people who haul a boat can still buy the big truck. A large gas tax is the best way to cause Americans to switch to smaller cars.

I DO NOT want the gas tax alone in a vacuum. I want federal taxes lowered to account for the increased gas revenue.

@hampden
I'm not very confident in Congress' willingness to cut taxes FOR ANYTHING. Artificially increasing consumption costs will have an effect on everyone - from the lower income folks to the people with enough money to put people to work (middle to upper income folks). Increasing the cost of transporting everyone's goods is a heck of a price to pay on a lot of levels.
In my heart and in my head I truly believe that the market demands for plugin vehicles is nearing a tipping point where ecconomies of scale will broaden their appeal. At least in an election year there's a good chance that people will be promising free money (ours) for various causes. Maybe some tax subsidies will be offered to offset the initial costs of the battery ramp up. If not, it will be up to the market (us) to evidence the demand for an alternative to oil. Right now we obviously have none.
Be well and God Bless,
Tagamet

""""""it will be up to the market (us) to evidence the demand for an alternative to oil."""""

Didn't the market respond to Toyota's RAV4EV with very high interest, and Toyota couldn't fill the orders? They then canned the project after a few hundred cars, before anyone had an opportunity to realize they were available.

Well, with Tesla about to release their new sports car and plans a couple years down the road for another modest Joe-shmoe version, the market will soon shift and there won't be a thing the big auto companies can do because Li-ion batteries are not patented. IN the end, market forces will drive the change, but of course the big corps have done everything in their power to stall it for 20 years.

MarkMC,
Battery technologies have a LOT of intellectual property patents and chemistry patents.
The telling difference at this point is that there is competition between and among the Big Guys. It's going to happen and it's going to happen soon.
Be well and God Bless,
Tagamet

Jason

I like your proposal it makes quite a lot of sense, but as Tagamet underline it we are in America, the free market, etc.. the solution is : gaz tax, 1 $/Gallon that you increase every year up to reach the reduction in oil consumption you want to achieve. Of course this should be accompagnied by a reduction of income tax in order to keep a constant level of overwhole tax. The problem is that on average american people are so uneducated that even such a simple concept can be understood, so politician have to play with CAFE standard and inefficient regulation on that kind where there is always luphole so that GM and other can keep making truck by million just for the sake of the free market. By the way, to day, investors asked airline companies to charge 25$ for the 2nd luggage, that a good sign guys that the american dream of infinite abundance is about to collapse, ho yes the right to be eat twice more than you need and then the right to buy a truck as big as you wish to move your excess of weight, everything bulky, that's the beauty of the free market. I agree that is a very small sign put a pretty significant one for what is to come, believe me 10 years from now when we will have to share the declining production of oil with 1.3 billions chinese, american peoples will have all th time to regret that their governement didn't impose a gaz tax that would had prepare the country to be more energy efficient.

Ok that's pretty harsh but I am just trying to show the absurdity of this simplistic reasonning that the free market will regulate everything right by itself, that is indeed the stupidest thing that have ever been said or written. It just creates disaster an catastrophe for the sake of profit, and not necessarily customer satisfaction (I am from europe and I can tell you that the general quality of available product in US is way inferior to what you can find in europe (especially consumers product)

Today america import 60% of itsoil comsumption (against 30% in 1970) tomorrow america will not only import 80% of the oil they need (the national production is declining a 5% a year) but also the fuel efficient cars that they can not make, because it is nnot profitable,right ? but that american people will more and more need to keep their mobility....

Fortunately GM will still be allowed to make truck ....

Treehugger,
Just for a little historical perspective, just how many trees are LEFT to HUG in Europe? The area of Pennsylvania in which I live was colonized by people from switzerland who came here in the 1700's because they had already raped all of the trees from their homeland. Of course they hadn't done that out of the EVIL profit motive, they did it because they were governed by Monarchys (at best) and dictators at worst.
Until we have an alternative to oil for transportation, we're all going to end up in the same boat. If it's any comfort to you, America is a much larger boat. We can't ride our little bikes from one country to the next.
If you can find a tree to hug in Europe, I'd advise you to go hug it QUICK, or you could come over here. We still have millions of trees in Pennsylvania.
Hope this helps,
Tagamet

Tagamet,

The density of populations is for sure higher in Europe than here in america but still the percentage of forest land is quite significant, almost 30% in france, even if it was much less 100 years, I am not sure it is a good example for what you want to illustrate.

I am pretty sure that an oil crash would be more difficult to cope with here in america (for a lot of reasons) than in europe (at least in the first place), and by the way the 70s oil crisis had much less effect in europe than in US, we never had to wait at the gas pump in the 70s as peoples did here in US. Anyway I suggest you to read the following link

http://www.kunstler.com/spch_petrocollapse.html

you will understand better the futility of this "free market" argument that justify to produce gazz guzzler that people can buy as they wish even if they don't need it and even if it requires to spend 2 trillions $ in oil war just for maintaining "consummer choice and satisfaction or cool marketing and other irresponsible point"

Tagamet, even though this IS America and this is out of subject and all that, losing weight isn't a bad thing. It tends to make life a lot more bearable and a lot of health issues would be solved almost over night. Besides, can the average fat guy afford to have stomach-reduction surgery?

If you're interested in chatting more about GM and the environment, GMnext is hosting a chat with executive Brent Dewar on Wednesday from 12-1 p.m. EST. If you want to take part, go to http://www.gmnext.com/LiveChat.aspx and register with your e-mail address.

Treehugger,
Are you an American?

Gerald,
No arguement that being overweight is closely related to health problems. The agruement is whether our Gov't should try to regulate what you eat.

Doug,
Thanks for the link!

@ Treehug,

First, I love your passion. It only takes a few of you to get things moving in some direction. However, as to your statement:
"that is indeed the stupidest thing that have ever been said or written."

Are you at all familiar with the TV program "The Jerry Springer Show?"

Tagamet, obesity isn't just related to health problems. Obesity infleunces everything we or others do. GM's trucks and SUVs cater to our love affair with Big Cars. Why? perhaps because we are "big" ourselves. In Japan, most of the stuff they make cater to their small, physical builds. But when Japanese automakers make cars for America, it's always "When in Rome". We have, due to many factors, turned into a "BBP Nation" and because we are a bunch a fat folks, that plays a factor in what we make, what we design. It's got to stop!

Gerald,
HONEST! I understand! I just don't think that the means justifies the end - government intervention should not be used to punish people into behaving rationally (read: as defined by the GOVENMENT).
We agree on the "end" of healthier people, but we are worlds apart on the MEANs.
Please don't think that because I disagree with you, that I don't respect you or your opinion. Everyone here, including myself, has the absolute RIGHT to be wrong. At least so far....

Jason,

In the US, we ALREADY require a commercial license for owners of large pickups and vans; though the rules do vary a little from state to state. In California, I was able to drop my commercial license by pointing out that I had seats in the back of my van but here in Colorado, the weight of my diesel pickup requires that I pay the extra license fee for a commercial vehicle although I am not making any money by operating it on my "hobby" farm and driving to my day job twice a week (I am putting less than 7000 miles a year on it). With the little amount of driving I do, it isn't worth it to own a commuter vehicle in addition to the heavy hauler.

Besides, I have been in three serious traffic accidents (including a head on with another pickup driver) and I value all that protective steel around my fragile irreplaceable body. I owned a little Chevette that I could have been driving the day of the head on, but I decided my full-size Bronco needed to be driven a little that day. There is a cost in human pain and suffering that needs to be factored in before you make a blanket statement that "smaller is better."

Mathew,

Some people may not be willing to have the government tell them that they can not buy a gas guzzling pickup, but many of those same people seem to be willing to be talked into a war based on lies and have their phones, emails and internet traffic monitored.

I would rather have freedom of communications without illegal wiretaps and be told the truth about potential military actions. I have no problem with the government telling me that I am not allowed to waste fuel for "fun". Fuel is a national security issue and goes WAY beyond personal whim.

I think that we should ask people if they think it is OK for people to be wasteful, just because they want to be and harm others. I think you would lose the bet on this one.

sjc
"I think that we should ask people if they think it is OK for people to be wasteful, just because they want to be and harm others. I think you would lose the bet on this one."

Ignoring your other concerns (for oh so many valid reasons), if you word your question: "Do you want the US govt to attempt to regulate your personal behavior for what IT deems as the good of the many" you'd lose. Marx and Hillary would recognise the sentiment though.