WTF!!!

"You can't make people buy a more efficient vehicle."

Well, of course you can. They may not like it, but the government determines tax rates, what can drive on the roads, how things can emit pollution, etc. They could easily force everyone to drive more efficient vehicles with tools at their disposal.

"When the CAFE standards were first in effect, people went from station wagons to SUVs."

Because the government you criticize had a two-tier CAFE standard. If there were one CAFE standard, that wouldn't have happened.

"Rising fuel prices alone will be enough to buy efficient vehicles. Overall SUV sales are dropping like a rock without these standards."

Until (and if) fuel prices go back down, at which point will go back to wasting.

"The market will decide, not mandates."

That's your hope, not a necessity.

"Because the government you criticize had a two-tier CAFE standard."

This is exactly why I don't trust the government in the first place. They do more harm than good, putting a noose around the market with layers of regulations.

"That's your hope, not a necessity."

It is a necessity. And as sales figures show, it is working. Barring major advances in biofuels and synthetics, I doubt we'll see gas prices below $2.50 again.

"This is exactly why I don't trust the government in the first place. They do more harm than good, putting a noose around the market with layers of regulations."

That's silly. Without regulations, you'd be drinking polluted water, breathing polluted air, poisoned by food, and people would be dying in much larger numbers on the roads, etc. Really, the world is more complex than can be accounted for by absolutist ideology. Markets have their place as does regulation.

"It is a necessity. And as sales figures show, it is working."

And if the government taxed cheap fuel to $2.50/gallon, the same exact thing would happen. The only difference is the money would stay in this country to be invested in worthwhile things (eg, moving away from oil and car dependence, paying down the debt, etc). Instead, we send hundreds of billions of dollars extra overseas on an annual basis.

"Barring major advances in biofuels and synthetics, I doubt we'll see gas prices below $2.50 again."

Hard to tell, now isn't it? We thought the same thing in the early 80s and during the first Gulf War. No one would have thought oil would go below $10/barrel in the late 90s.

Point is, consumers respond to consumer prices. The components of that pricing are irrelevant with respect to the effect of price on demand.

"When overzealous regulatory agencies think they have to remove every last part-per-billion of pollutant, the costs outweigh the benefits."

Strawman argument. You made no such distinction in your original statements.

"When overzealous regulatory agencies think they have to remove every last part-per-billion of pollutant, the costs outweigh the benefits."

That's a glib generality, meaning it could be true depending on what you mean by "overzealous". Point is, you have no idea what the cost-benefit calculus is for a given issue a priori, so to make a blanket statement like that (like many of your blanket statements) is silly.

"I see a lot of environmental groups trying to push things to just that extreme. Patrick Moore, for instance, founded Greenpeace but later left the organization because it became too extreme."

Relevance? Or now are you just moving on from government-bashing to ecogroup-bashing?

"Creating an artificial distortion in the marketplace."

I hate to break it to you, the price of consumer gasoline is about one of the most distorted ones there is -- and it has a lot to do with US foreign and military policy. Libertarianism is a wonderful ideal only because it never has to be tested in reality. There are no free markets, and there never will be, so to complain about the effects of regulation on price is silly. It's always going to be that way as long as governments exist. They influence things in all kinds of ways.

"Meanwhile, the deregulated railroad industry in the United States is experienceing swift growth, with new locomotives pushing the envelope of fuel efficiency."

Another glib generality with no discernible relevance to the discussion.

If you want to spout more silly libertarian rhetoric, have at it. I don't feel like shooting it down any more.

Well, the Republicans were never going to shoot themselves in the foot by tipping GM and/or Ford into bankruptcy in an election year, were they? The standards announced today are just more hide-the-salami tactics. No wonder Detroit welcomed the proposal.

It would have been better to treat all vehicles not registered for legitimate commercial use as one category and set two targets for those: a corporate average of e.g. 30-35 mpg and a minimum of 20-25 mpg. By legitimate, I mean that commercial operators should be asked at the time of registration of a low MPG vehicle that it will really be used for hauling heavy loads on a regular basis to support the business, e.g. in construction, ranching, landscaping etc.

It's the full-size trucks and SUVs that cause the most problems. Btw, the new standards do not affect vehicles above 8500 lbs GVWR like the Hummer.

Cervus -

freight is transported on the road in Europe in spite of the relatively high cost of fuel because, for historical reasons, the railway systems are not compatible across national borders. For expample, Spain and Portugal each have their own track gauges. Locomotives typically have to be changed at each border due to incompatible electric grids. Etc. The EU has not yet overcome these hurdles.

As for cars, those in Europe are on average smaller, lighter and rarely feature more than four-cylinder engines, precisely because of high taxes on initial purchase and fuel. The only thing that's cheaper is insurance because we don't allow our trial lawyers to run wild.

Joseph:

"Relevance? Or now are you just moving on from government-bashing to ecogroup-bashing?"

You had said:

"Really, the world is more complex than can be accounted for by absolutist ideology."

I was attempting to show by example that absolutist ideology is not exclusive to any one side. Moore left Greenpeace because they became an extremist organization. Perhaps I chose poorly.

I was attempting to show that I am not an absolutist regarding regulation. I think that once they hit that point of diminishing returns, that's where we should stop.

"Libertarianism is a wonderful ideal only because it never has to be tested in reality."

Look up New York City in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

I'm done here.

"I think they could have done more, and I believe that if the Democrats can make gains in the House and Senate and win the Presidency in 2008, you'll see even higher CAFE standards."

Its not apartisan issue. Guys like Carl Levin, who is otherwise very liberal, who are from big GM/Ford states oppose CAFE. Which is OK, since it is a stupid useless policy.

Hampden,

The US chooses to avoid excessive gas taxes for good political and governmental reasons.

The politics are obvious, taxes are never popular, especially on items considered neccessities.

The good governance reasons are that taxes introduce morals and inefficiency into markets. Maybe you and I agree with the morals of encouraging vehicles that use less fuel. Other people favor their moral right to buy whatever they want. The market inefficiency is that it introduces an artificial cost that all consumers and businesses have to pay, leading to more expensive transportation, which increases the price of virtually all goods, leading to inflation and a slow down of our economy.

If done gradually, I agree that artificially inflated gas prices would benefit the US without harming the economy, but I say this in a moralistic qualitative way. The real economy of the situation is harder to determine.

I love how the same morons that whine about suvs drive 4 motor speedboats on the weekend each one of which guzzles more gas then a fleet of suvs nd belts out more pollution then many small towns entire stock of suvs.



Pot meet kettle..

Thats a joke. Taxing is marxist? It seems quite American to me. Marxist would be rationing gas or setting a selling price or cap regardless of the actual cost.

Raising gas taxes just makes gas priced closer to its true cost. A cost the government currently subsidises. Slowly and predictibly raising the gas tax would hurt the US economy less then any other means to conserve.

Please don't feed the juvenile troll. Thank you.