>> It sounds like Jordan and Dwayne's idea is to turn the
>> marketing machine around to make efficient vehicles
>> the in thing.
>
> I can't speak for Jordan but that's not what I mean.
>
> Not at all.
It's not what I mean, either. I think the marketing machine will do whatever it is they are going to do. If Congress mandated that all vehicles sold in the US were to be no more than 8 ounces of dog turd, the marketing folks would find a way to polish it and we'll love it, I'm sure.
> I'm saying that all vehicles should be federally
> mandated to achieve zero carbon output or as near as
> possible by a fixed date. This means the end of the
> internal combustion engine: at least as we currently
> understand it.
Well, I don't mean that either :)
I don't think we can set a fixed date, because we don't have a way (yet) to achieve that goal. What I think I'd like to see is a return to a steady increase in mileage and emission standards, and maybe a coupling to Income tax breaks for those who trade up to better mileage and emissions. Now that's something to sell!
---
One thing I was thinking about this morning vis Wojtek's "tax them until they bleed" scenario is: taxation is a very inefficient mechanism for change. Ok, so you got the guy paying a tax.
a) He's still got the same carbon footprint b) You've got money that you will squander
If it was truely the case that "money can buy carbon reduction" then maybe we could talk about it, but it's far more efficient to point the "you must pay" hose at the producers of the cars and trucks. Yes, it takes retooling. So what? All those blacksmiths are out of work, too. Big deal.
/jordan