[lbo-talk] more on fuel economy

[John Thornton]

Andy F wrote:
> machine around to make efficient vehicles the in thing.  One might
> imagine an exchange, "well of *course* I got such a small car!  My
> god, you could hide a whole um urban gang underneath an Excursion, and
> an urban could be hiding in the back seat and you'd never know it
> until it was too late!  At least with a Civic you can check things
> out!"
>
> (BTW, snopes is all over these scenarios:
> <http://www.snopes.com/horrors/robbery/slasher.asp>
> <http://snopes.com/horrors/madmen/backseat.asp>)
>
> I suppose the marketing angle could be taken advantage of, but is this
> approach really supposed to work in the absence of something like a
> carbon tax?
The marketing machine will pimp whatever need be to make a buck. If 
Congress mandates and average of 35 MPG for light trucks and 50 MPG for 
cars the marketeers will take care of selling them. The point being 
Congress has to mandate the changes.
The efficiency rating needs to be continually ratcheted upward as well. 
They were allowed to stagnate for years.
It'll never be carbon neutral. That is physically impossible. They can 
be made hugely more efficient but reaching for (or expecting to reach I 
should say) carbon neutral is pie-in-the-sky stuff.

I do care about changing people minds because if you don't do that you 
engender an intense dislike for the policies implemented which makes 
rolling them back easier.
Taxes can help but only in a very limited manner.
Rebates for efficient cars and huge taxes on inefficient vehicles mean 
the ass-hat who insists on buying a Hummer can help subsidize some 
working class persons Honda.
This helps some but in the end getting the ass-hat out of his Hummer is 
the goal.

John Thornton