View Single Post
Old 02-01-2017, 06:33 AM   #24 (permalink)
sendler
Master EcoModder
 
sendler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Syracuse, NY USA
Posts: 2,935

Honda CBR250R FI Single - '11 Honda CBR250R
90 day: 105.14 mpg (US)

2001 Honda Insight stick - '01 Honda Insight manual
90 day: 60.68 mpg (US)

2009 Honda Fit auto - '09 Honda Fit Auto
90 day: 38.51 mpg (US)

PCX153 - '13 Honda PCX150
90 day: 104.48 mpg (US)

2015 Yamaha R3 - '15 Yamaha R3
90 day: 80.94 mpg (US)

Ninja650 - '19 Kawasaki Ninja 650
90 day: 72.57 mpg (US)
Thanks: 326
Thanked 1,315 Times in 968 Posts
The problem is always the same. We put the burden on the auto manufacturers to "push" fuel efficient cars on the buyers who don't even have the slightest care in the world about fuel efficiency with gas at $2.39. You can't force a retailer to sell something that people don't want to buy. And still stay in buisiness. If the goal is to get people to quit burning up so much fossil fuel, it must be heavily taxed. And then the windfall can be given back to the working classes in other breaks so they can still get to work such as the subsidies that are currently running on electric cars and programs like the successful "cash fo clunkers" to get these old pick up trucks off of the road. Windfall money would also be available for loans to green energy developement, mass transit, efficient housing, food subsidies. A carbon tax doesn't have to hurt the poor and middle class. And then the rich guys can drive whatever they want and gripe every time they fill up to pay for the mess they are making. Many people have been saying it for a long time and now people like Musk have a loud voice. Start phasing in a big carbon tax now.
  Reply With Quote