Quote:
Originally Posted by metromizer
A wise man once said "If a story doesn't make sense, follow the money..."
In the state of California, I pay about 50cents/gallon in taxes to my local, state, and federal governments. <http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/gasswapfaq.htm#2>
Why would any of these tax collecting entities want me to purchase a fuel-sipper?
If the end game was solely to clean up our air, the Federal and State regulatory agencies would use total emissions per mile driven as the metric, instead of emissions per gallon burned. I contend that this is no 'test protocol oversight'.
|
Sure looking to the money trail is important. At least it is one reasonable place to begin looking for an explanation. But my point is that looking for "solely" anything as an "end game" is a reductionist approach to analyzing the history and the policy. "The money" trail will lead to multiple factions of politicians' supporting coalitions, some of which conflict with each other: environmentalists, technology companies, automakers, tax protest groups, and voter perceptions and expectations all introduce other power dynamics into policy choices such as gas taxes and emissions standards. It's quite a bit more complex than that article's argument.