Quote:
Originally Posted by ksa8907
Is it actually a bad thing to axe the cafe requirement?
Forcing consumers to drive more efficient vehicles maybe isn'tthe best way to go about it. When gas prices force consumers into alternative vehicles than what they want, automakers will build what the consumer wants that also is more efficient. Free market?
I mean, isn't that why the Prius was wildly successful and is now losing ground to competition?
|
The government typically chooses the most convoluted, least efficient way to give the illusion they are fixing a problem. They invent rules for fuel efficiency on cars, and then manufacturers build cars on a truck frame (SUV) and classify them as trucks.
An efficient way for the government to reduce fuel consumption would be to slowly increase the tax rate of petrol fuels for passenger vehicles. Let the market figure out how to respond to those increasing costs, which could include driving less, consumers purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles, or consumers choosing alternative transportation. This avoids the whole problem of "compliance" vehicles; those cars that cost a fortune to develop, but ultimately suck and are sold in low volumes before being abandoned.
The Prius was successful because Hollywood used it as a way to virtue signal, and the masses mimicked that virtue signaling. That, and historically high fuel prices. (also, it's a pretty good car)
All of this is mostly pointless with regards to global warming. Artificially imposing fuel economy targets will reduce CO2 and thereby delay warming by what, a couple months tops? All of the discussions of CO2 reduction are in terms of delaying temperature rise by a few days to a few months.