It took a law to put seatbelts in cars. It took a law to make people use those seatbelts. It took a law to get fuel-efficiency to the point that it is. Why shouldn’t the government pass another law to require fuel-efficiency to be even higher?
As our country is facing an increasing number of smog alerts, increasing numbers of asthma sufferers, and a falling amount of safe, clean air, we should be turning to some solutions.
A higher minimum fuel-efficiency standard should be set for vehicles. This will improve the amount of emissions being released, as well as decrease our fuel dependency. Of course, these may be smaller improvements than if we focused on another type of car entirely (such as electric), but I won’t get into that at the moment.
If all vehicles are required to get at least 30 miles to each gallon, we could see huge improvement in the “gas guzzling” of our country. And really, with the way the gas prices are these days, who would complain about that?
Yeah, yeah… some people might say, “oh, but I need a truck!!!” But hey, the reality is most of us don’t NEED a truck. Besides, the technology is there for trucks to be made more fuel-efficient, too.
The point is this: we have the technology to increase fuel-efficiency. So let’s do it!! It would be better for consumers and the environment. However, automakers might just need that extra “push” from the government. I propose a law be passed to increase the automobile fuel-efficiency standards. What do you think?
hmm... This is a hard one for me. I'm pro-enviroment but anti-regulation. On the one hand, more government regulation and higher fuel economy standards would help combat the environmental and energy crises. But on the other, I'm always hesitant to call in the government to regulate products in a market that's supposed to be free and capitalistic.
I think ultimately, since we do live in a capitalistic society, the final word comes down to the consumers (who, unfortunately, don't always do what's best for them, as you pointed out). Higher fuel economy standards = higher costs for car manufacturers = higher costs for people buying cars. More expensive cars are the last thing consumers want right now, with a recession and all, so I don't think they would buy them.
Also, car companies would suffer. It would contribute to the downward spiral of the American economy.
Better let the "free hand" of capitalism (to quote Adam Smith) to determine when cars should have better fuel economy. People want cars with high gas mileage, so when the market is ready for them, it will happen.
I think, yes, the final word is SUPPOSED to come down to the consumers, but I don't think it always happens that way. This can be true with another example, also involving cars.
When the electric car was sold in California in the 90's and early 2000's, there was a decent market for it, at least in some areas. However, a number of things happened (one thing that happened was that Texaco bought the battery technology) and the automakers stopped producing electric cars. Rather than allowing people to continue to lease their cars or buy their cars, the automakers took them back and destroyed them. So, even though there was a demand for those cars from consumers, the cars stopped being produced and the idea was crushed, literally.
So, sadly, I don't think these things are in the control of consumers. We could want cars with higher milage, but that doesn't mean we'll get them. I agree that there are some areas where the government shouldn't get involved so we can continue to have some freedom in this nation. However, I don't believe the issue of car efficiency is one of them. We need to do something to fix the problem, and if that means a law being written, I'm ok with that.
I think the government could do more to reward companies who provide ways for consumers to be more Earth conscious. That way, the government is involved, but not dictating laws, the companies are happy, and aware consumers get what they want.
I couldn't afford a hybrid, so opted for a small truck that can run off ethanol naturally. I didn't even have to do any converting. There are these flexible fuel vehicles, as they are called, so it's still about the consumers choosing ethanol over gasoline. My truck's a Chevy S10 and runs great on ethanol.
www.progressiveu.org/blog/americangirlinchina
If one takes it as a given that our habits will change v e r y s l o w l y (if at all), then increased fuel efficiency or alternative fuels are the methods most likely to be effective in the USA. Infrastructure in the states is not conducive to public transportation, and primarily due to the way this country developed, travel distances involved for work, school, etc., are a daily reality for much of the country - unless one lives in one of the densly populated areas on the coasts, or in a highly subsidized area such as D.C. (the metro is fantastic, but without national taxpayer funding most metropolitan areas cannot afford a comparable system). So ... back to fuel efficiency and alternatives. Mandated increases in efficiency may work, but as posted previously by cosmic, there are drawbacks - many of them serious. I'd prefer an overall energy plan (not concentrating simply on vehicles or transportation), including alternative sources such as wind, water, photovoltaic, and nuclear to create electricity, and direct use of hydrogen, photovoltaic, coal-to-fuel, etc., to power vehicles. And, while we're at it, remember to turn off the light when you leave the room! :)