Hold on. If they're going to regulate fuel economy for individual models, based on vehicle size, doesn't this discourage companies from producing small cars because they'll have to meet a stricter fuel economy standard? I thought part of the point of CAFE was to encourage production of smaller, more efficient cars.

I've been calling for an increase in the gas tax for years now. Last summer proved me right but we're still not listening to it.

And I must admit I, too, am confused by the call for different CAFE standards based on vehicle size...that sounds more like it's accomodating the manufacturer's desire for larger cars instead of actually pushing for smaller ones. The same must be said for the continued use of separate standards for light trucks.

While I like the idea or forcing manufacturers to improve fuel economy, I also believe that the most effective way of encouraging manufacture of more economical cars is a gas tax.

Clarkma5 and afty, I see the sense in the weight/sized-based CAFE standard. Note that, based on the wieght of the car, this standard is the same for all manufacturers. It's a way of being fair to all manufacturers.
For example, Mercedes produces only luxury cars, which tend to be heavier. If they have to meet Honda's 30.6 target, they will probably go out of business because, given current technology, no luxury car can remain luxurious and get that fuel economy (unless they use expensive hybrid or EV technology).
Consequently, all manufacturers will be forced to produce more fuel-efficient cars.

But, like I said, I think the best way would be a gas tax that forces gas to sell for $5/gallon. But, with the current economic climate, this is a bad idea because:
1. It would be politically unpopular. This could cause Dems to lose votes; if that happens, we can forget about serious efforts at forcing energy providers and other heavy industries to be environmentally more friendly.
2. Given the current economic crisis, and the general lack of adequate and efficient public transport, such a tax could make life very hard for struggling families.

But I'd like to see a gas tax later, when (hopefully) we're out of the economic mess and (hopefully) there is better infrastructure for public transport.

The gas tax increase doesn't need to force prices to 4 or 5 dollars a gallon, I just see the current 18.4 cent per gallon federal gas tax being, like, tripled. Premium around here runs just under $2.50 a gallon, push it a little closer to $3 I say.

Me, I'm for a voluntary gas tax. For those who advocate higher gas taxes (as if we aren't taxed enough...), if it takes you, for example, $30 to fill your tank, write another check for an additional $30 (or however much you believe the tax should be) and send it to the government/IRS, whoever. I'm sure they'd have absolutely no problem taking your money, and your conscience will be cleared at the same time (after all, what's more important than that?)

Why wait for the government to mandate higher gas taxes? There's nothing that says you can't pay those higher prices yourself without government intervention if you're really inclined to do so.

Ridiculous idea? You be the judge.

30.9 mpg average for Subaru is insane!

The geniuses in the government should make a concession of some sort for (full-time) all-wheel drive.

Yankeez, if you don't believe that global warming is a fact (despite all the scientific evidence saying so), and if you believe it's fair and effective to force fuel efficiency standards on manufacturers without expecting/forcing consumers to demand economical cars, then, yeah, a mandatory gas tax is a "ridiculous idea".

But for those of us who follow the scientific evidence and know that regulations on the manufacturers are not completely fair nor effective, a mandatory gas tax makes sense.

Fair enough Blackadder - so does that mean that you'll pay what you feel is an additional fair tax even if the government doesn't mandate us to do so?

LOL, yankeez, no! Two reasons:

1. It wouldn't make much of a difference if I paid volunterily because (probably) more than 99% of people wouldn't pay it......so the tax wouldn't be effective.

2. I'm human and by nature I don't like paying taxes unless forced to! :-)

Heh heh, I figured as much. And as such, with all due respect, I really find it hard to lend your position any real creedence.

If you're gonna talk the talk...

A gas tax will definitely work - it works very well in Europe - if it hurts enough. But it has to hurt a lot!! $.50 a gallon is not enough, that's a seasonal variation. That will be ignored.

The tax has to be in the $1.50+ range on top of any market fluctuations for it to be really effective. IMO that's a NO GO for the bulk of the driving public. It will work but the screaming will be neverending. $1.50 a gallon on top of $2.50 this summer???? We're all gonna be broke.

On top of that the tax is regressive and it is a tax on a tax?? It will come out of our paychecks at the pump AFTER we've had Fed/State/Local income taxes deducted.

On top of that even if you do buy a smaller vehicle, which will be in higher demand of course, you are still left paying $3 or $4 or $5 or $6 a gallon at the pump....after your income taxes are deducted.

On top of that the money just disappears into the huge Federal black hole called Treasury.

For these reasons CAFE is a GOOD idea. The vehicles are required to burn less fuel so the primary goal is served but our cost of fuel is lower for each of us. You still have your choice of vehicles.

Also just to keep the discussion from going wildly over the line....these figures are NHTSA fuel economy ratings. These are not the EPA ratings on the window stickers. The EPA ratings are about 20% lower !!!

Thus a 30 mpg rating for CAFE is roughly equivalent to an EPA average of about 24 mpg...ho-hum. Nearly every 4c on the road today meets this level even the new midsized Crossovers.

Most V6 autos also meet the new standards already. mountains and molehills come to mind.

Yankeez, not being willing to pay a tax doesn't mean I believe it's a bad idea.

I don't like speed limits, but I do believe they're a great idea (in most cases) and I support them. I don't always like having to get up early for work, but all the same, I think it's (almost always) a great idea and maximises productivity. I can afford a new car, but despite my displeasure at having to defer the purchase of a new car, it is wise for me not to buy yet.

Similarly, I naturally wouldn't like any reduction in income (via taxes or whatever expenses that are not investments or pleasures), but all the same, I am in full support of a mandatory tax cut because it will force us as a nation to reduce global warming, pollution in general and dependence on foreign oil.

Just because I won't enjoy or like something doesn't necessarily mean that I don't support it.

kdhspyder, I suspected the CAFE ratings were different from the EPA ratings. Thanks for the clarification! But it raises the question: why aren't the CAFE ratings higher?

So let's see if I have this straight, black... you believe the rest of US to pay a mandatory gas tax, but YOU personally don't want to.... sound about right?

It's not a matter of LIKING it, or ENJOYING it. If paying a higher gas tax the right thing to do, as you've stated, why not DO it? Why don't you SHOW us it's the right thing to do, instead of waiting for someone ELSE to show you?

Kinda reminds me of Al Gore lecturing us on the importance of global warming yet he has regularly ridden in limousines, flown in a private learjet and lives in a 20,000 square foot mansion (yeah yeah I know, he supposedly buys carbon credits, but think about it - if he were as enviromentally conscious as he wants the REST of us peons to be, he wouldn't need them, now would he?)

Don't get me wrong - I fully support you believing what you want to. If you truly believe that man is responsible for global warming and something immediately needs to be done about it (i.e. higher gas taxes, more fuel-efficient cars), more power to you, I say.

BUT...

You can "talk the talk" all day long, bud. If, however, you aren't willing to take charge, lead by example and "walk the walk", well, like I said before, your position holds absolutely no water with me.

In fact, there's a certain "H" word that comes to mind...

"It's not a matter of LIKING it, or ENJOYING it. If paying a higher gas tax the right thing to do, as you've stated, why not DO it?"

Has any gas tax been mandated yet? If such a gas tax exists, I'll pay it, but it doesn't exist, so for what would I pay? I can't "DO" it!
(You know as well as I do that the "voluntary" tax you're proposing is silly. A tax is mandatory or not a tax at all! On what planet do they pay "voluntary" taxes? A "voluntary" tax would be a donation, but in this case, this donation would do nothing to reduce green house emissions.)

"So let's see if I have this straight, black... you believe the rest of US to pay a mandatory gas tax, but YOU personally don't want to.... sound about right?"

No, you got it wrong. I believe that all of the US, ME personally included, should pay a gas tax.

"So let's see if I have this straight, black... you believe the rest of US to pay a mandatory gas tax, but YOU personally don't want to.... sound about right?"

No, you got it wrong. I believe that all of the US, ME personally included, should pay a gas tax. I don't like losing money to taxes, but in this case, I believe the tax is the most effective way to reduce greenhouse gases so I'm willing to pay it if asked by the government.

"in this case, this donation would do nothing to reduce green house emissions."

Why not?