Posted by
Optimus Magnus on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:35:05 AM
It's not as though it really matters now, but here's something else I wrote some time back:
What constitutes an acceptable level of NOx emissions? This is something an engineer needs to seriously contemplate when addressing the problem of reducing the dependency on foreign oil. (Is it possible we can use up theirs while conserving ours?) Lean-burn, variable-valve-timing technology was perfected (and on the market) by Honda in 1995. Sure, NOx levels were up compared to the LEV engines, but it still met T-LEV standards. How clean does the air have to be? Surely we have long ago passed the point of diminishing returns.
Allowing thirteen states to set their own emissions regs would be an unmitigated disaster. Pension funds notwithstanding, Ralph Nader's brigade bears a large chunk of the blame for the current state of our auto industry, what with having to conform to totally unrealistic CAFE and tailpipe standards.
Something else that doesn't help is the forcing of wealthy people to pay what is, in effect, a double-tax on their petrol consumption (Gas-Guzzler Tax). Rich people get rich not by throwing away their money, but by being consummate models of frugality with their capital. Besides, don't those folks who drive large and/or hi-performance cars already pay a gas-guzzler tax? After all, gasoline taxes (indeed, all excise taxes) are consumption taxes. Why penalize people for enjoying what they've earned? (Class envy, that's why.)
There is an unintended consequence when it comes to frugal cars: they encourage people to travel more. It's a simple axiom of economics: when you can do something more cheaply, it encourages that activity. A 20 mpg car going forty miles burns no more fuel than a 40 mpg go-kart travelling eighty miles. Assuming per-gallon emissions are equal, what has been gained other than mobility? The exhaust pumped out is the same.
The libs' prevailing approach to taxation has nothing to do with maximizing revenue; rather, it is directly tied to a desire to control people's behavior. To their detriment, they stubbornly refuse to accept that they can have it both ways by relaxing emissions standards and abolishing CAFE altogether. Such a move would free up Detroit from having to build crud-cars which no one wants to buy. (Detroit has never done small cars well.) In fact, by relaxing (or at least removing all the mandates from) all the arbitraty standards, all companies and consumers would benefit from the vast array of available choices. (What I still wouldn't give to be able to own a Suzuki Cappucino or a first-generation Opel Tigra.)