Meeting Fuel Economy Standards Could Cost GM $40B

[LS1powered_Z28]

Wow, I am highly disappointed with some of the thoughts in this thread. It is so upsetting to me that I actually had to go back from a couple years ago and find my password so I can make a reply to this thread.

First let me say that I am an avid fan of this site and I love to see the wonderful things going on in the automotive world through the articles on this site. But rarely do I ever find something I feel I have to comment on. Then I read this thread and I about wanted to punch a baby! (sorry for the violence)

So some of you say that the answer to consuming less fuel is by raising the tax rate on fuel ....... Wow, I'm shocked that it could be this simple. I'm also shocked that with what's going on with fuel prices right now you would even sugguest it. Well, frankly it can't be that simple. Raising the fuel tax will not help anyone... It may discourage a few Americans from buying gas guzzleing vehicles that they probably shouldn't but in the long run it will hurt the economy (hard, I might add) and it will not do anything to better our dependency on oil. Here's why- when taxes go up, practically no matter what tax it is, the middle class people of the US suffer. The middle class is the US economy's bread and buttter. If the fuel tax was raised, folks in the US would be spending more money on fuel, plain and simple. This leaves less money for them to buy other things, like "NEW more efficent cars." So simple folk will simply suffer through it and buy the gas they need to get to work and drop off the kids at school (I don't know about you guys but I took the bus to school everyday when it was too far to walk). I live in southern california and I know first hand the over abundance of large gas guzzling cars on the road. It's simply rediculus that people gripe about gas prices already ($3.30 a gallon currently today) and get into thier brand new v8 toyota tundra with 13 mpg. We ourselfves are to blame. Vehicles are getting bigger and bigger and the fuel consumption is not being helped by the fact that there are more and more cars driving on the road now compared to eve 10 years ago. Try finding a parking spot in southern cali everyday. It will drive you nuts. But back to the subject, raising the fuel tax IS NOT the answer. I know you guys on here are smarter than that. Come on, be more creative guys and gals.

Now on another side of this point, what happens when you do make more effecient cars and trucks. Well, lets see....... it's kinda simple, you send less on fuel and consume less gas therefore should have more cash to buy other things, like maybe retail goods. You put more money into the economy, pretty simple huh. Not to mention that the price of regular goods produced here in the US and "transported" here will cost less because retailers will not have to spend as much getting them to you.... Transport costs go down. There is a bright side here.

If fuel tax was to go up, due to tax or anything else, the cost of goods goes up. That screws with the bread and butter of the economy. Not a good idea unless 6 bucks a gallon of milk is alright with you. I'm not really in favor of it.

So whats a good solution, well hmmmmm..... ? Lets build more effecient vehicles, so we don't have to use as much fuel. Lets not punish the manufactuer for making inefficent cars and trucks but more the buyers of these vehicles( change the gas guzzler tax anyone ?) . That would discourage people from buying the not so effiecent cars and if the people don't buy them the manufactuers will not sell them and be forced to make better cars that folks will buy.

So all this talking about 4% bettter and 20% less fuel consumtion by so and so time is what needs to be done. Even though I have no idea where they came up with the numbers because I simply can not see how the relate ( 4% over ten years does not equal 20% less fuel consumption), I agree that Mr. Bush should HELP come up with a plan to make our fuel consumption go down. It can only help us and our economy, not to mention might clean up the air around here. But for god's sake, no more taxes, especially on gas ! Stop even thinking like that.

Bush has had his work cut out for him since he has been in office, he's not perfect but. ....... the next time to say that George is the worst president ever , ask yourself if you think you can do better ? And if you think you can do better, why are you not doing anything besides sitting there and critizing something that you have never done. What good do you do by complaining about Mr. Bush and not doing anything to help the situation. Stop listening to the masses of people that say lots but do nothing..... Stop being a follower.... I may not agree with Mr. Bush but I support him in all his efforts.

Oh, and for the guy that said that Mr. Bush doubled his salery while in office............ ahhhhhh, dude, might wanna research that a little more. Cause he isn't granted the power to do that. Where did you hear that anyway ?

[BuickNut]

.....simple solution...and a wiser investment for the American public that will ALSO make the Arab nations/and the world, happy in getting us out of their neighborhood ======> Duuuuh, take all the billions and billions of dollars we spend/spent in Iraq and Afghanistan and God knows where else we're "protecting" our interests (ie OIL !!!!!) every cotton pickin' year, put that money into biofuel research as well as subsidizing the final raw material (corn, grass cuttings, pig "fuel" or whatever it is...), and QUITE SPENDING OUR DOLLARS AND SOLDEIRS LIVES where they don't belong AND aren't wanted and instead - do something that only seems to be common sense - spend it on America. If we do that - we are energy independent (at least better off directionally..), and we're out of the countries that don't want us. They can then sell all that wonderful oil to whoever else wants it that will put up with that garbage that goes with putting money in that region of the world.

On top of which, the big 3 will be better off as they will have a fuel that doesn't require all the infrastructural changes that fuel cell, hybrid (..where ya gonna get THAT FIXED when it breaks down ?), plug in electrical gizmo-type cars; but will instead have something much closer in technology to the IC gas burnin' chuggin' cars that we all know and love, and love to hear the "WHAAAAA" when you press down with your right foot

Our money is ill spent protecting our interests on fuel that we know has a limit, that is being controlled by folks that don't have OUR best interests at heart and by all accounts don't want anything to do with us.

Yeah, I know it's pretty simplistic....but aren't those the best kinds of solutions ? ....ok, I'm done venting HERE too...

I don't mean for this to be a political statement - but geez Louise - it seems to me that this is the simplest, easiest, "bestest" common sense solution. I keep on hearing how biofuel doesn't make economic sense - well, if we spend the money on this instead of war that involves the current fuel - I think it DOES make economic sense. Didn't I just see on TV that BP was spouting they spend $50 million over the past 10 yrs on biofuels ?...that's a drop in the bucket compared to what is being spent on the war. If we aren't over there - they are happier and the terrorists won't have reason to chase after us.

[Drew Dowdell]

$187 billion + 10s of thousands of lives for a war in Iraq

or

$187 Billion spent on Biofuel infrastructure, research, and "subsidies" to farmers

your call.

[ellives]

Wow, I am highly disappointed with some of the thoughts in this thread. It is so upsetting to me that I actually had to go back from a couple years ago and find my password so I can make a reply to this thread.

First let me say that I am an avid fan of this site and I love to see the wonderful things going on in the automotive world through the articles on this site. But rarely do I ever find something I feel I have to comment on. Then I read this thread and I about wanted to punch a baby! (sorry for the violence)

So some of you say that the answer to consuming less fuel is by raising the tax rate on fuel ....... Wow, I'm shocked that it could be this simple. I'm also shocked that with what's going on with fuel prices right now you would even sugguest it. Well, frankly it can't be that simple. Raising the fuel tax will not help anyone... It may discourage a few Americans from buying gas guzzleing vehicles that they probably shouldn't but in the long run it will hurt the economy (hard, I might add) and it will not do anything to better our dependency on oil. Here's why- when taxes go up, practically no matter what tax it is, the middle class people of the US suffer. The middle class is the US economy's bread and buttter. If the fuel tax was raised, folks in the US would be spending more money on fuel, plain and simple. This leaves less money for them to buy other things, like "NEW more efficent cars." So simple folk will simply suffer through it and buy the gas they need to get to work and drop off the kids at school (I don't know about you guys but I took the bus to school everyday when it was too far to walk). I live in southern california and I know first hand the over abundance of large gas guzzling cars on the road. It's simply rediculus that people gripe about gas prices already ($3.30 a gallon currently today) and get into thier brand new v8 toyota tundra with 13 mpg. We ourselfves are to blame. Vehicles are getting bigger and bigger and the fuel consumption is not being helped by the fact that there are more and more cars driving on the road now compared to eve 10 years ago. Try finding a parking spot in southern cali everyday. It will drive you nuts. But back to the subject, raising the fuel tax IS NOT the answer. I know you guys on here are smarter than that. Come on, be more creative guys and gals.

Now on another side of this point, what happens when you do make more effecient cars and trucks. Well, lets see....... it's kinda simple, you send less on fuel and consume less gas therefore should have more cash to buy other things, like maybe retail goods. You put more money into the economy, pretty simple huh. Not to mention that the price of regular goods produced here in the US and "transported" here will cost less because retailers will not have to spend as much getting them to you.... Transport costs go down. There is a bright side here.

If fuel tax was to go up, due to tax or anything else, the cost of goods goes up. That screws with the bread and butter of the economy. Not a good idea unless 6 bucks a gallon of milk is alright with you. I'm not really in favor of it.

So whats a good solution, well hmmmmm..... ? Lets build more effecient vehicles, so we don't have to use as much fuel. Lets not punish the manufactuer for making inefficent cars and trucks but more the buyers of these vehicles( change the gas guzzler tax anyone ?) . That would discourage people from buying the not so effiecent cars and if the people don't buy them the manufactuers will not sell them and be forced to make better cars that folks will buy.

So all this talking about 4% bettter and 20% less fuel consumtion by so and so time is what needs to be done. Even though I have no idea where they came up with the numbers because I simply can not see how the relate ( 4% over ten years does not equal 20% less fuel consumption), I agree that Mr. Bush should HELP come up with a plan to make our fuel consumption go down. It can only help us and our economy, not to mention might clean up the air around here. But for god's sake, no more taxes, especially on gas ! Stop even thinking like that.

Bush has had his work cut out for him since he has been in office, he's not perfect but. ....... the next time to say that George is the worst president ever , ask yourself if you think you can do better ? And if you think you can do better, why are you not doing anything besides sitting there and critizing something that you have never done. What good do you do by complaining about Mr. Bush and not doing anything to help the situation. Stop listening to the masses of people that say lots but do nothing..... Stop being a follower.... I may not agree with Mr. Bush but I support him in all his efforts.

Oh, and for the guy that said that Mr. Bush doubled his salery while in office............ ahhhhhh, dude, might wanna research that a little more. Cause he isn't granted the power to do that. Where did you hear that anyway ?

Sorry but when you get out of grade school and maybe get a couple of years of economics under your belt in college you'll understand why raising the gas tax (and putting the revenue generated from it to good use reducing the deficit) is the right answer. Did you ever notice that gas prices have ALREADY gone up and doomsday hasn't arrived yet? If the government had raised the prices a few years ago by increasing the taxes, the result would have been no different than it is now other than the criminals who run the oil companies wouldn't be getting even more filthy rich than they already are.

Can I do better? Somehow I'm sure if I had his money I'd certainly be willing to give it a shot and there are plenty of other candidates out there who would have done a better job. Time will prove me right. Even Donald Trump said it recently (and I'm certainly not a fan of his.)

[thegriffon]

$187 billion + 10s of thousands of lives for a war in Iraq

or

$187 Billion spent on Biofuel infrastructure, research, and "subsidies" to farmers

your call.

For crying out loud, who do so many moaning joans think the conflict in Iraq is about oil? Iraq was selling oil on the international market before the invasion, and is still doing so now. The only difference is that now the the money isn't going into the Swiss accounts of Baathist leaders and corrupt UN officials, but to the Iraqi government (not the American). The US has never started a war over oil, and I don't see any reason they would. The major producers are going to sell, they want the money. The republicans think it should be bought on the open market, and the democrats think it's use should be banned completely (hello, UAW, are you paying attention here?) Wars for oil are started by governments facing sanctions for previous aggressive behavior and corrupt leaders attracted to the oil revenue they can siphon off from the state oil company. If Bush and co were somehow stealing Iraqi oil money, you'd already be walking to work complaining about a Democrat president. Not gonna happen.

You won't get biofuel production under the democrats. They don't believe you shopuld even own a car. They're already calling for caps to be placed on engine output, and I can see some of them seriously planning on banning anything with an engine with more than 2.4 L and 150 hp. Is it just me or did it take a replublican governor to bring ethanol to CA, and a replublican president to support the switch to ethanol in cars. The agreement with Brazil to promote fuel ethanol production throughout the Americas will probably have a bigger impact on global warming than anything in Kyoto or mandated by the EU. Toyota and Honda may not like it (flex-fuel engines would cost them trillions, as they currently have none [GM has at least 13]), big oil may not like it (ethanol and biodiesel are produced and distributed by small, entrepeneurial American companies, not oil refiners), but it is the single most realistic and immediate way of reducing oil consumption globally. Fuel cells? Decades away from widespread use, even if GM and Honda can produce affordable vehicles. Dreastic CAFE increases? Good for sales of the Civic and especially Corolla, bad for everyone else (so long UAW, hello $20K Mexican Aveos).

[thegriffon]

There is another advantage to ethanol as a gasoline alternative—even if it costs more, the money flows into the American economy, not overseas. Fuel taxes aso flow back into the economy, and could potentially be used to improve transport efficiency (a big expansion in rail infrastructure for both commuters freight networks would help cut demand for fuel as well, without prohibiting the cars people want).

[ellives]

For crying out loud, who do so many moaning joans think the conflict in Iraq is about oil? Iraq was selling oil on the international market before the invasion, and is still doing so now. The only difference is that now the the money isn't going into the Swiss accounts of Baathist leaders and corrupt UN officials, but to the Iraqi government (not the American). The US has never started a war over oil, and I don't see any reason they would. The major producers are going to sell, they want the money. The republicans think it should be bought on the open market, and the democrats think it's use should be banned completely (hello, UAW, are you paying attention here?) Wars for oil are started by governments facing sanctions for previous aggressive behavior and corrupt leaders attracted to the oil revenue they can siphon off from the state oil company. If Bush and co were somehow stealing Iraqi oil money, you'd already be walking to work complaining about a Democrat president. Not gonna happen.

You won't get biofuel production under the democrats. They don't believe you shopuld even own a car. They're already calling for caps to be placed on engine output, and I can see some of them seriously planning on banning anything with an engine with more than 2.4 L and 150 hp. Is it just me or did it take a replublican governor to bring ethanol to CA, and a replublican president to support the switch to ethanol in cars. The agreement with Brazil to promote fuel ethanol production throughout the Americas will probably have a bigger impact on global warming than anything in Kyoto or mandated by the EU. Toyota and Honda may not like it (flex-fuel engines would cost them trillions, as they currently have none [GM has at least 13]), big oil may not like it (ethanol and biodiesel are produced and distributed by small, entrepeneurial American companies, not oil refiners), but it is the single most realistic and immediate way of reducing oil consumption globally. Fuel cells? Decades away from widespread use, even if GM and Honda can produce affordable vehicles. Dreastic CAFE increases? Good for sales of the Civic and especially Corolla, bad for everyone else (so long UAW, hello $20K Mexican Aveos).

Get a grip. The extremist political rhetoric never helps and it doesn't here either. (As a result I'm ignoring your whole first paragraph and most of the second.)

Pointing to Arnold as an example of Republican leadership is ridiculous. He's a RINO and even Republican party leaders accuse him of the same so let's get ourselves out of the generalist statements. He is also practical and does what is right for Arnold which happened to mean backing programs that would typically be considered "Democrat" programs. Good for him and California.

Let's face it and agree there is no silver bullet to the energy problem. The solution will be a vast combination of many approaches. Ethanol alone isn't it and the only reason it's come into the mainstream recently is the fact petroleum costs have risen so high as to make ethanol a financially competitive solution. Again, I go back to controlling energy consumption by controlling the tax spigot. It can be done thoughtfully (I know it's an oxymoron in Washington) so as to mitigate the impact to the economy but it will in the end motivate consumers to reduce their fuel consumption.

[Mr.Krinkle]

Dont forget the regressive nature of a tax is basically telling lower income families tough tits, get a better job, walk or take the bus.

---- --

As for war? Face the facts much of the world does not like the US or our policies. People will go to extraordinary lengths to kill us and our people. And its nothing recent.

Since they blew up the USS Cole and killed our soldiers, destroyed Embassy after Embassy, and Marine Barracks with no commitment to a response. WTC 93 attack and 11-09-01 Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's Account Links 9/11 to '93 WTC Attack

Terror ties. No Question About It (Saddam and Al Qaeda)

Dont be so naive, this was a long time in the making.

Guess who?

In a 1998 interview, "We have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weakness of the American soldier who is ready to wage Cold Wars and unprepared to fight long wars. This was proven in Beirut when the Marines fled after two explosions. It also proves they can run in less than 24 hours, and this was also repeated in Somalia. We are ready for all occasions. We rely on Allah."

Osama bin Lada to ABC News reporter John Miller:

This is about much more than oil.

Edited March 21, 2007 by Mr.Krinkle

[Drew Dowdell]

Saddam was a derange man who in his old age was writing long winded Arabic romance novels that not even your local Eckard would carry. He had no WMDs he had no program to create WMDs. There was no Al Queda in Iraq till after we invaded. The war in Iraq has accomplished nothing but angering a lot of people who were previously ambivalent towards us. If you are going to respond that "Saddam was a bad man and was killing his own people".... well yeah, but there are other... much worse... dictators out there who aren't sitting on oil fields but we haven't paid much attention to them. Darfur? Zimbabwe? North Korea? Why haven't we invaded them? Because they aren't sitting on oil. Look at who we're rattling our saber at now.... Iran. Guess what Iran has? Oil.

$187 Billion invested in alternative energy of all sources would help to ween us off this horrible addiction we have. Will we ever stop using oil completely? Of course not, but we can certainly marginalize it so it has less effect on our lives.

[thegriffon]

Extremist rhetoric? Calling the conflict in Iraq a war for oil is extremist, and beyond rhetoric. It's deliberately inflamatory, stupid and just plain wrong. I'm not excusing the invasion, it was patently a dumb idea that wasn't thought through well enough, but that kind of argument only makes things worse for troops there trying to make the best of a bad situation so they can leave, and for the safety of everyday Americans at home and abroad. It also has no bearing on the debate about alternative fuels. That much is not political, but truth and historical fact. If I offend anyone's deluded sense of political sophistication, tough.

I admit I exaggerated about walking to work, ut if there was a hidden agenda to the war, you would already have another president. The democrats smell blood and aren't going to let things go without total control. Whether you welcome it or not, it's true. It's not a "political" statement.

The second paragraph was more political, but still true. You don't even bother to disagree, much as you disparage Arnie. My point about republicans and ethanol however is more intended to point out that this doesn't have to be partisan. Arnie as you point out is following policies that could be equally Democrat, that he probably believes Californian voters support. Bush is trying to build a legacy beyond the mismanaged war on terror. On energy I think he is doing the right thing. It's just a shame he can't get more support from people who claim to care about such things.

You have to face facts—a Democratic House and Senate is bad for American industry, Detroit especially. A Democrat whitehouse (unavoidable now) will be the perfect storm. The best you could say about the Republicans is that they didn't care about Detroit. Too many Democrats however are hostile to the auto industry at an idealogical level, and to Detroit in particular, and now that they have a majority in both houses and an apparent sure thing in 2008, they don't feel any need to hide it. That may not like it, but you can't deny it. It will be hard for more liberal democrats to reign in the excesses that are coming. Unfortunately I don't see anyone forthcoming from either party who can provide the leadership that is required (on almost any issue, not just fuel).

I can lay out a broad energy policy that I think you will agree with, covering transport infrastructure, taxation, technology investment and support for biofuels, but I don't think you'll see anything beyond demands that Detroit in particular stop making anything larger than a Cobalt; and local efforts to increase rail spending to ease congestion despite a lack of federal leadership (rail systems are cheaper to build than freeways). Ironically it's increased car ownership that has made rail systems once again viable as a form of personal transport. Local and state governments increasingly understand that, even if the federal government does not.

[thegriffon]

Saddam was a derange man who in his old age was writing long winded Arabic romance novels that not even your local Eckard would carry. He had no WMDs he had no program to create WMDs. There was no Al Queda in Iraq till after we invaded. The war in Iraq has accomplished nothing but angering a lot of people who were previously ambivalent towards us. If you are going to respond that "Saddam was a bad man and was killing his own people".... well yeah, but there are other... much worse... dictators out there who aren't sitting on oil fields but we haven't paid much attention to them. Darfur? Zimbabwe? North Korea? Why haven't we invaded them? Because they aren't sitting on oil. Look at who we're rattling our saber at now.... Iran. Guess what Iran has? Oil.

$187 Billion invested in alternative energy of all sources would help to ween us off this horrible addiction we have. Will we ever stop using oil completely? Of course not, but we can certainly marginalize it so it has less effect on our lives.

Guess what Sudan has? Oil. Guess what Afghanistan, Lebanon and Bosnia do not have? Oil. Was Sadaam withholding oil? No. Does Iran? No. If the US just wanted oil why place sanctions on exports from Myanmar, Libya, Iraq and Iran? Why not do what the Chinese do and just go after the oil and ignore moral and political issues? Why? Because oil is a commodity, and on the open market no one country can restrict US access to oil. If they sell it to anyone (and they will) it simply frees up supplies elsewhere that US refiners can buy. Even OPEC has stopped trying to hold the world hostage to high oil prices. They saw what happens—people buy smaller cars and buy less oil, and they want to maximize demand and revenue, not kill it.

What does North Korea have that Iran does not? The world's largest standing army and long-range ballistic missiles. So why not invade Sudan or Zimbabwe? Because they pose no threat to US interests, imagined (as Iraq appears mostly to have been) or real. Sudan however poses the same problems as Iraq—attracting Arab militants supporting the janjawid (sp.?), despite the fact that it is a racist conflict, and not a religious one as it was against the south.

[ellives]

Guess what Sudan has? Oil. Guess what Afghanistan, Lebanon and Bosnia do not have? Oil. Was Sadaam withholding oil? No. Does Iran? No. If the US just wanted oil why place sanctions on exports from Myanmar, Libya, Iraq and Iran? Why not do what the Chinese do and just go after the oil and ignore moral and political issues? Why? Because oil is a commodity, and on the open market no one country can restrict US access to oil. If they sell it to anyone (and they will) it simply frees up supplies elsewhere that US refiners can buy. Even OPEC has stopped trying to hold the world hostage to high oil prices. They saw what happens—people buy smaller cars and buy less oil, and they want to maximize demand and revenue, not kill it.

What does North Korea have that Iran does not? The world's largest standing army and long-range ballistic missiles. So why not invade Sudan or Zimbabwe? Because they pose no threat to US interests, imagined (as Iraq appears mostly to have been) or real. Sudan however poses the same problems as Iraq—attracting Arab militants supporting the janjawid (sp.?), despite the fact that it is a racist conflict, and not a religious one as it was against the south.

Well said. Something we can agree on.

[BuickNut]

I respect your viewpoint, but I don't agree..politely of course. If you look at the history of the First Irag war - we went in to defend our interests - OIL, becasuse Hussain went into Kuwait, occupied it, and was threatening to go into the other Arab States where our interests (OIL....) would be threatened. We won that war, and stopped Hussain from gaining control of our interests (OIL...) that were in the region. The next war (current) we went in becasue of WMD, because somebody from Iraq had a meeting with Al-Quieda....because ????? I'm still not sure. It seems as if we went in for one reason, then somebody had to "fit" or come up with a reason why we ARE there to protect their jobs. The only thing I DO know is that we can get out of the ENTIRE REGION if we don't have OIL interests there. For humanitarian reasons, we have become the world's policeman (which I agree with to an extent - being the biggest kid on the block, we need to protect the other kids from the bullies... but there has to be a limit...). But we wouldn't be there spending ALL THIS MONEY if it weren't for the oil....plain and simple. We might be there spending SOME money with SOME troops...but not nearly to this extent.

I don't really care about the arguements about why where "there" vs why we're not "here" or "else where"...fact is that we need to get out of there and CAN get out of there if we didn't have interests (OIL...) there. So regardless of why - lets pull the plug, spend the money where WE need to spend it on OUR interests (...ENERGY !!!!), that, oh by the way - a little side benefit here - we also save the lives or our soldiers.

I keep on reading that we're NOT there becasue of the oil...I think that's a little naive (respectfully...don't anybody get their shorts all tied up in knots......) to think we're there regardless of the oil. If one can't agree that whether it's the main reason, one might at least acknowledge that it's a contributing reason. My point - let's make it NOT a contributing reason. Can one deny that with our inventiveness, that $187 Billion might go a little ways in easing our energy worries ? I think so.. Why continue chasing the oil when it has a finite life ? Ya got a bunch of screaming lunatics that wish Hussain was back...well, is that not part of democracy in letting folk have their own free will ? Let them do what they want there, lets NOT give them a reason to hate us, and let's get more energy independent.....

[carlover23]

unless more and more hybrids are made, 4% will be quite tough and cause lots of inflation in the auto market.

other wise vehicles will have to be sold with anemic engines with the way safety and everything will keep adding weight,

hopefully we will never see a castrated vette put to market just to meet mileage requirements.

What everyone is missing here is that American would scream and moan if gas prices go up $.25 because of something the government did, increasing taxes on gasonline would be political suidcide, period. No this is not a really solution and yes it is punishing the companies who are making products that people want, but it is not politically incorrect to do so. Americans like to blame industry for making the world a worse place, but not take responsibilty for their own actions. I remember hearing someone taking about pollution and blaming factories and then driving off in a huge SUV, somehow they couldn't equate riding a V8 powered SUV with increasing polution or dependance on foriegn oil.

[ShadowDog]

A thought to offer? The heck with the tax on gas, tax the vehicle instead (credit/levy):

Among the most popular measures introduced by the Canadian Conservative government through its annual budget this Mar 19th was the tax credit for purchasing fuel efficient cars. A basic $1000 rebate for automobiles getting 6.5 L/100 km or less and larger vans, truck and SUV's getting 8.3 L/100. There is even an additional $1000 tax credit available based on values exceeding those above (a Toyota Prius could get the maximum $2000). E-85 vehicles will also be eligible for the credits. * Note: For people living in P.E.I. that means nearly $5000 dollars of incentives are available as PEI is one of the few proactive provinces offering it's own tax breaks.

One of the most surprising measures introduced was the plan to charge levies on inefficient gas guzzlers starting with the 2011 model year.

If GM wished to benefit from this, they would be more proactive in getting more vehicles on the road that would give money back to the consumer. If the only thing people are concerned about in their purchase is how much money they're spending, the only companies to fail in that market would be the ones not offering enough low-emission vehicles to choose from.

Edited April 2, 2007 by ShadowDog