Survey: Making Greener Cars- Tax or Regulate?

"I have never seen a market-distorting policy like CAFE"

Oh, that's rich. How about the "Hummer Tax Break" and the fuel economy exemptions for very large trucks and SUVs? You're very familiar with those, Mr. Mulally. As I'm sure you're well-acquainted with the market-distorting policies which tax income much higher than things like dividends, capital gains, and estates.

"It's a policy that forces you to put out more small cars than there is consumer demand for to make the bigger cars that people really do want. You're trying to force the market instead of being market-driven."

Another rich one. So, the esteemed Mr. Mulaly thinks that people really want the bigger cars, yet when gas goes to $3/gallon, so goes that theory. But hey, that's the "free market," right? Ignore the fact that our own policies of Middle East intervention, outsourcing, and lack of enforement of market-concentration laws lead to those high prices.

What people want is so heavily conditioned by the marketing of companies like Ford, it's just a joke to have to listen to this guy spout such nonsense.

Ford spends billions on making men feel insecure and women scared, then offers big bad monsters to make it all better.

This is what I hate about corporations. They claim that they're green and that they don't need regulation because they're already good enough. But when congress decides to enforce these good practices, the companies start to complain. If they were green, they'd want the legislation. It'd make things harder for their competition.

If Ford wants to sell many big cars, they should have their engineers working on improving efficiency rather than fitting in more cup holders. We live in an age with hybrid technology, plug-in batteries, lightweight strong materials. Car companies acted like they'd never recover from catalytic converters, but they did. Or Ford could start making the small efficient cars that are starting to sell well. The most conservative family I know just bought a Prius because of the milage. They have the SUV for camping, and the Prius for going to work/school. Between the EPA estimates, 60MPG and 20MPG, they are at 40MPG, meaning that that family is over the proposed new CAFE standards by 5 MPG. Why can't Ford try to be the company that makes both cars?

Just close the cities to any vehicule over 3000 lbs; it will save the roads and keep the SUV away. (with special permits to cube type transport vehicules)

may be we will get the small cars with pick-up boxes they got in Europe

Ford isn't the only one to blame here. Look at Toyotas new truck which gets the same gas mileage as a 10 year old Chevy. Or Honds's "trucks" which have a v6 engine getting the same gas mileage as a real truck with a v8.

You do need to take a slow approach to any change as you don't want millions of cars that are on the road today being turned to waste. Something like raising the gas tax 10 cents a year would be more reasonable because it will give you some time to use what your curretly have a few more years.

The other option is to make some decent small cars, a lot of what is out there now is crap.

As conscientious Tree Huggers, why do we care about fuel economy? I assume we're concerned about CO2 and other pollutants being released, but there's not a direct correlation between the amount of fuel burned and the amount of pollutants released. The best way to reduce vehicle emissions would be to tighten emissions standards. If people want big, heavy cars, then force automakers to make them burn the fuel they use more cleanly.

The only possible reason for limiting the amount of fuel that a car can burn is for economic reasons, and I don't get the impression that we're overly concerned about economics here. The concern with using fuel indiscriminately (aside from emissions) is "running out of oil," which really just means reducing the supply to the point where it is too expensive to use for any practical purpose. And that would be ideal, right?

So, no CAFE, no artificial price inflation, tighten down emissions regulations and don't let congress arbitrarily set the price or availability of goods in free market.

Anybody who thinks the market is either free, or will save us, has their lips wrapped around a tailpipe.

Sadly, we have not learned our lessons in time to use a crude tool like the 'market'. We have now over-exploited the resources that should be held as common goods to the point that we are going to need to 'distort the market'.

For example, with the increasing evidence that everything that we pull out of the earth's crust goes on to poison the biosphere, should we really allow people to choose a vehicle that embodies two tons of precious materials that should be used to bring shelter, food, health care and education to everyone? It is dubious whether even a highly efficient hypercar is morally justifiable, but at least it is a ton and a half lighter.

We are literally letting the market decide who lives and who dies on this planet, and even in our own country. That just shows what idiots we are.

"How about the "Hummer Tax Break" and the fuel economy exemptions for very large trucks and SUVs? You're very familiar with those, Mr. Mulally."

Actually, Mr.Mulally is probably NOT that familiar with them, since he has been in the auto industry for less than a year. Before that he was president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes.

"So, the esteemed Mr. Mulaly thinks that people really want the bigger cars..."

Yes, people do really want the bigger cars. Have you looked at the sales figures? Even with larger vehicle sales falling, only two compacts are among the top 10 sellers, the Corolla and Civic in 4th and 8th, respectively. The rest of that list are full-size pickups (1st, 2nd, and 5th), bigger cars (3rd, 6th, 7th, and 9th), and an SUV. That's probably why every foreign manufacturer that has entered the US market with small cars has and continue to increase the size of their cars and added SUV's.

"...yet when gas goes to $3/gallon, so goes that theory."

Which was exactly his point. As Lloyd said, "he is suggesting that the price of gas be taxed to the point where people will demand smaller, more efficient cars."

I'm a big fan of the gas tax. Why stop at 50 cents though? I would suggest higher than that. I want it high enough to provide free mass transit and extensive bike paths. Just increase it slowly so people can adapt their lifestyle. As an extra bonus, local companies would get a huge boost over shipped products as shipping continues to rise in cost. I'm especially in favor of that with regards to farming.

If we want CAFE as well, that is fine with me. I just don't think it will have the broader impact a large gas tax could provide.

As conscientious Tree Huggers, why do we care about fuel economy? I assume we're concerned about CO2 and other pollutants being released, but there's not a direct correlation between the amount of fuel burned and the amount of pollutants released.

Fuel economy and CO2 emissions are directly related.

I don't get the impression that we're overly concerned about economics here.

Thanks for exposing the fact that you hate treehuggers with that myth.

So, no CAFE, no artificial price inflation, tighten down emissions regulations and don't let congress arbitrarily set the price or availability of goods in free market.

Grow up. There's no such thing as a free market, nor will there ever be.

Actually, Mr.Mulally is probably NOT that familiar with them, since he has been in the auto industry for less than a year. Before that he was president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes.

So he's completely oblivious to common knowledge? I find that hard to believe.

Yes, people do really want the bigger cars. Have you looked at the sales figures?

Yes, I have. Have you? Small and midsize vehicles make up over 79% of passenger car sales in the US, and 50% of truck/SUV/van sales.

Which was exactly his point. As Lloyd said, "he is suggesting that the price of gas be taxed to the point where people will demand smaller, more efficient cars."

Well, Mr. Mulaly actually said "it COULD be a tax," yet somehow decries "market-distorting policies." That's what a tax is. That's what most policies are. That's what all of the favorable policies auto companies and wealthy executives enjoy.

He's a mercantilist -- wants a "free market" to sell in, yet special breaks for his own interests.

As a suburban dweller with two kids, I would hate a gas tax -- I've got zero public transportation options, can't put an infant on a bike safely, can't get the kids anywhere...

Still, it is going to be one of the few things that could force a universal drive to change.

no artificial price inflation

Is that a joke? Gasoline is 3 times more expensive than it was several years ago as a direct result of government policy. Non-intervention in the Middle East, a focus on stopping outsourcing, and control over the consolidation in the refining market all would have kept prices down.

I never cease to be amazed at penny pinchers who will wail and cry about a nickel tax that gets invested back into something useful (infrastructure, deficit reduction, etc) but are more than happy when policy makers work to make the "market" drive prices factors higher in a short period of time, resulting in a massive wealth transfer from normal people to a select few wealthy people -- most of whom aren't even Americans.

Hmmm -

A 50 cent per gallon tax would encourage people to drive more efficient cars and raise a lot of money for transportation improvements . . . .

didn't our oilman president just pooh pooh a tax increase for infrastructure upgrade and repair . . . .

CAFE standards ensure that greener cars are available without hurting people by raising the price of gas so much . . . .

I don't watch TV , did I miss something , where are these cars . . . .

why not both?

to what end . . . .

too little, too late; cars are so dead . . . .

" we have met the enemy , he is us . . . . " Pooh

We keep waiting on the politicians , to " take care of us " , if you think about it they have . . . .

they only feel an obligation to the people that PAID to elect them , not the people that voted for them . . . .

everyones thoughts were well reasoned and thought out . . . .

but , you don't own a politician . . . .

Why does everyone always suggest higher taxes to manipulate the average person to their way of thinking??? All higher taxes do is hurt our pocket book and put more money into government hands that is in turn used even less wisely than before.

OPEC will do more to help increase the price of gas than any tax would anyway.

There are two things that we should do to drive the market in a green way:

- Double the price of gas (slowly and over time) and use the taxes on scientific research and such for alternative energy technology.
- Make SUVs (and other personal use large vehicles) follow gas mileage laws while at the same time regulating the maximum size a personal use car can be.

Um, wouldn't a gas tax cause auto makers to have to produce smaller cars that Americans "don't want?" Or will it simply make Americans want smaller cars?

And what is stopping these guys from producing the "big cars" that "Americans want" that have good fuel economy?

No, people have been TOLD they want bigger cars. Marketing has TOLD them that by having an SUV they're just one step away from the mountains and adventure. That bigger is better.

That message has been reinforced time-and-again.

It could just as easily, however, promote the idea that small and sleek is sexy. That saving money is smart. That there are better things you could spend your money on that gasoline. That you don't have to be big to be safe.

in my haste to respond , I have attributed a quote to the wrong person . . . .

while it can be said that Pooh is indeed Treehugger green , he is far from politicially astute . . . .

Pogo is in fact the person I quoted , he is politicially astute , not to sure about him being green . . . .

" we have met the enemy , he is us . . . . " Pogo

Why does everyone always suggest higher taxes to manipulate the average person to their way of thinking???

I don't recall "everyone" "always" doing that.

All higher taxes do is hurt our pocket book and put more money into government hands that is in turn used even less wisely than before.

Yes, it's so much better that the money go to the leaders of governments and large companies in other countries, as well as rich Texans.

OPEC will do more to help increase the price of gas than any tax would anyway.

That makes absolutely zero economic sense. Demand response to price has nothing to do with the components of the price.

All of you are acting like my 5 year old twins.

Lets pretend.Fuel tax ( gasoline and diesel ) is increased by 75 cents per gallon.You may get better fuel mileage vehicles.But the cost of goods will increase.Significantly.Forget about shipping right.Milk,bread and anything you buy anywhere ever.

The staples of life will increase in cost.Only hurting the poor.Not those with median incomes or the rich.

Now you cannot afford food.Much less fuel to go to work.People will stop buying autos.Now we will lay off all American auto workers.Not just manufacturing.The support staff to.Secretaries,white collar workers,Auto techs,service managers,factory workers,and the lowly gas station attendant.

We now have a situation where everybody is screwed.You only succeeded in making a bad situation worse.Now with rampant unemployment.Crime rises.

What you should be doing focus on getting an affordable ( under 15,000 us dollars ) Hybrid made.Mass production of this would mean jobs.

Plus what would you think if milk cost 10 dollars a gallon?
A loaf of bread 7-8 dollars?

Your limited options only shoots yourself.They do not solve the problem.

I see no one really know how CAFE in it's current form distorted the car industry, it helped create the SUV boom and changed peoples driving habits. Hear me out before commenting:

The way I see it...

CAFE did what it was supposed to do for cars but it gave a huge boost to trucks. At the time trucks were mainly seen as work vehicles. The few SUV's, not even called that at the time, were hardly a blip in the passenger car market.

When CAFE was conceived the fleet avarage for trucks was set and has remained much lower than that for cars.

CAFE killed off the large full frame rear drive cars including the station wagons of old. The minivan was the logical replacement and had much better MPG than the old wagons they replaced.

Partially because of the minivan taking on the "soccer mom" ride of choice which turned some men off and automaker marketing the SUV emerged as the more macho ride for a family hauler. Automakers had no problems with CAFE because of that lower truck MPG loophole. SUV sales exploded through the 90's and have only weakened with higher fuel prices. Sell enough higher MPG "cute utes" and small trucks and no CAFE fine.

Automakers also have pumped up their CAFE on the car end by selling at a low price and sometimes at a slight loss small cars. Increased their CAFE enough to sell larger cars that don't get enough MPG.

Another factor because CAFE has caused most vehicles to have much better MPG than those from eariler times and fuel has been cheap up until the last few years has resulted in people getting into the habit of driving more, long commutes etc.

So has CAFE distorted the auto market, yes, I think it has but the automakers have been right there twisting through all the loop holes thus creating some of it.

Your poll left off another solution, tax incentives to buy fuel efficent vehicles and tax penalties for buying guzzlers (I know we have some but look what Canadan has done recently). A higher gas tax, not .50 but more like $2-$3 would have a big choice on peoples choices.

We now have a situation where everybody is screwed.You only succeeded in making a bad situation worse.Now with rampant unemployment.Crime rises.

LOL - you crack me up. So this mythical 75 cent gas tax causes all this havoc, yet gas going from 89 cents in 1998 to $3+ today (3 times the 75 cent tax) happened in reality. So do we have rampant unemployment and crime? Are people starving?

Fear-mongering tripe.

I find it amazing how many idiot hide behind anonymous.Specifically with slash and burn comments.Grow some big brass ones.

I've said that using a gas tax to change the market forces is the way to go for quite some time. In my opinion, $0.50 is just insufficient to increase the pain point enough though. Increase it by $1 - and then we're getting somewhere. $4 gas would change driving habits. We need a long term, slowly changing tax to signal to the market that when they buy a new vehicle, they need to take mileage into consideration.

Make the gas tax increase by 20 cents per year for the next 5 years, then 10 cents per year for the next 5. Thats a total of an additional $1.50, which will certainly change consumers mentality.

At the same time, we need to take that money and invest it wisely. Beef up the grid with renewables that help with the biggest problem the grid has... PEAK DEMAND. Install government owned solar generation - or offer larger solar rebates!

The gas tax is worse than it seems, now that I completely think about it. It's a flat increase for everyone, so those who use a vehicle to get to their work will be hurt. This is not such a big deal for the white collar guy, but the working poor will be really hurt, and this will be a disincentive against getting a job. There has always been the problem with the unemployed and poor being afraid to be employed because it would possibly result in a net decrease of money because of the cut-off of many social services. Further, knowing that a big chunk of your $5.15/hr pay will be eaten going to work in the old used car you could just afford (which probably gets 21MPG at best) is a big problem.

I understand social services and gas are separate issues, but they combine to really discourage the unemployed from becoming successful members of society. I believe legislatures should work out laws to ween workers off of social services as they become more independent. A gas tax might work if some of that money is channeled in to social services for the working poor. I heard Obama is thinking about that. It sounds like it could work.

The gas tax is worse than it seems, now that I completely think about it. It's a flat increase for everyone, so those who use a vehicle to get to their work will be hurt.

They've already been hurt by a 3 fold increase in the price of gasoline, with not an extra dime to fund government services. It's a straight wealth transfer from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.

Plus, there's plenty of high fuel economy used cars out there at affordable prices.

Tim happy someone got the point.A tax of this nature only screws over the poor.Apparently you can read between the lines.

im happy someone got the point.A tax of this nature only screws over the poor.Apparently you can read between the lines.

And what has the 3-fold increase in the price since 1998 done?

You wail about 3 quarters but ignore 3 dollars. Is that what you consider "reading between the lines"?

That ignorant little twit is back.Mr. Anonymous.It is called a ripple effect.You throw a rock into a pond.Watch the ripples.Turning the screws on poor working class does not help.

I own a small business with 3 employees.I know they are the working poor.But cannot afford to pay them more.

If i though higher taxes would be used properly.I would vote for them.But funds get diverted and siphoned off.winding up in the wrong place.Typically used for frivolous crap.

Remember all those earmark in congress.If you are going to quote me.Get it right.

Shut up and grow some brass!Put up your name.

Notice how you have yet to explain your doomsday scenario that would come from a 75 cent increase, yet in reality prices have gone up 3 times that and doomsday didn't happen.

Your theories simply don't match reality because you somehow think a 75 cent tax has some magical doomsday qualities whereas a $2+ price increase does nothing to those "poor people" who you shed fake tears for.

Your vapid insults and schoolyard taunts aren't going to cover up the inadequacy of your argument.

The thread is yours to finish with another irrational screed.

It's interesting that some people feel a slew of insults and taunts makes their ridiculous argument valid.

"So he's completely oblivious to common knowledge? I find that hard to believe."

I doubt he is oblivious to it, but what would make him "very familiar" with it. Perhaps I read something into the statement, but I read it as an implication that he was some industry veteran. To the original point, however, to my knowledge Ford only makes one vehicle that would qualify (Expedition EL?), and I think that tax break is being eliminated, so it wouldn't really relavent to their future product plans.

"Yes, I have. Have you? Small and midsize vehicles make up over 79% of passenger car sales in the US, and 50% of truck/SUV/van sales."

Yes, and for the most part midsize vehicle sales aren't the issue. However, taking the small and midsize lumped together as you did, generally, the least expensive two thirds of a market WOULD dominate the market volume (lower price = higher volume), but two things here that I do not believe support your point, as I interpret it.

Of that two thirds that you lumped together, the higher volume for most manufacturers is not in the least expensive "small" segment, but the higher priced "midsize" segment, contrary to usual supply/demand/pricing forces. Second, of those small vehicle sales (and to some extent the midsize) are subsidized. The manufacturers take losses or at best minimal profit on the smaller vehicles to increase the sales volume to meet CAFE requirements, so 79% does not reflect the true demand, but volume driven by artificially low prices - market distortion.

Don't get me wrong, I don't oppose government intervetion to encourage the public to change their bahavior for the greater good, but the CAFE system, as it is structured now and as it is being proposed to increase, is a broken system that has created some bizarre unintended consequences that I think ultimately won't be to anyone's benefit exept manufacturers paying low wages in countries with even worse environmental policies, and the best model for reduced fuel consumption that I've seen is that of many European countries where fuel prices are increased by taxes and offset by tax breaks for efficient cars. There, the public have overwhelmingly chosen more efficient vehicles and manufacturers are able to make solid profits on them.

"I find it amazing how many idiot hide behind anonymous.Specifically with slash and burn comments.Grow some big brass ones."

I can't speak for all the anonymous, but I am neither an idiot nor hiding. I have, however, noticed that those that use their names more often seem to get involved in pissing contests, and participation in such is not why I read TH, so I now post anonymously, state my point, move on, and refuse to respond to any commenter that seems to be "calling me out".

Brass or not, I choose not to whip mine out.

My point was simple.When you hammer the working poor nothing good happens.Much of industry has left my state to go to Mexico or china.Where they can pay ten cents an hour.

I stand for those working poor.Because i still am one.Even owning my own business.I still do not make that much.What little profit i make is shared.50 % is re invested into my business.The other is split among my employees.

A tax of this nature hits the bottom rung hard.Not the middle or higher.

TAX GAS?!!? MORE?!!? ARE YOU CRAZY?! haven't you seen how everything has gone up in price with the increase of gas prices?! I dont have any more money to pay for gas nor I have the money to buy a new car!

Automakers have money, we dont. Have THEM spend money on overdue research and development to come up with new, more fuel efficient cars.

Raise CAFE standards and pass a law that makes every automaker have an electric, hybrid, or super fuel efficient car from under $20 thousand if they want to do business in the US, if not, they are out. Then, we'll see what people buy. Use the money on the current gas tax to subsideize purchases of these cars by offering rebates, etc.

No more money for the government, no more slack for the automakers, no change over time. There is no more time to waste, pass a law now and that's it.

LETS TRY THIS. INSTALL A $.87 CHIP IN THE COMPUTER OF ALL NEW AND CURRENT VEHICELS THAT WILL LIMIT THE SPEEDS TO 35 MPH. THIS WOULD REDUCE 22,000 DEATHS A YEAR AND GET US OFF OF FOREIGN OIL IN 7 MONTHS!

LETS ALL SLOW DOWN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND OUR FUTURES!

" LETS TRY THIS. INSTALL A $.87 CHIP IN THE COMPUTER OF ALL NEW AND CURRENT VEHICLES THAT WILL LIMIT THE SPEEDS TO 35 MPH. THIS WOULD REDUCE 22,000 DEATHS A YEAR AND GET US OFF OF FOREIGN OIL IN 7 MONTHS!

LETS ALL SLOW DOWN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND OUR FUTURES! "

This would not work on mine.I have an old truck with zero electronics.Not even a radio.I don't think my trips once a month.For supplies about 25 miles each way.I can not justify the need for newer auto.I can also fix my truck myself.Without a technician.

Compare and contrast:

"I find it amazing how many idiot hide behind anonymous.Specifically with slash and burn comments.Grow some big brass ones."
-- "JB"

"This would not work on mine.I have an old truck with zero electronics.Not even a radio.I don't think my trips once a month.For supplies about 25 miles each way.I can not justify the need for newer auto.I can also fix my truck myself.Without a technician."

-- "JB" posting as "Anonymous"

Анонимный

Вам американцы верят всему, должным Вам. Работа для того, что Вы имеете вместо этого. Не участвуйте в боевой природе со мной. Рассмотрите каждого, как Вы хотите быть рассмотренными

Anonymous

I did not post as Anonymous.I do not post behind a shield.Stop being stupid and vindictive.You only make yourself look like an asshole.Leave them alone.