Comment Re:There's a lot of potential (Score 3, Interesting) 1104
At the risk of being labeled a troll, the parent post completely misses three very important points:
1) S/he has absolutely no understanding about what motivates people to buy the cars that they buy. It has very, very little to do with ongoing operating costs and almost everything to do with what fulfilling an emotional desire (coolness, percieved (but not actual) safety, convenience, etc.). The number of people that do a full life cost analysis of their car purchase could probably be counted on two hands.
2) For those that do think of cost, a $1000 increase in the price of a car has a much greater impact on the purchasing decision than $2000 increase in operating costs over a year. Pain now is almost always more important than pain later.
3) The impact of higher fuel costs will disporportionately impact the lower economic classes. Commuting costs to their jobs is a proportionately higher percentage of their income and they can less afford the extra expenses. Regardless of whether they are taking a bus or driving a car, they need to get to their job and raising fuel costs will raise that expense. Environmental issues are the classic network externalities problem that a pure capitalistic approach fails at. Why set a public policy on this point that would punish the lower classes just so the middle and upper classes can continue to waste the remaining gasoline driving unnecessary SUVs and high-performance sports cars. That just doesn't make social sense.
The CAFE approach seems to be the best one, but the govt doesn't have the guts to actually do it right. Set the total average fleet MPG requirement, ratchet it up .25 MPG per year, and tell the auto manufacturers that they have to meet it, no excuses. If they fall under, they have to stop selling all models with less economy than their target until they get back into balance. People that really have to have that 16mpg Tahoe will be able to get it (capitalism will make sure that they pay whatever premium is appropriate considering how hard it'll be to get one) and those that can get by with a smaller vehicle will have the great incentive to do so (faster delivery times because the source will be unconstrained).
OK, rant over.
1) S/he has absolutely no understanding about what motivates people to buy the cars that they buy. It has very, very little to do with ongoing operating costs and almost everything to do with what fulfilling an emotional desire (coolness, percieved (but not actual) safety, convenience, etc.). The number of people that do a full life cost analysis of their car purchase could probably be counted on two hands.
2) For those that do think of cost, a $1000 increase in the price of a car has a much greater impact on the purchasing decision than $2000 increase in operating costs over a year. Pain now is almost always more important than pain later.
3) The impact of higher fuel costs will disporportionately impact the lower economic classes. Commuting costs to their jobs is a proportionately higher percentage of their income and they can less afford the extra expenses. Regardless of whether they are taking a bus or driving a car, they need to get to their job and raising fuel costs will raise that expense. Environmental issues are the classic network externalities problem that a pure capitalistic approach fails at. Why set a public policy on this point that would punish the lower classes just so the middle and upper classes can continue to waste the remaining gasoline driving unnecessary SUVs and high-performance sports cars. That just doesn't make social sense.
The CAFE approach seems to be the best one, but the govt doesn't have the guts to actually do it right. Set the total average fleet MPG requirement, ratchet it up
OK, rant over.
