From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Subject: Re: BUSH Administration Hushes Auto Efficiency Studies
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 20:03:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Thus spake mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd): 

>	CAFE has never really been very effective, and at times has
>	been counterproductive. Several times in the early 1980's,
>	the Deteroit automakers were faced with building a fleet that
>	exceeded CAFE standards. What did they do? They built tens of
>	thousands of extra economy cars to get the fleet average gas
>	milage under the CAFE limit. Of course, these extra cars didn't
>	sell, but it was cheaper to lose the money in the excess production
>	than to pay the gas guzzler tax. This excess production is,
>	of course, wasteful both economically and environmentally.

	Sounds simple enough to solve. Modify the law to apply to units SOLD
rather than units MANUFACTURED. Or follow Clinton's suggestion of setting
two standards, one for large vehicles (which could carry a luxery tax which
would contribute to the environmental clean up effort), and one for small
vehicles. It would allow Detroit to remain competitive with the imports, and
would still contribute to improving the environment.

>	Further, CAFE policy does little to confront the real problem
>	with cars --that they are used at all. The best policy would
>	be to encourage the average Joe to use public transportation
>	or walk or ride a bike to wherever he wants to go. It's
>	environmentally wasteful to drive a car three miles, when
>	a trip on a bike will do quite nicely.
>
	True. Try legislating THAT.

	Instead, how about putting research money into alternative energy
sources and into mass transit rather than into weapons?

>	The best way to reduce CO2, NOx, and other auto emissions
>	is to use tax policy to increase the price of gasoline.
>	As gasoline prices increase, so will the demand for high
>	fuel economy. As gas prices increase, people will drive
>	their cars less. Also, as prices increase, people will be
>	more willing to use alternate means of transportation,
>	like bicycles, trains, walking, etc. 
>
	No, the POOR will be forced to do so, but the rest of the people
will simply continue to drive instead. Regressive taxes are seldom the
answer to any question other than "Now how can we screw the poor?"

	In addition to the regressive nature of the taxes, increases in
gasoline prices will simply result in more increases in other areas to
compensate, thus the major contribution will be to inflation - something
Bush has been quite good at contributing to without any MORE help!

	Do you attack Harel's posts out of general principles, or do you
actually think your responses are well thought out? 

	If it's the former, please stop making a fool of yourself, some of
us admit publicly that we participate on Usenet, and it degrades other's
opinions of us when they read such tripe.

	If it's the latter, otoh, PLEASE take the time to learn a bit about
a subject before you sprout off about it in public.

	Incidently, if you tried responding to Harel's posts with reasoned
argumentation rather than with insults and derogatory statements, you MIGHT
find many of us (myself included) willing to intelligently debate an issue
rather than flame you.

	Think about it.

-- 
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\        You are right from your side,        
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \        And I am right from mine.          
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  We're both just one too many mornings,   
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  And a thousand miles behind. (c Bob Dylan)