It's a lavish gift for well-off Americans to buy expensive cars for the sake of appearing green.  Finally someone said it.

Slate: Unaffordable at Any Speed President Obama's electric car subsidies are snobby and foolish.


I agree, I bet west LA is happy.   

No, that would be mean! 

Actually I don't believe that at all.  Unless you're talking about $10/gallon.  America is rich enough to pay for a lot of gas withouth changing the demand curve.

Europeans are poorer and pay $8.00/gas, drive 1.3L Golfs and are still complaining about carbon and pollution and all that crap.  There's no way to appease the greens.

If you REALLY want to drive innovation, just let people empty the oil wells sooner - keep the emissions laws so people just don't built flamethrowers in the back of their cars because of some incentive, but otherwise, stop the nonsense.  When people realize oil reserves are about to end, people will figure out an alternative in 6 months.

There's no way to propel a big truck on batteries, batteries are inneficient and something else will come up, like the Terminator fuels cells: I'm all for your private nuclear reactor, as I said in the past.  You could generate heat with micro particules of radioactive material and build small engines into things: that's the theory behind the nuclear personal reactor, at the nano level.

Necessity drives innovation, not subsidies.

Maybe that is true.  But I also think that the Hummer failed because it was not cool to have one anymore.  Nobody really needed one, but it was kind of cool to drive.  The moment it was not cool to be seen around one, people started buying other stuff. 

I would see a better correlation if people stopped buying Silverados and F-150 and started buying Tacomas and Rangers instead - just because the gas went to $5/gal.  Seriously, only in America the F-150 can still remain the best (among the best) selling vehicle.  Everywhere else in the world people would buy a Ranger or a Nissan instead for basically the same duties, and it would probably be a diesel to boot.  A truck the size of an F-150, gasoline powered truck, in Europe is completely utterly mad.  Even in the rest of the world you don't see many private owned 1/2 tons and 3/4 tons.  Not in India, China, Brazil, Argentina and South Africa, unless I'm misinformed.   People value small pickup trucks way more than we do here.

I think in one year an F-150 sold more than all the Hummers ever made, combined.   And it's not even one bit more efficient, and it's debatable weather it's much more practical than a Tacoma or a Frontier (unless you tow).  So how can you say the Hummer is worse for the environment than an F-150, Suburban or Silverado?  It isn't.

A lot of the F-150/Silverado purchases are commercial and likewise the gasoline price is a business not personal expense.  Hummers on the other hand have the same engine but are heavier and less aerodynamic and therefore get worse gas mileage with less utility and thats why they were expendable when trucks are not.  Whether people could get smaller trucks... I don't know.  I'm sure a lot of them could, and I'm guessing small truck sales have improved with the increase in gas prices.

I like it too, but I heard it's not that efficient, so...who knows?

I think there should be a turbo subsidy instead of a hybrid one.  Aren't they more efficient?  That's all that should matter.

Thanks, interesting read.  What you say is true, but at the same time, "The Ranger, Explorer Sport Trac and Dakota are scheduled to end production next year, and we expect similar fates for the Colorado, Canyon and Ridgeline."  So it does not look good for small pickups that much, unless you're Toyota and Nissan.

You know - every now and then I see this business about raising the gas tax to control consumption. I even see it in articles written by auto magazine editors.

What bothers me is that this would be an absolute abuse of the government's ability to tax. Taxation authority exists primarily for the purpose of raising funds necessary for the operation of the government, for the purpose of regulating trade (import duties) and similar purposes. To use taxation power to influence or control behavior, or for punishment, is no different from using beatings or other forms of coercion.

I mean, you'd object loudly if the government gave people whippings for using more gasoline than they wanted them to, but you think it would be okay to punish them by taking money from them in the form of a tax? Sure, the beating is a physical punishment and the tax is a financial punishment, but they're both punishment for not doing what the government wants you to do, and the government should not be in the business of controlling people's behavior. No way, no how. Punish them for committing a crime, but driving and using gasoline isn't a crime.

In addition to that, a tax on gasoline would be regressive, meaning it would hurt low income people the most. And it would generally hurt the economy, since our country runs on gasoline and oil, like it or not.

Taxation must not be used to punish people, or else the government that uses it for that becomes a dictatorship.

.
.