Politicians and consultants (apparantly paid for by oil and auto companies) often claim that it will cost many thousands of dollars to get the average US fuel economy to over 36 MPG. That is criminally incorrect! It will only take smaller engines. We are spoiled by huge thirsty engines and 5000 pound SUVs that go zero to sixty faster than the original Porshe 911! Wasteful and ridiculous. We can get 40 MPG CHEAPER by buying smaller engines in smaller cars. CAFE rules in the 70\'s pushed the public into SUVs and the current regs do little if anything to stop that by allowing people to get around mileage requirements simple by buying a larger vehicle. How dumb is that? All this assumes that those buyers must need a larger vehicle when that is just not true. We need to specify that trucks can only be sold to companies that need them to haul commercial goods, and enforce it by limiting those trucks to 65MPH, no DVD, no nice leather interior, no macho commercials, and keep increasing their mileage requirements too. Then we will see a real shift in pollution, energy dependance and security.

So if I\'m reading this right? The idea that U.S. cars pollute more than other cars is because of CO2 emissions? When are we going to get off this idea that CO2 is a pollutant? I wish I could figure out how to tune my Giant 5000 lb. SUV to emit pure CO2! Since when did it become greedy because I worked hard and could afford to do so, that getting any transportation I choose was a bad thing? I drive what I want (with in the limits of my income) and it is nothing less than criminal to impose some sort of made up tax over an invisible gas that is only the staff of life! If you want a small car and it suits your needs please feel free but don\'t impose your will on me. The planet will survive just fine no matter what we drive and technology will make them cleaner and better as time goes by, but the idea that some political group or party can tell industries or scientists that they must come up with what ever they think of when they say to is pure arrogance!

@mrhuckfin: If you seriously think that CO2 in higher amounts are not bad for the environment, animals or even people then why don\'t you try to fill a room full of it and the try to stay alive in that room.
Do you really believe that the changes of the PH levels in the oceans has nothing to do with pollution.
There\'s simple tests that could easily show you just how bad CO2 emissions can be if they reach high enough concentration.
But I guess it\'s easier to stick you head in the sand and continue to be ignorant. Hey, what you cant see doesn\'t hurt you, right?

Why stay so focused on incremental decreases in emission when you can go to zero emission vehicles? Broad based support and adoption of battery only and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles can put the fossil fuel era behind us once and for all.

This has little to do with the automobile or fuel and a lot to do with where we live, work and shop.
Zoning laws over the last 60 to 70 years have created a situation where it\'s necessary to rely on the POV to do almost anything. The simple fact is, in almost any place in America, a person lives a long distance from where he or she works. Also, the distance between neighbors is so large as to make public transportation, at the outset, prohibitively expensive, and therefore politically impossible, and impracticable for the user.
The ultimate solution is for people to live much closer to employment, schools, and shopping. Anything else is simply using bandages to cover a wound that will never heal.

Americans don\'t drive diesel cars, because their gas prices are relatively cheap, compared to Europe. mrfuckhin, nobody is going to tell you to drive an economical car, right? That attitude pervades America, and will only change when gas prices are hiked up.
By the way, someone pointed out that the amount of oil coming of the leaking well is under such enormous pressure that it must be an enormous reservoir. So, is oil really running out?

The BP disaster in the Gulf is the end of big oil as we know it in this country. Couple that disaster with the increased availability of eco-friendly vehicles, and gasoline consumption in this country will plummet within 5 years.

The problem is that North America has to change its infrastructure. If all of sudden everyone drove alternative fuel vehicles the economy would be thrown for a loop. Think of all of the gas stations that would be obsolete or the mechanics that can no longer service the new vehicles. Also think about how these new vehicles will refuel themselves. Electric? Sure, but the current power grids couldn\'t handle that much extra demand.

So far we haven\'t seen a clear winner in terms of vehicles that will run on an alternative fuel source(s). Once that becomes more evident then we can change the infrastructure and only then will we kick the fossil fuel addiction.

There is too much attention on this problem for there not to be changes ahead. Large industry and policymakers do not move quickly. Patience...

Lawrence, (don\'t need an @ here people!)
mrhuckfin proves that a radical change is unpalatable to the uneducated, ignorant and just plain deniers because it doesn\'t benefit them, fit in their juvenile view of what gives them enjoyment (because they think they work hard and \"deserve\" to do whatever they want no matter what harm it does to themselves and others (sell him the lead paint)), or some oil industry shill told them so on their favorite anti-change rant radio talk show, and/or they are just too fearful of change all-together.

But far more important than satisfying the lowest 1% of society is the fact that radical change is hard to do too quickly without proper industry in place. Companies need time to adjust, retool, and build infastructure, not to mention see what the people will actually buy.

So we need incremental changes to start. If we had kept CAFE going from the 70\'s at an incremental pace instead of stopping it, we would already be at 40MPG and that would be the norm and the most ignorant \"6 year old in a 30-something body\" would be happy as long as his vehicle is bigger than the next guy\'s because that will give him his temporary sense of manhood and make him think he appears to be a rebel when we know he\'s just stuck at a child level of development.

After the biggest oil spill of the entire history of mankind, After endless US wars for oil in the Middle-East, After the Bark Beetle epidemic ravaging the forests over the entire Western part of North America due to man-made climate change, It is incredible to me that individuals such as Mr Huckfin can continue to proffer such asinine, I drive whatever I like because I work hard, statements.
Not only do we need MUCH STRICTER emission standards for US cars and trucks, but people like Mr. Huckfin need to get off of their fat asses and ride a bicycle!
In the next ten years, driving a Giant 5000 lb. SUV will become prohibitively expensive, and hopefully illegal.
Automotive manufacturers will be required by law to build more lightweight hybrid and electric vehicles similar to the General Motors EV1 produced between 1996 and 1999 for the California market.
The mandate passed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in the early 90s that made the production and sale of zero-emission vehicles a requirement for the seven major automakers selling cars in the United States to continue to market their vehicles in California, is a good example of how intelligent regulations can protect the planet and other people from individuals like Mr. Huckfin.
Unfortunately, an alliance of the major US automakers litigated the CARB regulation in court, resulting in a slackening of the zero-emission vehicles mandate. The EV1 program was subsequently discontinued in 2002, and all cars on the road were repossessed by General Motors and CRUSHED!
This is why General Motors and people like Mr. Huckfin are part of the problem instead of being part of the solution. Hopefully, a majority of thinking Americans will no longer tolerate this type of behavior in the future.
Michael McGEE wind-energy@evc.net