Why is it that Congress has not passed a significant vehicle emmission standards bill in 35 years?

Question

and for that matter why is it that a national energy plan to wean us from fossil fuel say within the next 25 years is still not happened?
Isn't that what leadership is supposed to mean...that you look ahead and make plans for the future?

Answer 1

It is called very effective lobbying. For all of those screaming security if we used less oil we would need less oil. We would not need to even worry about the middle east oil. Try to connect the dots.

Answer 2

Because when they enacted CAFE, thinking they could legislate what people drove, and thus reducing gas use, they ran smack dab into the Law of Unintended Consequences.

By eliminating large cars capable of comfortably carrying 6 people, or being able to tow a boat or a camper, the created the huge market for SUVs and minivans, and boosted the sales of pick-up trucks.

The effect was to actually DECREASE fuel economy, because the SUVs and pick-ups and vans get worse fuel economy than the big cars and station wagons they replaced.

It demonstrated the abysmal failure of trying to legislate consumer preference, and how such measures usually exacerbate the problem they're trying to solve.

If you want the people to drive smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles, then raise the tax on gas until it's $5 or $6 a gallon, as Al Gore suggested in his book "Earth in the Balance". That's really the only intelligent and sensible way to push consumers towards reduction in gas usage, if you think it is government's place to do so.

As for weaning us from fossil fuel, where's the alternative? The fact is that there IS no alternate fuel or energy source available now or within 25 (or 50 or 100) years that will be able to fully replace oil and coal and natural gas.

And as for other government intervention, let's look at what has happened as a result of subsidizing ethanol. Because of the subsidized demand for corn, the price of corn increased. This has led to an increase in the prices of food that is corn based, and in the price of foodstuffs where corn is a livestock feed (meats, poultry, dairy, etc). Because of the high prices of corn, more farmland has switched from other produce to corn, which, in turn, decreases the supply of that other produce, driving up its price in turn. And it still takes more energy to make ethanol than it provides.

Perhaps government shouldn't be meddling where it has no Constitutional authority. Just a thought.

Answer 3

New cars produce nearly no emissions now. There comes a point where you have diminishing returns for your efforts. Any additional reduction requirement would cost a whole lot but produce little gain in air quality. If you cause the price of new cars to go too high, people will hold on to their older less efficient cars much longer. The older and more worn out those cars get the more they pollute.

There is not much more you can do with fossil fuels. There really are no alternative fuels to switch to. Nothing even proposed so far is able to completely replace fossil fuels. No matter how much research money you throw at it, no matter how much you insist, the next breakthrough will happen when it happens.

Raising gas prices artificially will have unintended consequences, too. Sure, people will drive less. But with little or no infrastructure to accommodate them with mass transit the net result would be a screeching halt to commerce. Even if people spend their additional cost for the gas, they won't have any money to spend when they get there. If the price of gas goes too high you are facing another Great Depression.

.


.

Answer 4

Its a states issue. Keep the Feds out of it.

Answer 5

oil companies are lining their pockets.