And ya’ll should be out buying Hummers and GMT900 SUV’s.

Lutz is a genius.

I would say yes to higher gas taxes and any other efforts to begin to move this country away from it’s complete dependance upon the automobile. As someone else noted, it is virtually impossible to live in the US and NOT own a car. This of course was by design. In the 50′s what was good for GM was good for the country… we all bought into the mobile lifestyle so very easily – now we’re waging wars to feed the excesses of that choice. I want to walk, bike and use mass transit but find that impossible anywhere except in our largest cities. No wonder we’ve got the fattest population on earth…

Oh and I’m okay with gas taxes, as long as the money goes either into the roads or into ways to use less gas.

It’s clear we have to change our ways, if for nothing else national security. We have the ingenuity to build space shuttles, artificial hearts, invisible bombers, etc.etc. We can solve the renewable energy problem.

Suthuna, the only people I hear supporting this are the ones who can afford it. And from what you have said, you fall right into that category. Most people do not own RVs. Most people do not own multiple trucks and a boat. I would imagine the statistics regarding boat and RV ownership would closly resemble the percentage of those who make north of $150k. There are many reasons contributing to the fact that other countries are producing more oil than the US. Those countries happen to be 3rd world and rely on that ouput as their main means of economy. Not true here. We also have conservationists on steroids here that 3rd world countries do not have to contend with. Biodiesel and Ethanol do not provide enough energy versus how much is needed to produce a gallon of either. Forcing such a thing on the public is about as rediculous as taxing the hell out of oil consumption. First off, there is no outcry regarding the 60% of a barrel of oil that is being used for plastics production. Refined gasoline accounts for only 18%. The market is now there for inventors and engineers to further refine the internal combustion engine. The size of vehicles will not change. Our suburbanization and infrastructure will not change. What can and will change is the efficiency of engines. The market simply will not support high prices for the sake of independence from hostile nations. The only other possibility is to artificially alter the market to produce results and that simply ends in the collapse of that market. Just look at the collapsing energy markets in areas of the country that have been regulated for so long and now left on their own.

I understand your point and it’s valiant to offer yourself to that type of tax policy. Most complain abot what others should be doing. But most Americans cannot afford such a tax and shouldn’t be forced to. This is all of our problem and we need a solution(s) that will work for all of us.

It’s quite apparent that more than a few folks here have no clue as to how and why oil is formed (“Dodge”), or how we got into the predicament of suburbanization (post World War II) in the first place. My father has worked in the oil, gas, and petrochemicals industry for many years, and also served as a pilot in Vietnam. He supports higher gas taxes that would eventually limit the need for troops in foreign nations militarily. This is good. I too have been trained in this industry, although now I consult for local governments in renewable energy policy and implementation. In addition, we have a farm that grows soybeans (biodiesel) and switchgrass (cellulosic ethanol in the future, perhaps). The way forward in this country is efficiency and new technology, combined with EVERYONE taking an active role in limiting our fossil fuel use.

Many of these comments are extremely narrow-minded while others are highly enlightened. I applaud Mr. Lutz for acknowledging our problem. Oil is finite; don’t let the abiotic cornucopians fool you into believing otherwise. The recent find in GOM isn’t even proven and won’t be online for years, and nothing points to proof it is abiotic in nature. Our current urban and suburban design was predicated on cheap oil obtained when the U.S. was the world’s leading producer. Now, we are not. The game has changed, thus everything else must change with it. We own numerous trucks and tractors and a boat and RV. Price increases would hurt, but a TRUE American patriot wants to see long-term success and sustainability not just so we can keep going with our wasteful, easy motoring lifestyles. Give me the pain now so future generations won’t have to deal with it.

This proposal is on the wrong track, anyone driving a vehicle and supports this garbage has a screw loose.

That way people who buy efficient cars still get to run them super cheap, meaning that the average person isn’t getting screwed when it comes to meeting their basic transportation needs.

And you could argue that by using less gas collectively (lower demand), US fuel prices might become even cheaper! At any rate, it would make the economy somewhat more robust; i.e. less sensitive to fluctuations in oil prices.

Or, if they need to raise revenues, raise the speed limits and let people choose to spend more gas.

Raising the gas taxes? Insane idea. It will not reduce our quantitative demand for gas. The next day, people will still need to drive to work and be screwed. Lutz just wants to force all of us to buy new cars. He also doesn’t seem to care about the re-sale value (anyone looked at GM resale values lately?) of your SUV that his employer built.

Let the market decide what cars people buy. I don’t buy anything that does less than 25mpg on the highway.

“Self, what the hell kind of wasteful programs would they blow that additional 100 billion dollars on?”

Then, I decided it was a bad idea.

And Bob’s suggestion would not only affect automotive products, but would increase prices on all consumables in an exponential way. I don’t think the entire population should suffer in an effort to reach only ONE goal. I think Bob should retire- wasn’t he offered a retirement window at GM?

j._m

Taxing is never easy, and honestly I don’t really like paying an extra tax of 180% on every car I buy or paying a 60% income tax as we do here in Denmark, but I still feel it’s for a common good: Free hospitals, free education, free roads, a clean environment, culture and social security ( aka “flexicurity” ) and mucho more. And hey, we’ve got almost no unimployment, even though gas is down to 1.7 $ pr. litre the last time I looked.

Toy Yoda’s got some good points, so get started while you still have a chance to have some influence and be in charge, and don’t let yourself get run over by the way things develop around you.

Gas is much too cheap, and even though you might not think so, in reality US citizens are buying gas at a far, far too high price when you take in consideration the costs of the Iraqi war and the military presence here and there, pollution, terror and what have you.

I think we really need to build compact cities where people would want to live before penalizing drivers.

1. Americans don’t learn. Once the price of gasoline gets low enough, we will start buying SUVs again.

2. I like the idea of taxing gas in theory. Imagine, less SUVs on the roads, and more moms in statoin wagons. However, in practice, the extra tax from gas will go to pork and barrel projects, not to improving the environment or research into alternative energies.

3. If they do have a tax on gas, then people should have the power to remove it, say every 4 years or something. Did you realize the income tax was suppose to be a temporary tax to raise funds? I don’t want the US to depend on revenue from gas taxes.

4. Why penalize the small car owner with gas taxes? There’s another way to accomplish the same thing, and that is to increase the gas guzzler tax. Tax SUV’s, passenger vans, and mini-vans, don’t tax -as much- things like pickup trucks, and commercial vans. That way moms will pick smaller cars, and small businesses won’t get hurt. They should charge something like 5,000 dollars for every mpg less than an ideal mpg target. So if the ideal mpg is something like 22mpg, and your SUV gets 20, you should pay a penalty of 10k.

You’ve heard of Moms Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) what about Dudes Against Moms in SUVs (DAMNS) Hehehehe…..

In fairness to GM they do make decent small cars in Europe – Opel Astra for one – just not quite as good as Fords or VWs.

As importantly, it will help absorb shocks in the price of gas. A $2 jump in the price of gas in the U.S. in 2 years was a 200% increase. A $2 jump in the price of gas in Europe was a 33% increase. Which do you think is worse for the economy? My guess is that we will be facing future gas spikes more frequently than one every 10-20 years with our geopolitical mess, the growth of China and other nations and the fact that oil exploration is continually getting more expensive. Permanently rising gas prices (beyond market fluctuations) will force Americans to re-evaluate where they live and work and how they get from point A to point B. There is still room for the love affair of driving (going out to the lake house on the weekends, for example), if we make ourselves brutally efficient in other aspects of our lives (less suburban sprawl, more spending on public transport, development of new renewable fuels, etc).

I honestly don’t think this is as bad an idea as you all think it is – and I work with a fleet of trucks that get 12-13 mpgs. I’d love to see there be incentive for real efficiency gains, not just smaller cars, and new alternative fuel sources (oil is limited. period.) If you’re really worried about affordabiliy, we could use the money to set up a better health care system or protect social security or pay down our debt to China or just have the government reinvest it in the form of research, which will spawn hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs. I think it’s a good idea – just has to be executed well (read: not by politicians, by economists).

If this ends up killing GM who can’t seem to stop making Hummers… it’s their own darn fault.

Which tells me that ‘Lutz the Putz’ is working to destroy GM, by forcing customers to buy small, quality, fuel-efficient cars.

Cars which GM does not make.

Lutz’s point about the $30k golf was that small car doesn’t equal cheap (low margin) car. Europeans want fuel efficent cars (partly because of taxes) but they also want safe well appointed cars. After all if they wanted a cheap pos they could buy chevy’s