To: Road Walker who wrote (356803 ) 11/8/2007 3:28:01 AM From: Joe NYC Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1570636 John,It's closer to 10 years to replace the fleet, and it never gets completely replaced. (Still some '57 Chevy's around). Which is why you need a huge incentive to buy fuel efficiency. You also need a marketing campaign, both negative and positive. When the SUV owner registers his plate and pays his $5k tax he gets a black license plate. The guy that gets his energy efficiency rebate each year gets a green license plate. All vehicles have to have their MPG ratings on the back of the car, like nameplates. All car ads have to have MPG rating prominently displayed. Maybe even something like the Surgeon Generals warning on cigarettes. First, it takes energy to manufacture a new car. A lot of energy. Dumping fully functional car into garbage is not exactly a recipe for efficiency. I don't know the exact break-even, but IMO, it is most efficient to use all things throughout their useful life and not just dump stuff and replace it with newer shinier model. Second, your idea of $5k tax break / tax surcharge is not one of your brightest ideas you have posted. SUVs are perfectly fine vehicles for the purposes they were intended for. They usually have 3 rows of seats, seating more than 5 normal people (4 people of oversized American variety), they can tow boat, horse thingie, or whatever person may chose, they are great for ski trips in the mountains (or for people who just live in snowy places), muddy, unpaved roads etc. You can fit sheetrock or plywood (things not familiar to ivory tower and moron.org crowd) in most SUVs or minivans. They are not ideal for long distance single person daily commute, I will grant you that. But your call for $5k tax / tax break does not distinguish between the weekend driver and commuter. It taxes them equally. A more rational gas tax hits a commuter a lot more severely than a weekend driver - which is what a rational measure would do. Another point: You are blaming the car, which is just a tool that servers (or is a necessity) of certain lifestyle, which is a suburban lifestyle. Urban lifestyle is a lot more efficient, and does not even require a use of an automobile. If you are so much for a confiscatory taxation to enforce energy efficiency, wouldn't it make much more sense to confiscatorily tax any dweller of a residence, say below 6 dwelling building to force them into large apartment buildings? Take a look at the results here:en.wikipedia.org New York City is the most energy efficient as far as electricity use. As far as gasoline use, its lead is undoubtedly even larger. Joe