I might add that they make cars more expensive, encouraging consumers to drive older, lower-mileage, heavier-polluting vehicles, so they're counterproductive with their stated goal, too, while costing jobs to boot. Why not use price signals? A steadily increasing Pigouvian tax on gasoline would reduce carbon emissions naturally and create natural demand for high-mileage vehicles while preserving consumer choice. There would be the side benefits of reducing traffic (thus reducing the need for government expenditure on roads) and providing an additional revenue stream that would reduce the need for the government to tax (and thus deter) productive activity like investing or earning income. But that makes too much sense—or, rather, it would require politicians to directly charge voters for their expensive policy dreams, rather than hide the costs.
Counterproductive CAFE regulations
- Bidding Bye to the Bank
- New Jersey creates new cause of action for texting
- "New Study: U.S. Legal System Is World's Most Costly"
- Deep pockets files: California concrete thrower
- Harvey Pitt on the future of the SEC
- Is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau truly independent?
- New Podcast: John Edwards prosecution
- $2.7 billion nanny-state regulation
- Hans Bader uncovers a Catch-22 in EEOC enforcement
- Cordray Confirmation Stalemate Continues to 'Handicap' CFPB
- "NLRB Postpones Worker-Notification Rule"
- California SB 469
- NLRB notice rule
- Around the web, August 31
- Around the web, August 15
Center for Legal Policy at the