30 mpg? BS

I want to go on record that I am insulted by TV commercials that tout 30 MPG cars as efficient. What a crock. Only two vehicles sold in the US get over 40 mpg, and those are hybrids. In Europe, the AVERAGE mpg is 40. In the US it half that - 20 mpg.

When the technology is available right now to get 100 mpg, why are we bragging about 30 mpg? When is the ever-suffering Detroit ever, EVER going to get a clue that Americans don't want 30 mpg, they want 100 mpg? If Detriot would ever have the courage to get out of bed with oil companies it would benefit the entire world, Americans first. If Detroit made a real commitment to the electrification of transportation, the world would follow. But you know what, Japan is going to do it - and the world will follow.

Detroit is gutless.
Politicians are either too gutless or self-defeatingly idealistic.
Americans are too complacent to rally.

Oil

I don't like gas at $4.00 a gallon as much as the next person. I am also going to be the one who admits that I do not understand the complexities of market forces as it relates to resource scarcity. So, anything I say here is not to be taken as fact or even informed hypothesizing. This is more or less supposing and chasing a what if.

So, let's consider that China and India are consuming more oil there are refining strains. Let's also assume that the idea that carbon emmissions are actually hurting the earth is being taken seriously be more and more politicians - even George Bush. Let's also assume that it is possible that George Bush understands how power mechanisms work, especially within a market system.

OK, with all of that in place, is it possible that Bush has seen a "win-win" for all parties involved (or maybe himself) as it relates to the oil industry?

There are many who take on the view that the solution to high gas prices is high gas prices. Moral or environmental arguments do not work as quickly or as broadly as economic motivation. Pocket book arguments (raise gas prices) is more convincing than any of these other arguments.

Let's assume Bush recognizes the power mechanism of economic motivation and allows prices to rise by not putting any real pressure on the supply side of oil (fake requests to Saudis for more oil), not actively promiting new exploration, having no energy policy, allowing oil companies to ride on the tail of oil speculators to artificially inflate oil prices, and at the same time throw out stimulus money which will only go right back into the oil industry.

At the same time as Bush is actively and passively asstintg oil prices to rise, he can talk green and promote new technologies. He can act on both sides of the issue. He can say "we're addicted to oil" as if that were bad and then help fill oil industry leader's pockets.

So for Bush it is win-win. If high gas prices are the cure for high gas prices because they motivate conservation and new non-oil dependent technologies, Bush can take credit for promoting new technology and green living. If, however, high gas prices do not promote new technology, Bush and sit back with his oil buddies taking in their congratulations for the boon.

Since Bush's approval rating couldn't get any lower than it is already, from his perspective, there is nothing to lose.

OK, that is oil for dummies. Any thoughts?