Lowell, you should add Sen. Webb to that list.  Much as I wish he was solid on energy & environmental issues, I've heard he's waffling on a couple of key issues like fuel economy and a 15% national renewable energy standard.

here.  I hope he's not "waffling" on the 15% Renewable Portfolio Standard or the fuel economy increases.  These measures are crucial to our national security, including reducing our profile in the Middle East.

10 MPG in 13 years; how about 50mpg.  Why build a standard that toyota and honda can meet without hardly anywork, but will slaughter GM/Ford/etc.  50mpg forces every automaker to make changes.  Give US unionized factories a subsidy for retooling to protect those jobs in Michigan.
Also my personal preference would be a gas tax.  Let people choose to drive any car they want, just make them pay the real price of the fuel.  $5/gallon ought to do it.

Why set a national fuel economy standard?  If you want a more fuel efficient vehicle, buy one.  If you can afford $4.00 a Gal. good on ya.

The only two ways to do that:

1) Raise prices substantially
2) Increased vehicle fuel economy

Which do you prefer?

and will continue to go up.  The demand for oil by developing countries will not decline and what oil the US deosn't import, China and India will.  Prices will continue to rise no matter what our fuel economy standards are mandated to be.

Consumers are going to seek out what they can best afford, and what meets their needs.

Government standards are just feel good, do nothing legislation.

HOWEVER, Americans on average say it would take a gasoline price of $4.38 per gallon to significantly cut back their driving.  Given that it's highly unlikely we'll reach $4.38 per gallon for any extended period of time, the other alternatives to reducing oil consumption and imports are:

1) a tax on gasoline that raises the price to levels at which Americans start cutting back consumption

2) increased fuel economy standards that result in less gasoline consumed for the same miles driven

3) an "Apollo Project" to produce vehicles that get 80, 100 miles per gallon, etc. 

4) aggressive policies to discourage sprawl

5) gas guzzler taxes combined with incentives to purchase fuel efficient vehicles

6) any combination of the above

Which do you prefer?  Or, do you think it's ok to stay "addicted" to Saudi oil forever, sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year to unstable regimes that dislike us (and which siphon some of that money to fundamentalist Islamic "madrasas")?

Sorry for the randomness in advance :-p

Where do you draw the line between government policy for the common good and personal freedoms and liberties

We on the right favor an open approach instead of government mandates. 

The fact is there are already a wide variety of MPG vehicles on the road today along with all sorts of technologies that reduce the rate of energy consumption

I would agree to a point that tax incentives to help green technology make sense but we have to be careful not to subsidize too much.

As far as actual standards are concerned it just sounds too much like big brother telling me what to do.

Your argument about sprawl is a good one and at Bacons Rebellion we go around and around on the governments role.  Government should provide an opportunity for more efficient denser development but where do you draw the line.  You can incentivize "smarter living" but at no point should you force people to live a certain way.  These standards are kind of like saying there will no more houses that are bigger than 2,000 square feet for example to reduce home energy costs. 

Even a pure Libertarian would agree that the government should play a major role in defending our nation.  The fact is that our oil import dependency is a major "root cause" of many of the problems we currently face in terms of Middle East unrest and instability,  state-sponsored terrorism (or "madrasas" that produce anti-Western extremists), etc.  Since we're at war, the government has an obligation to try and win it, and that includes slashing our dependence on oil.

Aside from national security, I would add that the government should step in where the market has failed, or where there's an overriding "common good" or common threat that isn't being dealt with by non-governmental actors.  In this case, I'd argue that global warming constitutes such a threat, and that the government needs to step in and deal with it.

Finally, I would point out that currently, the government massively subsidizes oil consumption.  According to an International Center for Technology Assessment study, there are "more than 40 separate cost factors associated with gasoline production and consumption." 

These include subsidies for the petroleum industry such as the percentage depletion allowance; tax-funded programs that directly subsidize oil production and consumption, like government-sponsored R&D for the oil industry; the costs of protecting oil supplies, shipments and motor vehicle usage, including military expenditures for protecting the Middle East and other oil rich regions; and environmental, health and social costs including those for global warming. Together these subsidies for gas paid by consumers total up to $1.68 trillion per year.

I would argue that the government should, at the least, cut many of these subsidies that facilitate oil consumption.

The report further concludes that "the actual cost of a gallon of gas to the American consumer could be as high as $15.14" if all of these costs were internalized.  In other words, according to the ICTA, the government is currently subsidizing the price of gasoline to the tune of nearly $12 per gallon.  Is that "conservative," "libertarian," or what?  Right, I didn't think so.

Push the auto makers toward continuous improvement instead.  Give them a moving target that they set themselves by their own sales.

Collect the rated city mileage for each new car sold in 2007.  Find the 10th percentile--the mpg that 90% of cars, pickups and SUVs reach and 10% don't.  Set that as the gas guzzler tax threshold for 2010. If the value is, say, 15 mpg, then 15 mpg becomes the target three years down the road.  Any 2010 model that comes in below that comes with an automatic price premium.

Repeat this every year and you get a market-driven approach that creates continuous pressure to improve. Only by doing this--by making it an every-model year incentive, rather than a one-time target--will you change the engineering culture in the car companies and keep them focused on efficiency.  And by giving them three years' lead time, you take away their traditional excuses about the time it takes to remodel.

There may be an occasional year when behemoth sales go up, but it won't happen too often, since customers will have to pay through the nose for the privilege.

So why isn't Congress considering it?