I wouldnt tout the US catalytic legislation as a success. To reduce Nox, the peak combustion temperature was reduced by adding gasoline. (richer mix) To get rid of the hydrocarbons, air pumps added air so that the excess gasoline would be burnt in the catalytic converter. This could only increase the total carbon dioxide emmision (the emmisions were on a % basis- go figure) and reduce power and efficiency, encouraging bigger engines, and the truck loophole led to the SUV craze.
Europe on the other hand, had expensive gas: they drove smaller, more efficient cars that even without emmision laws (South Africa) didn't produce the sheer weight of nasties per person per mile travelled.
I cannot understand how people in the face of overwhelming evidence of goverment inefficiency, want the gov to fix things in complicated ways.
To get the government to do anything. you have to pay for it in taxes. Then these taxes pay for their collection, the comittees to decide, the incentive program to get the public to buy in, and the actual change (paid for with the "change" left over) About this time the gov policy changes, and the private sector that rallied behind the movement gets left out in the cold and pulls their capital. (Ethanol - Brazil is/was getting taxed about 80% import duty on ethanol to the US) If the gov left it alone, we would have been substituting more foreign oil with Brazillian ethanol (preferable) and if the gov was not circuitously supporting foreign oil imports and domestic refining, our gas would have been costing a lot, like everyone elses, and other energy sources would be gaining a foothold.
(and domestic ethanol production such as it was, would not have been able to compete with Brazilian ethanol, but then Domestic sugar would not have needed to be protected as much, because the ethanol market from cane would have stabilized the world sugar glut)
Right after they (try) fix our education system, we'll ask them to fix our health system. Scary.
Do you get a realistic tax break for sending your kid to private school? Do you get a tax break by not having kids, and therefore not burdening the gov with their education etc? Do you get a tax break by earning more money than others, and therefore being less likely to burden the social services, and obviously paying more taxes anyway by buying more and indirectly employing others?