Fuel economy should be listed in fuel volume per distance. (I assume it is not partially due to automobile/petroleum industry pressure.)
1. 10 gal/100mi -> 8.3 gal/100mi
2. 8.3 gal/100mi -> 6.7 gal/100mi
3. 6.7 gal/100mi -> 5 gal/100mi
4. 5 gal/100mi -> 3.3 gal/100mi
5. 3.3 gal/100mi -> 1.7 gal/100mi
Of course, vehicles with better fuel efficiency tend to travel further (not a lot of tractors driving across country or whatever). So the priority should be (a) get the least efficient vehicles off the road entirely, (b) reduce total miles driven, (c) switch long distance trips away from grossly inefficient vehicles, (d) improve efficiency of other vehicles.
Increased petroleum/carbon taxes in places where people drive inefficient vehicles would be a big help (possibly offset by some kind of subsidy so the change doesn’t hammer the poor, ideally universal basic income or the like).
1. 10 gal/100mi -> 8.3 gal/100mi
2. 8.3 gal/100mi -> 6.7 gal/100mi
3. 6.7 gal/100mi -> 5 gal/100mi
4. 5 gal/100mi -> 3.3 gal/100mi
5. 3.3 gal/100mi -> 1.7 gal/100mi
Of course, vehicles with better fuel efficiency tend to travel further (not a lot of tractors driving across country or whatever). So the priority should be (a) get the least efficient vehicles off the road entirely, (b) reduce total miles driven, (c) switch long distance trips away from grossly inefficient vehicles, (d) improve efficiency of other vehicles.
Increased petroleum/carbon taxes in places where people drive inefficient vehicles would be a big help (possibly offset by some kind of subsidy so the change doesn’t hammer the poor, ideally universal basic income or the like).