The government can levy large taxes on new big vehicles just like they did with cigarettes. If the largest SUVs had a 25% tax on it, I think most people will not buy it (basically limiting it). Or if the gas prices went to $10 a gallon, people will ditch their big vehicles.

The government can just directly subsidize the vehicles they like, as they are attempting to do with electric cars.

Define a weight and drop taxes/offer refunds for people who buy them, see more of them appear.

The government should tax/regulate things that have negative externalities, and the greater the externality, the harsher the restrictions should be.

Subsidizing smaller cars is a bad idea because they still have negative externalities, just less so. The government shouldn't be favoring driving a small car over walking, but that's exactly what a small (or electric) car subsidy does.

The reason we subsidize EVs instead of taxing gas-powered cars is because the latter is politically unpopular, not because the former is a better designed policy.

Sure. The post says nothing about that though. Just a bunch of baseless assertions about cars being bigger than ever, but the '90s versions were super comfortable. OK.

> Consumers who fear for their safety and buy big cars and rest assure nobody else will be driving an even bigger car.

Sounds like a middle-schooler banging out a 3-point persuasive essay asap so he can use the rest of the time to play drug wars on his ti-82.

Of course the govt can limit vehicle sizes, and already do, in both width and weight, at least, to fit the roads.

Within those limits, I think they should push for more environmentally friendly vehicles through taxes.

But not just fuel taxes, which might not give the desired incentive 'curve', and in any case still penalize even the most economical vehicles.

But directly; per kerb weight, per mpg, per co2/mile, etc, etc.

> How could the government limit the size of vehicles?

Tons of ways. For instance, "a car must get at least 40 MPG". "A car can weigh no more than X". There are lots of whats to phrase the rules.

Or do you mean "how could the government possibly enforce a law against a product in a highly regulated industry with compulsory registration", in which case it seems obvious.

> "a car must get at least 40 MPG".

This is basically how CAFE works, and it's part of the problem. Trucks are necessary for commerce and utility, and we allow people to drive them on the road. So we now have a road filled with vehicles that are technically "trucks" carrying families instead of "cars".

I mean, we could redefine "truck" to exclude SUVs.

You could. Whether or not you’d get a desirable outcome is up to the particulars of the implementation.

It’s worth remembering that the current state of things is an unintended consequence. Describing the problem generally is easy. Defining it specifically enough so that there isn’t a workaround is the tough part

A 4 door truck would probably be the new family vehicle.

Certainly. I'm not saying there is no way to do something like this. This post just doesn't offer anything.

It complains about environmental matters, and then it goes on to complain about weight. Make one wonder if the author has ever weighed a car-sized battery.