It seems that vehicle mfgs. only want to sell pickups and SUVs.
Car makers want to sell cars. They produce cars based largely on the marketplace, in response to consumer demand. The second major factor in the type of vehicles that carmakers produce are regulatory constraints and restraints (of all sorts). These regulations impact, in part, what is produced and what is available to the marketplace. Why do we get lots of pickups and SUV's? Because the marketplace supports it though demand. Why aren't we currently getting new fuel efficient diesel passenger vehicles from VW? In part, due to highly restrictive regulatory policy (along with VW's mishandling of an uneven playing field).
Carmakers also would like to sell vehicles which maximize profits (which despite the modern American understanding, is a good thing), and when able, will focus on the production of profitable vehicles- but this is only possible where the market supports it, unless regulations enhance the playing field (which is how the government plays favorites with the marketplace). Do manufacturers want to sell more SUV's? Sure, if they also are more profitable, but if they don't sell, that profit is unrealized, and after retooling, the manufacturer returns to making what the marketplace supports.
I guess what we need are fuel prices at $5., then watch all those gas hog owners squirm. Car mfgs aren't producing economy cars much anymore.
Yes, we could punish the owners of vehicles which aren't fuel efficient by raising fuel prices. Doing so would reveal quite a bit about our understanding of these issues and our world view. Among a myriad of other things, it would reveal that we believe some segments of the marketplace should be "punished" or given a disincentive to ownership based on fuel economy. In turn, our understanding would be that fuel economy among private vehicle ownership is of such importance that it merits influence through taxation, industry penalties, or additional regulation. Next, we would have to believe that disincentives to ownership would be effective. Lastly (since I won't try to be comprehensive in this space), we would have to believe that the numerous other impacts of disincentives through high fuel costs would have either no other ill effects, or that those consequences would be acceptable. I oppose every one of these beliefs, in part because they are based on a misderstanding of how the marketplace works best, and how to best go about maximizing consumer interest in vehicles that demonstrate higher fuel economy.
It's important to note that the US has, through a variety of means, and for many years, influenced the marketplace and attempted to get consumers to purchase vehicles with higher FE, or attempted to have manufacturers produce vehicles with higher FE- regardless of whether the consumer has much interest in them, and regardless of the impact of those vehicles on total energy consumption.
As an aside, as Brian said:
Well it sure is a good thing we didn't outlaw a bunch of good 50 MPG cars. Oh, wait....
When we create an uneven playing field to reward or punish technology / fuel type / lifestyle, we may incur countless unintended consequences which move us further away from the initial goal. It's perhaps not wise to punish others for their "big" vehicles unless you're willing and eager to let them punish
you for whatever they find in your style they deem to be a waste, framed in whatever world view they hold.