>Fifty-five, didn't work before (hence it was repealed), so why even consider it again?<
Actually, I think you are quite wrong about this. The 55 mph speed limit imposed during the 1970s did conserve fuel, which at the time was periodically in short supply. It also had the unexpected benefit of reducing motor vehicle crash fatalities.
The reason it was eventually repealed is that fuel supplies increased, and people no longer felt the need to conserve. So pressure was put on for repeal.
Speed limits in Michigan have been widely disregarded for years, due to lack of vigorous enforcement. I drive in as many as 20 different states each year, and my impression is that Michigan is the least aggressive of them all when it comes to traffic law enforcement.
>Cynically, it would increase the number of fines collected; perhaps this is actually a tax increase for a government body that can't seem to reduce its size and costs.<
In fact, I think Michigan highway patrols and manpower in police forces generally have been cut back – or simply have not grown in proportion to populations and traffic volumes -- for many years. Frankly, I’d like to see an increase in the number of fines imposed for traffic violations in Michigan. That would signify the kind of stepped up enforcement that could make driving here safer and more comfortable.
>We need progressive and enlightened thinking on answers to the energy issues.<
Well, we agree on that one. Got any specific ideas that don’t involve government transfer payment schemes to move money from taxpayer pockets into the coffers of business ventures without an actual delivery of goods?
The progressive and enlightened approach, it seems to me, must involve conservation through increasingly “energy efficient” systems or modes of operation (keeping highway speeds down is an example of the latter). That stretches utility of the supply we have.
The progressive and enlightened approach also calls for further development of proven systems, including hydrocarbons and nuclear.
Higher crude oil and natural gas prices, which also will boost the unit price of electrical power generated by hydro and wind systems, should provide private sector incentive for conservation as well as further development. The question is whether or not the current high prices will be sustained – but that always is a risk in private enterprise.
This, then, should give us the necessary breathing room for new (genuinely effective) “alternate” energy technologies to be developed, come on line, be integrated into and eventually dominate the mix as traditional resources become more increasingly depleted. Will individuals and businesses invest the huge sums needed to make this happen?