I agree entirely. I also don't understand the hype on "new" stuff.
Since 1994 I have been driving cars which get 60 miles per
gallon or more. (Note for folks comparing European "litres
per 100 km" and American "miles per gallon": divide 240 by
one figure to get, approximately, the other. Thus, 4 litres
per 100 km is 60 m.p.g.). First a VW Polo 48-horsepower Diesel,
now a Skoda Fabia 69-horsepower Diesel (SDI). The latter has
the advantage that it also runs on "biodiesel" made from rapeseed
oil. Both of these cars are normal, stock models---no modifications.
The Polo had a top speed of 160 km/h (100 m.p.h.) and the Fabia
185 km/h (110 m.p.h.). Let's face it: no-one needs more horsepower,
with the possible exception of people living in mountainous areas
or pulling trailers. Outside of Germany, no-one (except perhaps
police, ambulances etc) needs a car which can go faster than
140 km/h. Ever.

We need to decrease carbon-dioxide emissions. I think the only
way to do this is to punish people who use too much. Necessary
is to tax the production of carbon dioxide. This punishes driving
too much and using more per kilometre than necessary. However,
it's not sufficient: someone who spends a million on a car (and
such cars produce a lot of emissions) won't worry about higher
fuel cost. However, the punishment has to be based on actual
harm to the environment. First off, low emission is low emission.
It is silly to punish someone getting 60 m.p.g. with 10-year-old
technology and favour someone getting half that (perhaps with a
much larger and more powerful car) just because he is using
new technology. Also, only mineral-oil--based fuel should be
taxed, since biodiesel etc is essentially neutral with respect
to carbon dioxide. (It also burns to carbon dioxide, but that
is essentially just that released which the plants absorbed during
their growth.)