Without incentive from outside forces, the American public tends to buy whatever it likes, regardless of the logic and potential impacts, and that usually means big. Apparently, the main obstacle is the belief that small cars are unsafe and as we’ve seen time and again, changing perception is often a lengthy process.

I must admit, this is a rather worrisome trend and once that I hope automakers can reverse with a concerted effort to reverse this fear with marketing that touts the benefits of these vehicles and reframes the discussion – think cost-savings and and maneuverability for starters.

Features that can add value beyond a car’s relative size or lack thereof, certainly won’t hurt their case either and would go along way towards bolstering the auto industry as a whole. Considering that they have been viewed as decidedly out of step with consumer desire, particularly in recent years, this would be a huge boon indeed. And it appears they’re making strides with the addition of “connected” systems for entertainment, navigation and calling, but beyond greater functionality, this also adds price. And it’s hard to say if consumers will be willing to pay a lot of money for a lot less car.

[image via rick]

The pair explain what’s at stake by noting that each year, energy expenditures in the US cost more than $1 trillion. Compare that with the $250 billion are government spends in funding research and development in this space and we’re able to see the huge disparity in terms of short term remedies – importing energy from afar – versus the kind of long term fixes required – promoting homegrown innovation.

In order to reverse this trend, they argue that fundamental change is needed in our country’s approach and policies, one that begins with a signal from our government that clean energy is valuable. As we see at every level, the way to accomplish this is by monetizing the intangibles, namely putting a price on carbon. By then following this up with a cap on emissions that grows steadily stronger over time and the country is presented with a solution that leaves little room for anything but greater efficiencies.

And while private industry – from corporations to entrepreneurs – will have to improve or be left behind, the government needs to show its support by backing their efforts with better incentive programs. This is especially important for America’s utilities, which are positioned as the driving force of the country’s infrastructure and able to innovation on a large-scale. This means they will potentially face greater challenges from the outset, if they’re smart about how they leverage the pre-existing energy grid, the benefits will be enormous.

As important as it is to approach these solutions on the home front, Doerr and Immelt point to the necessity for the US to once again assert itself as a big player in the global marketplace by creating a robust trade policy with other nations. This not only benefits our economy, but shifts the planet from a diet of dwindling resources to a feast of renewable energy with America once again leading the way.

The enthusiasm for the program provides a much-needed boost for the struggling auto sector, putting many new cars on the road and emptying a huge surplus in inventory. It also illustrates a conscious shift in the American consumer’s attitude towards better fuel efficiency and environmental awareness.

As of Thursday night, the Department of Transportation informed representatives of the nation’s car dealers to stop offering new rebates, given that the funds for the program had been exhausted. The White House issued assurances to the public by guaranteeing any rebates that had already been registered with dealers, relieving consumers who had been backlogged by the overflow in demand.

Though the future of the program is uncertain, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs seemed optimistic about finding a way to expand funding. According to the New York Times, Gibbs was confident in the future of program, saying “We’ll have a solution that people can agree on moving forward.”

One possible way to gain further funding is to reallocate some of the money granted in the stimulus bill for renewable energy research, a plan which Congress hoped to push through before its August recess begins. This bill, introduced today, would put another $2 billion into the program’s coffers.

Cash-for-Clunkers, or more formally the Car Allowance Rebate System, or CARS, represents a relatively easy, safe, and modest initiative towards better fuel efficiency, and will undoubtedly provide a boost to the nation’s automotive sector.

One factor in this debate is the general costs applied to the healthcare systems as a whole over these types of screenings. For example, if a person goes in for a checkup and requests a quick screening for thyroid cancer, that person could go through a number of different experiences. They could be found to have absolutely nothing wrong with them; they could be found to have some minor irregularities requiring further testing; or they could be found to have a malignant tumor which requires a full array of cancer treatment. The vast majority of cancer screenings come out as negative tests, but those tests still add to the overall costs to the system.

What’s worse, whenever there are false positives in cancer screening tests, the patient not only must suffer through round after round of subsequent tests, but he or she will also fall victim to the anxiety that comes with the uncertainty of the situation.

According to the Journal of General Internal Medicine, “Breast cancer affects over 175,000 women in the United States each year, but its impact is felt by far more individuals than just those who have the diagnosis. With increased public awareness of the disease have come increased levels of anxiety. Women perceive breast cancer as their greatest health risk, even though they are far more likely to die from coronary heart disease. This erroneous perception is probably magnified by many women’s personal experience with a friend or relative struck with the disease in the prime of her life. The fear of breast cancer often factors into a woman’s decision on whether to pursue hormone replacement therapy. Yet, despite these fears, not every woman is being screened appropriately, and a host of other issues, including cost, inconvenience, and discomfort from the procedure, are often cited by patients as the reason.”

New cancer awareness and screening campaigns do much to exacerbate the fallacy that more screening represents the key to protecting oneself from cancer. Not to mention the added costs and burden on the healthcare system. In a New York Times article by Natasha Singer, Dr. Ned Calonge, the chairman of the United States Preventive Services Task Force, is quoted as saying, “There are five things that can happen as a result of screening tests, and four of them are bad…the possible bad outcomes are results that falsely indicate cancer and cause needless anxiety and unnecessary procedures that can lead to complications; that fail to diagnose an existing cancer, which could lull a patient into ignoring real symptoms as the cancer progresses; that detect slow-growing or stable cancers that are not life-threatening and would not otherwise have required treatment; and that detect aggressive life-threatening cancers whose outcome is not changed by early detection.”

Obviously cancer screening is not going to go away, nor should it, but there remains a fundamental question of what is the most efficient and effective way of assuaging the public fears about the disease.