Energy Efficiency - U.S. vs. Denmark

In "Hot, Flat, and Crowded" by Thomas L. Friedman, a fascinating contrast is made between the United States' oil dependence and Denmark's oil independence:

"We decided we had to become less dependent on oil," Connie Hedegaard, Denmark's minister for climate and energy, explained to me. "We had a huge debate on nuclear, but in 1985 we decided against it. We decided to go instead for energy efficiency and renewable energy. We decided to use taxation, so energy was made relatively expensive and [therefore] people had an incentive to save and do things in their homes to make them more efficient... It was a result of political will."

 Later, Friedman talks about how Denmark implemented a CO2 tax, which charges households based on their CO2 production, which promotes efficiency in households:

Surely all of this killed the Danish economy, right? Guess again. "Since 1981 our economy has grown 70 percent, while our energy consumption has been kept almost flat all those years," she said.

Friedman continues and reveals the most resilient fact:

"In 1973 we got 99 percent of our energy from the Middle East," said Hedegaard. "Today it is zero." I know: Denmark's a small country and it is a lot easier to make change there than across a huge economy like ours. Nevertheless, it's hard to look at Denmark and not see the road not taken.

These facts may be depressing, but they are real. We, as a nation, have had so many opportunities to explore alternative routes to practical energy. We've been manipulated by the oil industry giants to be dependent on their oil. We haven't raised taxes on gas to influence demand for more fuel-efficient cars. We haven't charged for CO2 usage (which, personally, I don't think would be effective in the U.S. at this point-- people would be concerned about their freedom.) I think the most important opportunity we've managed to destroy is that of nuclear power. Today, France is ~80% powered by nuclear power. We've had nuclear programs in the past, but after the accidents at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, 1979 and at Chernobyl in Russia, 1986, the public has had a scientifically irrational fear of nuclear power, obstructing our progress towards nuclear power innovation, and strengthening the oil industry's vice grip on our wallets. People are less comfortable having a clean, emission-free nuclear reactor near their town, and more comfortable digging up coal and fossil fuels and shoving them into ovens like savages.

I sincerely hope we don't wait until the last second before we make a change.

Still Bad Fuel Economy.

I was reading an excerpt from a book called "Hot, Flat, and Crowded" by Thomas L. Friedman, and I came across this line that surprised me:

In 1975, Congress passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which established corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards that required the gradual doubling of passenger vehicle efficiency for new cars-- to 27.5 miles per gallon-- within ten years.
Not surprisingly, it all worked. Between 1975 and 1985, American passenger vehicle mileage went from around 13.5 miles per gallon to 27.5, while light truck mileage increased from 11.6 miles per gallon to 19.5...

I couldn't help but notice that since 1985, our fuel economy is still remarkably close to 27.5. I looked up the average fuel economy of 2010. I couldn't find an average, but I found this chart: (Data is for 2010 only)

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2010.pdf

For each class of cars, we can find the average by adding the high and low MPG values and dividing by 2. Working with compact cars, the average MPG is 26.5, and with midsize cars, the average MPG is 30.5. These fuel economy data were boosted by the increasingly popular fuel-efficient hybrid cars on today's market. But still-- the corporate average fuel economy standards in 1985 were 27.5 MPG. How can we, 25 years later, still be hovering slightly over a midsize car's average of 30.5 MPG? And how can any regular car even be below 20 MPG in today's industry?
What are we waiting for?