In general, Europeans do drive different automobiles, which tend to be smaller and more efficient. ... In Europe, the scooter is far more popular and differentiated (the scooter with roof is a common sight). Bicycles are also more common and differentiated, and the institutional supports for cyclists are more highly developed (cycle superhighways are old news in Europe).
And then there's public transport. From buses to trams to trains to high-speed rail, Europe is well ahead of America.
That's quoted by Megan McArdle in this post on carbon taxes and innovation.
I don't dispute any of the facts of what is said above (or any in the rest of the post). But it's interesting to use the word "ahead" to refer to public transportation - that seems to be a matter of opinion. Why is having more public transportation considered better than the alternative?
I mean, single family homes are much less efficient then a single large gymnasium capable of housing thousands of people. And restaurants with 2 or 4-person tables are much less efficient than a giant cafeteria. And yet I don't think anyone would say that a country where the majority of people live 1000 per in large gymnasiums, or eat all of their meals in large cafeterias was "ahead" of America. Ditto tiny cars, scooters and bicycles in comparison to a Camry.
I understand the point that without a carbon tax, the true cost of the Camry isn't necessarily included in the operating cost. But it's worth noting that the "solution" is actually a reduction in living standards. Which is not what you would assume when you hear the word "ahead".