EA2020 is in the process of setting up a 501c3.

I agree with you about the larger requirements. At the moment, we look to have targeted opportunities to help change policy for the better. If the legislative process is about sausage making, we might have the chance to make some high quality breakfast links.

Care to elaborate?

Alan's specific points are right on as always. But I have another bigger beef: it's unimaginable that the Federal government could do this. We're going to find the Federal government will be structurally unable to cope with a declining energy scenario. The concept that we can simply invest money in the right places to fix this and still keep our existing society is fundamentally flawed.

Look at New Orleans. That's how the Feds will solve this. And how different is New Orleans from Iraq from Nigeria as Vail described it? Or Rome as Tainter and Homer-Dixon describe it? Where's the $2.5T going to come from to take care of the wounded from Iraq - and that's only one of a thousand expenses that are going to be ever more expensive when energy gets scarce.

And consider that the system failed for New Orleans and Iraq even though it seems we still have plenty of energy. [I'm not confident about that - might look different in hindsight - these might be instances of gross overreach.]

Sure, it's theoretically possible a set of legislation truly in the interest of the public and the planet could make it through Congress and this President. It would be better done at the state level with a little lightweight tinkering at the Federal level (like bringing the Guard home and amending the Constitution to eliminate the Commerce Clause). Don't hold your breath for that either.

If we're about to begin Bakhtiari's Descent (Transition 1), then what we need are affinity groups and community gardens. That old-time liberal religion - the "free market fundamentalist" approach Energize America takes - will make things worse by decreasing reliability and stability and increasing hierarchy and inequality. That combination will destroy the legitimacy of the government. We'll be lucky to have local warlords to keep us safe.

The Free Market can't do this because there is no profit; it can only be trusted to suck out every dollar possible as it fails. A centralized government won't be able to keep the grid up. Decentralized community infrastructure will be the most reliable.

cfm in Gray, ME

What we really need to start factoring in is how much of what we currently 'need' liquid fuel for is unnecessary use.

What if we anticipate that ,with forced conservation, maybe 75% of what is currently on Wal-Mart shelves today may not be there in 10 years. If the big box stores survive at all they will have a severely curtailed and more localized approach, based on lower cost and/or shorter haul methods. (water, rail, & 100 mile produce)

How much of the EA model is focused on promoting local agriculture?

Seems to me that local produce will look pretty good from a transportation and producer/consumer vantage point. Using legislation to build out or prevent the closure of rail lines will yield more usable fuel efficiency vs. new trucking for the sky-high-fuel priced world we are entering.

You are correct - alternative LTFs will be necessitated.

That said, however, conservation, electrification and other mitigation strategies will all be part of the 'solution'.

Either way, we will not escape LTF rationing.

In fact, you might want to go through them one a a time, every few days, post the working text in a separate story to TOD and then let people comment. Then whoever is managing the text can incorporate comments as they see fit.

It doesn't matter if they are too complex for most people. They would be introduced in Congress, not at your local neighborhood watch meeting.

Grey Zone et al:I am an optimist re declining oil supply, but IMO the industry that definitely will not survive in anything like its present state is trucking. We are definitely at peak trucking. A friend of mine works in the trucking industry in Canada and he claims that the average fuel consumption for their fleet is 6 mpg. Their #1 expense is fuel and they have a system that routes the trucks around to get the cheapest price possible. Lots of North Americans can handle $10 gas (Roger Connor has made this point), IMO the trucking industry is literally kaput at $10 gas. I hope I'm wrong.

Then look at the Fleet Conversion Act! It's more of the same! More car culture, more cars, more trucks, but because they get higher mileage this is supposed to change the situation?

And this entire process saves us 0.5 mbpd by 2020 at best!

Even that is debatable, as they are not worried about the energy cost of mining, refinining, transporting, processing, and manufacturing the completely new fleet of cars and trucks and buses.

Yup, that's a winner of a plan!

You've brought up some very good points but I disagree with you assertion on efficiency discussions - no matter how irrelevant they may seem.

Here's why.

Earlier this week, some 20,000 reported (although I suspect the number to be much higher) rural Chinese led a very bloody riot over the doubling of bus fare.

One can speculate as to why fares were raised, however, said event portend more of what lies ahead for countries with historically unstable populations or even those that leave their citizens unprepared or unmobilized to address Peak Decline.

Hello Korg,

Good points.

So, what do you suggest?

Let's suppose there is a little probability ...Or, do you see none? And if so, why not? What radical immediate action would you suggest?

How would you fry the big fish - or do you see war as the only answer? Is this your suggestion? (But does the war actually gain net energy anyway?)

Hi expat,

re: "The simple problem is that the only politically acceptable policies are those which do not require Americans to significantly change how they live."

You know...I'm just not so sure of this. Politically acceptable...to whom? Uninformed individuals? Corporations? It seems to me people are very much looking for some workable and specific things to do.

“Jerome, it's clear your wasting your time here. The vast majority here on The Oil Drum believe the end of the world is nigh.“

I don’t think most of us believe the “End of the world is nigh” (I know I don’t), but are reacting to the fact that EA just seems to be another attempt at clutching at straws, another vain attempt to keep the business-as-usual, Happy Motoring lifestyle chugging on. Indeed, it seems worded in such way as to get the trucking and airline industries to buy into it. The reality I see is that, whether we like it or not, within 20 years the aviation and long-haul trucking industries, and the private automobile will be history. Instead of trying to keep these dinosaurs afloat, we should be planning on phasing them out, and replacing them with rail, barge, and ship. And in 100 years “ship” will mean a sailing ship.

Antoinetta III

Nagorak: I consider myself quite optimistic re the future. Having said that, I cannot envision trucking in anything like its present size making it. In fact, IMO the future for airline travel is brighter than for trucking, and auto travel looks absolutely wonderful compared to trucking. I would assume your optimism re trucking includes a giant tractor trailer getting 50 mpg.

So take your ball and go home.
Over at dailykos commenters who fail the test of microcorrectness on micropolicy get trollrated. And soon you have a giant circlejerk instead of a discussion. If that's what you want you can be king of your little kingdom.

What I envision reading your proposal, or your site, is an army of kossack-stalinist bureaucrats enforcing micropolicy with microregulation, meeting the target of the 5 year plan by fudging the numbers, granting microwaivers and microdeviations to any contributor with a fun spin. Our liberal circlejerk is better than your conservative circlejerk so what we say goes.

Let me apologize for the excessively negative tone of my post above. Sometimes I get frustrated by some of the less constructive discussion around here. It's not true that all of the commentary is crap, just some of it. :)

The thing that frustrates me the most is that when it comes down to it, there's no effective difference between someone who is oblivious to peak oil and doesn't think we have a problem, and someone who feels the problems are hopelessly insurmountable. They both end up doing nothing. I think that inaction, whether due to optimism or pessimism, is something we should all strive against.

He's wasting everyone's time wherever he goes. A proposal that ignores the basic reality of the situation does nobody any good. I am NOT a doomer. I actually don't see the problem as being terribly severe, that being said, I know a non-solution when I see one.

What exactly are these proposals trying to do, cut oil use by 25%, big deal. The continuing gentrification of the 3rd world will wipe that out many times over long before 2020 arrives. Increasing coal use in the USA will wipe it out many times over in this country alone. In order to avoid the worst effects of global warming, we need to produce (worldwide) about 20% of the GHGs we make today, and we need to do it while providing a decent life for 10x as many people (say, 6 billion rather than ~600 million). I'll head off the population argument right here. Population is not likely to grow much beyond its current level, but first world population is growing very quickly, and will do so for the rest of this century, most likely.

So, that being said, what's your plan? 10% improvements, 20%, it's not NEARLY enough, not even the right order of magnitude. We need to effecitvely make all our electricity from a source that doesn't produce CO2, and we need to do this yesterday if not sooner. Coal alone makes half our CO2, that has to stop.

As far as peak oil goes, same thing is true. Oil may or may not decline before 2020 (though it probably will), but we also don't want to be in a bidding war for it with the rest of the world, which is what the situation is rapidly shaping up to be. Radical reductions will be coming, one way or another, we can either anticipate a REAL solution, and implement it now, or we can implement it later at great expense after we have shelled out trillions to Saudi oil shieks and some of the least decent administrations in the world.

That being said, implementing a policy that gives us 10% at great expense isn't terribly helpful. It's even LESS helpful if this thing was drafted by people who clearly don't understand even Junion High science, and thus designed plans that have roughly 0.0% chance of being meaningfully helpful.

Roger -

I think you're right about cars choking to death on their own success.

I heard a news brief on the radio a few days back about how mass transit usage had increased significantly (not sure over what period of time). Fuel prices were seen as a factor obviously but apparently the biggest reason was that many people have reached a tipping point with respect to how much bullshit they can endure while driving - primarily traffic / gridlock (throw in tolls, maintenance, insurance etc as well).

High fuel prices likely pushed a lot of people to take the train / bus who normally wouldn't have considered it. Then when prices dropped some likely went back to driving - with a new point of reference - and realized what a nightmare it is in many places. Or perhaps they were with it long enough to see significant $$$ savings over sitting in traffic for hours each week.

I think we should increase the size of trucks, particularly the length - and put them on tracks.

Overcoming traffic congestion was on my my mind alot back in my bus driving days. I looked at the aerobus concept linked above and it was deja vu once more. For public transit to work it must be faster than using a car which means getting away from ground level. Overhead trams could do that and attract riders if proper routing were done and realistic fares set. The one question I have is how well can they resist icing of the suspension cables? Another point is despite their economic advantages why haven't any city implemented the aerobus concept in a big way? Is this an example of not wanting to hear a different story?

Roger,

Hydraulic hybrids save fuel by recycling braking energy. They are a G R E A T idea for garbage trucks ! Ideal application :-)

But they have little value for long haul trucks who may tap on the brakes every hour or so. The extra weight (no free lunch) will reduce max payload and this extra weight will have to be carried around as well (extra fuel). I doubt that there would be any net fuel savings from hydraulic hybrid trucks used in long haul trucking.

Best Hopes,

Alan

As the primary author of one of the proposals (Micro-power producers Act, aka Net Metering) I wanted to react to the following.

there are several dozen people here who could write better ones. THEY SHOULD GO AHEAD AND DO SO!

Right on. I am not under any illusions about my knowledge of energy matters (or my writing ability) compared to others on this site.

And to all of you, like alistairC said, PLEASE GO AHEAD AND WRITE BETTER PROPOSALS.

(after you give me some specific feedback about the Net Metering bill, of course :) )

IMHO, an energy proposal should not be tightly tied to one political position or another, because this automatically and dramaticlaly limits it's appeal.

Daily Kos and Energyize America are conjoined Siamese twins (IMO) and despite an attempt to make EA independent, it is not. (In politics preception = reality).

I made an attempt to influence the drafts in late 2005 and had zero impact. Unlike TOD (which I joined immediately thereafter) logic and analysis did not seem to carry the day.

My perception when I reviewed the totality of their proposals was not good at all. I think they are taking up space in the public forum with bad ideas and this should not be encouraged.

And yes, a couple of congresspeople have seen my "10% proposal" and it went to the head of policy for the Dept of Energy on 2/27/7.

Best Hopes,

Alan

On a scale of 1 to 10 as doomers to cornucopians, I'm about 4 and I try to remain optimistic; it isn't easy. My sense is that I'm not far from the average on TOD. We should tolerate all views without rancor.

The runup discussion on Daily Kos last year about "Energy America" caught my attention and I was interested enough to print and read the resulting draft. My reaction at the time was that it was a sincere attempt to maintain our current way of life and the growth mantra, while navigating the effects of peak oil and climate change. I thought it a nice try, but too little and too late, and probably not sustainable. Getting it off the ground would be politically chancy. What struck me most was the emphasis on truck haulage and the overoptimistic fuel efficiency goals. The damage to roads from the pounding of multitudinous 80,000 pound loads (plus tare weight) is almost evrywhere obvious with the ongoing repairs and delays. A further 20% increase could cause a major breakdown of the interstate system.

Alan's recommendations about mostly electric-powered freight and passenger rail transit make more sense. Everywhere possible, long-haul freight must be moved to the vastly more fuel efficient rail mode. Obviously, there would be a continuing need for short-haul truck delivery, and that's where the energy efficiency studies on trucks need most to be applied. Everywhere possible, commuter rail or bus service must be made available. Most of us are stuck with where we live. In addition, I suggest eliminating air travel where the distance is less than 1,000 miles, as soon as widely available long-haul passenger service is in place.

A feature of the trucking scene that appears to be absent from the discussion is the commonly used procedure called "just-in-time delivery." Trucks are widely used as rolling warehouses, occupying time shifting blocks of paved, publicly-owned and maintained real estate. This allows for less high cost urban space devoted to temporary storage and more of that space for profit-making retail or manufacturing functions. (A saving donated by taxpayers.) I think that adapting the "just-in-time" concept to use of long-haul freight on rail is easily doable, given the experience with TOFC and containers.

In any case, it seems hardly likely that any real progress of whatever form will take place so long as America is engaged in deficit funding of Middle Eastern misadeventures.

-- Mort.

Oddly enough, CWon, I'm currently filling in the forms to oblige the French electricity utility, EDF, to buy my solar electricity.

I've been injecting it into the national grid for four years now. Getting paid for it was previously too expensive (upgrade to my installation required) and too complicated (the process is the same as if I had a big power station and megawatts to sell them).

I'm going ahead with it now because they are offering a better price (that was a government decision).

What the law needs :
* Nationally mandated price for PV electricity, sufficiently high to encourage installation. Typically this will be higher than the price at which the utilities sell to domestic consumers.
* Obligation on all utilities to buy all offered PV electricity. If they lose money on it, well TS. If they are smart, they will sell it at a premium anyway.

Let me just add, apropos, that one of the frustrations here in Colorado is that the citizens passed an initiative requiring net metering and an energy portfolio, but much of the damn state, including where I live, is exempt from this act because of the size of the utilities that serve us. That is, they can optionally decide to do a damn thing to include alternatives, especially solar. There would be a lot more solar statewide if the requirements for intertie and rebates were statewide. A damn shame, and I appreciate your efforts to remedy this.

Power to the people.

Bingo.

I'd like to reemphasize that the EA team would very much like to learn about flaws in our proposals and thinking. That is why Jerome posted here.

Please join the dialog on our existing proposals-- or offer your own.

Robert, I've been looking for the words to respond to this thread and you've basically found them.

TOD has just been offered a great opportunity to lend its combined expertise to someplace outside it's own sphere of influence and raise the level of the debate and the influence of the debate (possibly up to the level of Congress).

I must agree with a lot of the people here that much of EA material as it currently stands is just a lot of dreaming, and not a lot of engineering. But again, we've just been offered a chance to fix that. Alan has been the most disappointing in this respect because here these folks are, proposing only truck based solutions, and Alan could say "Hey EA, here's some of my research into the subject of rail electrification and how moving freight from trucks onto trains can create a XX% improvement in efficiency." He could get his ideas into the EA proposals, but he chooses just to call them names and say that their material is hogwash, rather than fix their proposal.

TOD folks have been hammering on the issue of larger and heavier trucks creating serious damage to roads...this is something the EA people apparently either haven't heard of or considered, but TOD folk were all over it in a heartbeat. EA folk probably haven't researched electrifying rail and moving freight to rail. However, there is room for massive room for improvement in trucking fuel efficiency. Look at the designs of Luigi Colani. By superior aerodynamics he achieves much greater fuel economy. By setting fuel efficiency goals at what is now achievable, EA could have legislation that relies on current technology and ability without the uncertainty of future technology. Real, and reliable goals. Prius, Lupo, 50mpg euro diesel cars are real and achievable now.

TOD folk have knowledge which, even if an EA-TOD exchange on legislation is a flop, will help educate EA and others.

[This is a little rushed because I need to leave, but my point is that the more TOD informs, the merrier, and not to dismiss EA offhand - especially since they claim to already have the ear of someone at a high level of government]

I lurk on both sites and I've reviewed some of the EA plans before. I'm definitely an unabashed liberal, but from the information on this site I can see the many issues that EA has. For instance I don't like alot of its reliance on "new technology" or alot of what is really about preserving the car culture we have. In the long term larger changes have to be made. Personally I think "the market" driven approach has gotten us into this mess in the first place, that and politics driven by special interest cash (ala the 'iron triangle'). But we have an opportunity here to if anything just poke many techical holes into their plans and educate others. (I know that's what this site has helped me out with)

We should also push for inclusion of other proposals.

1) Rail and Mass transit bill to push existing projects forward and get other projects on the drawing boards into reality faster.

2) Rationalize Ethanol crap- educate people here so we don't continue doing stupid stuff.

Its been some time since I read the EA proposals but those are the things on the top of my head.

It'd be nice to see legislation that isn't completely driven by special interests.

My 2 cents.

Alan is right from a technical, policy and implementation perspective. In addition Kos probably understands that the senior congressional supporter wants to get money to upgrade the truck, bus and vehicle fleet. So the likelihood of anything making it out of Congress which makes sense is dubious.

However, like Robert says if we can get some congressional types to listen to Roscoe Bartlett, while the TOD hammers real solutions then We have a winner.

Dreamer at Heart, but Jared Diamond haunts the soul.

Ditto. I am shocked by what appears to be a "not invented here" attitude. Further, we are lucky to have a person such as Jerome take such an interest in U.S. energy policy.

Yes, if I had my druthers and was absoloute dictator and didn't have to deal with congress and the American people, for that matter, I would announce a phase out of most uses of the automobile, starting now. But jeebus, we can't even get them out of their SUVs, much less into mass transit.

A massive cultural sea change will be required before we have a people who will elect a congress who will be interested in radical change. In the mean time, we should appreciate those who are stepping up to the plate and are willing to deal with the morass.

I would simply point out that Alan is recommending that we do now, what we know worked in the past.

IMO, reality is coming fast and it is coming hard. We are quickly approaching the point where we are going to need lots of jobs as we transition from an economy focused on meeting wants to an economy focused on meeting needs, and Electrification of Transportation (EOT) is the most sensible proposal I have seen.

I would recommend an energy consumption tax to fund Social Security/Medicare and perhaps mass transit--offset by eliminating the Payroll Tax--combined with a crash wind/nuclear program and Alan's EOT proposal.

As Alan has repeatedly pointed out, it worked in the past.

Louisiana recently joined the net metering group of states and there are few states that do not have one. I do not see, in the real world, much of a loss of renewable power due to faulty net metering laws.

The Louisiana law is more generous than many, but (based on a quick reading) even it does not allow people to get payed if they produce more energy than they consume. You get credits which appear to only be useful for buying electricity from that utility.

So if you're building a wind turbine in Louisiana, you'd better build a small one (even though these are less bang-for-your-buck than larger ones.) If you build a big one, all the excess power you generate will basically be a charitable donation to your local utility (except that you don't get a tax deduction).

Consequently, anybody in their right mind will build small wind turbines, despite the economies of scale. And Alan won't "see much loss of renewable power" without talking to all the people who could have built bigger turbines, but didn't.

Do you really support this state of affairs, Alan?

What I see is Big Business wants federal standards and regulations which benefit Big Business. It is easier to bribe 535 members of Congress than the 1000s of state legislators.

Nothing in the EA proposals talk about overriding NIMBYs and building more transmission lines.

Ah, but doesn't your question almost answer itself? If we reasserted democracy by putting NIMBYs and BANANAs in their proper place, which is a very small place indeed, it would be easier to solve many kinds of problems, even non-electrical problems (just try siting a nice small group home for mentally disabled people.) And if it were easier to solve problems, that would shrink a certain political industry that thrives by using problems as an excuse to boss people around. And, let's face it, dKos is a left-liberal site, which means a lot of folks there are deeply in love with the idea of self-righteously bossing other people around.

Is this because they see a "problem solved" or because they do not support more transmission lines or ?

No.

Speaking for myself, I was not aware of this issue.

Others might have been, but simply hadn't addressed it yet. There are *a lot* of things we would like to do, but simply haven't had the time.

Go write up a <2 page summary of the idea. Then email one of us. (I have a gmail.com account with same username as at TOD.) Then post it at DKos. New posters' work does often get lost in the cracks (as A Siegel observed above), but we can avoid that if given warning its coming.

Then we'll see how it does in peer review, and go from there.

BTW, same invitation applies to anyone else with a good idea that we've missed. As do (in all probability) our excuse for missing it.

Hi K,

re: "...geology will require that the truth be told..."

I'd say, rather, the truth will out, so to speak, not necessarily be "told". The effects will appear, though underlying causes may remain just that.

I'm not so sure of your conclusions...("...every man for himself...") or, as I used to say "...each man for herself...". People have different ways of reacting, men and women often, as well, and there is still just a little sliver of room for something new. We've seen it. For eg., http://www.combatantsforpeace.org.

Regardless of what is told, or even understood once it is told, I'd sure like to come up with some positive action.

We can imagine what that radical action might be, which is the first step, perhaps.

We don't need to wait for nuclear. There is concentrating solar thermal with heat storage, wind, geothermal, the marine technologies, strengthened HVDC grids, intelligent variable loads etc. that can do 80% of what is necessary already without the nuclear issues. Nuclear power does not "must play" a post fossil fuel role if we are serious about the renewable technolgies and efficiency/conservation etc.

Just a quick comment. There is a direct Union Pacific (old Rock Island Spine) line from Des Moines to Kansas City that is much shorter than 500 miles. It is a matter of freight flows and it not being economical for short trains between low volume destinations.

Thomas,

What can I say? I agree.

Couple things:

1. This thread went astray for a number of reasons. Perhaps I contributed. "Trucks" ... that is one portion of Act II ... which is one Act of a 20 Act concept/plan. Hmmm ... wouldn't understand that from this thread, I don't think.

2. For a number of reasons, we constrained ourselves last year to a 20 Act plan. (20 Acts for Energizing America by 2020 with 20 percent cuts in ...) A "framing" issue. Now, did any one involved think that this was "it"? No. Did we think that, at the end of the day, we had the "perfect" 20? No. We constrained ourselves to 20 and worked with that.

3. Personally, related to HVDC, I advocated that there should be something re Smart(er) Grid. For a variety of reasons (resources (time), expertise, levels of passion), this was not in the 20. I would tend to think it should have been (as you do clearly as well). And,

4. Our rail ... well ... it was not the most thoroughly worked of the Acts. And, I think that 100% of the participants would agree that moving more to intermodal transport (both goods and people: moving people out of cars to rail/public transport and moving cargo out of trucks onto rail) would be a major change for the better. Thus your (and Alan) concepts re electrified rail would not, I think have major disagreement with us.

5. Moving back to the 20 Act plan developed in spring 2006. This was an attempt/desire to try to move the political conversation toward a path where it would be dealing with Peak Oil and Global Warming in a serious way. We sought to help change the political dialogue in the nation. Yes -- there were technical problems within it. (We are aware of many). Yes -- this is 'not enough'. (We are in absolute agreement on this.) But, perhaps we actually did help shift it. But, perhaps we are having an influence -- even if just a little -- on moving energy policy forward.

6. Related to this last, we are trying to work discrete acts forwarded within the constraints and opportunities that we have. Take a look at the Neighborhood Power Act, for example. Is that not a useful concept/approach? It won't "solve" anything on its own. But, for me, there is no "silver bullet" but plenty of "silver BBs". That, for example, just might be one. What do you think?

7. And, well, I expect the 2007 discussion of rail to be starting soon over at Daily Kos. Hopefully you will choose to drop on over when it does and provide your thoughts. Check in via: http://www.dailykos.com/tag/Energize%20America (Nothing 'new' up right now, check Friday night? Saturday?)

I agree with your HVDC recommendation. Not only is it more efficient and cheaper for longer distances, it can also be used to isolate AC networks from each other, as they don't need to be synchronized when they're connected via HVDC. Perhaps reducing the effect of large scale blackouts as e.g. in north-east USA a few years ago.

Now, I'm not convinced that a publicly owned freight rail system is a good thing. The current North American freight rail system, for all its flaws, is probably the most efficient freight rail operation anywhere in the world, all the more impressive since it's not dependent on government subsidies. It the very least, it would be prudent to wait and see how open access works in Europe (beyond the UK) before implementing it in the US as well.

Just BTW, your tax would hardly be revenue-neutral.  The MPG scale is a 1/x relationship, where the 11-MPG guzzlers would only pay $2200 while the 50-MPG Priuses would get paid $3960.  If you sold equal numbers of 10-MPG and 50-MPG vehicles the average fuel economy would be 16.7 MPG, and the guzzlers would only pay $1333 while the sippers would be subsidized $6667.

(I know.  Math-geek killjoy! -_^ )

This is a very crude brush to paint with.

Overnight, the new market for SUVs, vans and light trucks dies. The new Dodge Sprinter Hybrid you were going to buy for your delivery business is replaced with the 1989 Chevy that's been rusting in someone's driveway. Net: more fuel burned.

At the other end of it, urbanites that previously didn't need cars are overwhelmed by the benefits of nearly free microcars and glorified motorcycles, rather than public transit. Every member of the suburbanite family gets a tiny four wheeled pet for their conveniance. Net: more fuel burned.

I would argue that a simple annually-escalating gas tax (ex: we tack on 40 cents a year for 10 years) with revenue-neutrality via fixed per capita rebates to all adult taxpayers (making it actually progressive, assuming the rich use more fuel) would be an easier solution.

That's exactly what we're hoping for, quite frankly.

I'm coming into this discussion WAY late, but this comment brings up an important point:

The Energize America effort is an open, public, collaborative effort. Please participate. If you like or don't like something, or think there's more information needed, or whatever, make comments in the published drafts, which by the way are all created by brave volunteers who are simply putting something out there specifically so people can have a dialog. Early drafts are often very basic and need lots of fleshing out. Later drafts are crafted in response to the discussions that occur.

Personally (aka, this is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect any other contributors), I see the comment threads as a place to do some of the consensus work that often happens in committee, so the Congress won't have to try to do so much of it with various lobbying groups drooling over their shoulders.