"Driving will be seen as a privilege, which is a very bad message."

Hmmm...what else should driving be considered if not a privelege? An unalienable right?

If only the rich can drive for a while, then we might see the masses begin to use their voting power to level the playing field by pushing in the other direction...maybe by mandated driving-free zones in congested cities.

The congestion charge works very well in London, as a relatively 'poor' person I pay it occassionaly when I need to travel across town on the way to visit somewhere out of town. Otherwise I use public transport. Those occasional trips now take half to a third of the time they used to, which is worth paying the money for.

We do however have a significant problem with a small number of rogue countries whose diplomats steadfastly refuse to pay the charges, the main culprits being Angola, Nigeria, Sudan and the USA.

Pricing is not coercion, which is why you conclude for yourself that you would prefer coercion. You are probably thinking that it's more fair to treat rich and everyone else the same. Of course, then the rich will bribe/reward/salary the gatekeepers. As they do now. Or buy taxi medallions, taxi companies or all the ways to make and sell taxis.

That dilemma doesn't change until the disparities of wealth are addressed. The archdruid's column discussing a recent article by Astyk addresses that: one can *think* it's going to happen - doesn't mean it will.

It does seem to me, however, that unless we address inequality and fairness, energy decline will not be graceful. Once again, that doesn't mean we will address inequality and fairness. Personally, I think that will only get worse until people start picking up rifles. And that won't make it better either, except that people will know who their friends are.

cfm in Gray, ME