Buying people gas guzzling cars might sound good but where is the money going to come from to pay for it all? There has to be a "penalty" for people who have been stupid enough to buy these monsters in the first place otherwise you are shifting the cost from the stupid to the broader taxpayer base and penalising everyone. Its a quaintly socialist idea that surely has no place in capitalist America , oh wait... farm subsidies have a similar ring to them so maybe it would get up.

The stupid need to be hurt or they won't learn the lesson.

Markets can solve the problem in some areas, if all things remain relatively equal to today. Yet I suspect that it's not going to unfold in such a simple way that will allow it. The roller coaster economic times are going to cause constant disequilibrium. Good luck finding stability other than at a much lower standard of living...

Here in Texas we have a program that lets you turn in a car for a dealership credit. Theoretically it can work if it's something that you apply to cars that are 10+ years old below a certain fuel efficiency. Our program has to do with emissions rather than fuel efficiency. However, few people have fuel efficient cars [in the US] because mainly the gas guzzlers have been selling for years.

Here in Houston I think we would need to replace 90% - 95% of the vehicles out of maybe 4-6 million. I can't imagine the government footing that kind of bill. Then consider that on a nationwide basis, the numbers get insane very quickly. We're talking multiple trillions to make some real progress. Not realistic. We need to change the way we live, travel, work, and play.

Many of the commercials now are touting 23mpg as "fuel efficient"... give me a break. I'm relatively happy with 32/28, but going forward we need 40-60 minimum. Allow people to get gas hogs but include a progressive luxury tax to kill the incentive to buy crap vehicles.

Suddenly my choice of a Corolla back in 01 seems very wise. We're a few years away from "every man for himself." The governments have passed the buck for too many election cycles.

Thanks for putting contributing a plan. I'm not smart enough to offer my own, but I did have a couple of musings on your proposals.

Well, I believe that markets will help to solve the problem, but government can help accelerate us towards a solution through the use of sound policy.

Our government come up with a sound policy? The only way this can happen is if this "sound policy" benefited the _________ (insert your favorite corporate lobby here) industry. If Boeing, GE, et al decided to get out of the weapons business and start building smart cars, it might garner support for your plan in Congress. Unless a majority of Americans pay attention to the political process and work to influence positive outcomes, nothing will change. Even if they do, they are fed so much misinformation that many (most) will support the wrong thing anyways.

From your blog:

First, eliminate the use of heating oil in American homes. Heating oil and diesel fuel are essentially the same product, so heating oil demand directly impacts the price of diesel and gasoline. Replacing oil heating with gas heating would replace demand for imported oil with demand for natural gas that is produced primarily in the US and Canada.

Natural gas prices have been rising faster than oil. Shifting demand from heating oil to natural gas is sure to drive the price of it even higher. Natural gas is needed to make fertilizers which are also experiencing dramatic up ticks in price. We can always carpool, ride bikes, drive slower, downsize vehicles, etc. but we're always going to need fertilizer unless there is some type of shift to less industrial farming and more permaculture. Either way, I doubt we'll be supporting 9 billion people in 2050 as is commonly forecasted. If we are, it will only be at disastrous cost to the ecosystem.

I know it's a tired cliche, but the thought of deck chairs on a sinking cruise liner come to mind...

I'd welcome comments on the proposals - while many have suggested raising gas taxes and other Pigovian solutions, I think the steps I've proposed might have a slightly better reception, since they don't involve "penalties".

The "carrot" only approach only reinforces the idea that BAU can continue ad infinitum. The first step to solving a crisis is admitting that one exists. We have not reached that point yet. I fear that once people start to grasp the seriousness of the situation, the sucking sound you hear will be the global economy going down the toilet.

Thanks for trying to make positive suggestions, we can use more of that around here. I hope my comments can help refine your proposals. Cheers.

Hi praveen,

A couple things I'll run past you, if I may. I suspect those of us who still heat with oil do so because we cannot be economically served by the natural gas network and it would seem unwise to invest large amounts of capital expanding this network if load densities cannot ensure a reasonable return on this investment. Secondly, with falling domestic production and increasing reliance on LNG imports at the end of the day are we any further ahead? Would it not be better to invest our capital in ways that help us reduce our energy demands rather than simply substituting one [foreign] fuel source for another?

Cheers,
Paul

How about we buy all the big SUV's and shiping them to Russia? They can afford them and the gas they need.