Chickens and eggs in energy policy
In one of my classes we’ve been discussing energy consumption, and the pros and cons of using tools like large gas taxes to help control consumption. One of my students just posted a link to a piece that predicts that we’re looking at $4/gallon gas this summer in the U.S., and also says (without any support) that consumption actually went up when gas was over $3/gallon last year.
In her post, the student is rightly concerned that such a tax will differentially burden certain people, in significant part because support structures (such as public transport) won’t be in place to provide them with alternatives.
It seems that there’s a tricky chicken and egg problem here. There are several decades of evidence (at least in the U.S.) that just saying “conservation is good” isn’t significantly changing people’s behavior even if they agree with the claim. If we really believe that overconsumption is a serious problem, then it seems that at some point we have to make consumption cost more, or people just aren’t going to change their habits. If we do that, however, it hurts various people (and often, disproportionately the poor as they have the least flexibility and options) because we don’t have reasonable alternatives (public transport, alternative energy sources) in place.
But we’ll never have those alternatives until there’s money to be made, which means we have to change people’s habits, which probably requires raising prices!
Damn.
One option is to phase in change over a period of several years. If everyone knows that gas will cost $10/gallon in 5 years, then people can start estimating demand for, say, public transport, and start building appropriate infrastructure so that the buses, rails, etc., are there as the demand grows. Car companies can start ramping up production of hybrids (which will probably lower their per-unit costs), and increase research into alternatives like fuel cell systems, expecting increased demand for these things will make it all pay off.
But that arguably requires significant political will (you have to stand up to the lobbies behind SUVs and Big Oil), and voters that will encourage or even demand this kind of change. I think you’re seeing some of that in Europe, but precious little in the U.S. There’s another election coming up in ‘08, however…
No tag for this post.
April 28th, 2007 at 13:08
On the chicken or egg thing, we were in a big city recently on vacation (I’ll withhold the where so as not to seem to be just cheering that city) and we wanted to go down to this cool outdoor market. Hundreds of people go there. It’s one of the big things tourists and locals do.
So we called the market office and said “We’re about 10 blocks away, where can we park the car?” and they said “You can’t. Go home and take the bus.” But there was no bus running for another hour that day. “Guess you’ll have to wait for an hour. Or come another day. But you can’t park anywhere near here.” Really? “Really. No parking nearby except at a few meters and those are always full.”
Point being this city and this market had collectively decided there shall be no parking provided. Because no parking = less traffic. The local streets shall be permit only for people who live there and they shalll viciously ticket interlopers and thou shalt ride the bus. if you can’t park you stop wanting to drive.
So far the economy of that part of town hasn’t collapsed just because they made it “hard” for people to spend money. Even if the bus runs irregularly when you force people to use it they do. Or they just don’t go. And life goes on.
Scale back the parking gradually and you can press people to use public transport, press public transport to grow, and manage the needs of one to cope with the other.
We sneakily found a spot in a back alley to park our car, which deflates my story a bit. But had we known before we drove an hour we would have just taken the bus to begin with. As we did next time.
April 30th, 2007 at 03:59
i’ll be quick about this:
how exactly are people’s choices being measured? i suspect there are big chunks of people in certain demos that have dramatically decreased the use of gas. it is hard because it is a lifestyle change. it is near impossible if you live in the suburbs or, gasp, the exhurbs (not that i feel bad for ‘em!).
what i am saying is every day there are little tiny micro changes that may go unoticed, but they probably add up to something. the vagaries of gas prices are way too complicated for me, but there might also be a time lag issue because if someone stupidly bought a 12 cylinder hemi SUV they might be guzzling until they can get rid of it. in my dad’s case he splits his time between that and a motorcycle in the summer and it ends up being a wash. i always ridicule his car to make him feel guilty.
sorry i was supposed to be brief!