Chickens and eggs in energy policy

Moving people
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.

Related posts

Anyone know who’s paying Barton?

clipped from news.bbc.co.uk
Al Gore makes global warming plea
Al Gore in Congress

He said the US should freeze carbon dioxide emissions and push for a strong climate change treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012.

Representative Joe Barton, the leading Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, challenged global warming science as “uneven and evolving”.

“You’re not just off a little, you’re totally wrong,” he said of Mr Gore’s conclusions that carbon dioxide emissions contribute to global warming.

Mr Barton said freezing carbon emissions would harm Americans and lead to “no new industry, no new people and no new cars”.

powered by clipmarks

 

Another depressingly clear example of public figures being uber clueless about matters scientific, not to mention economic! Sadly, though, it’s probably not that simple, as it’s hard to imagine being so willfully contentious without there being some significant (financial) incentive. Which version of “nearly all scientists who have studied this agree that we ought to be very nervous” does Barton not get? And what version of free-market economics did this guy study in school (assuming such radical events as studying happened in his misspent youth) where incentive didn’t lead to innovation and markets? We already have new cars and new industries in the hybrid market alone, and you can bet that a major cap on emissions would radically increase competition and investment in a whole host of arenas.

Frankly, I think it’s this last bit that really depresses me. Even if you have your doubts about how serious or imminent the threat is, these arguments against taking steps to improve the situation just make no sense. Fossil fuels are a finite resource, and burning them pollutes. These are indisputable facts. Burning less of them and more slowly would seem to just be common sense. Creating political and economic structures that encourage the exploration of alternative approaches would seem equally sensible. If the U.S. really is full of smart, creative people, let’s leverage them to find new ways to do things, and help them make plenty of good capitalist green in the process.

And, given the enormous lag times in these ecological systems, I would be especially inclined to do it early, before things have really hit the fan (assuming that hasn’t already happened, which isn’t entirely obvious).

We’ve obviously got to make it clear to these yobs that we the people think this is a serious issue that badly (if not desperately) needs attention. I certainly hope it becomes a major issue in the upcoming election cycle…

No tag for this post.

Related posts