BronxLens -
You make good points. I definitely think that fuel efficiency and greener sources of energy are definitely an idea whose time has come. Environmentalists have been seeing the need for years, but as with most things, there has to be an economic incentive for the unwashed masses to take notice. Gas going up to 4 bucks a gallon? Sure gets people’s attention, and makes that expensive alternative energy seem competitive. What I’ve thought though is that if you look at any technology, there are early adopters who will pay whatever they have to in order to reap the benefits (some because they can, and others because they care enough to make it work even though it’s far from the cheapest option), but there is a sweet spot…when R&D reaches a point that makes the new technology palatable to the masses. It’s a self-perpetuating cycle…something is expensive, more people buy it, it becomes cheaper…it becomes cheaper, more people buy it.
But it’s hard to sit there and think, OK, let me get this straight, you can sell me power you generated from the wind? Well, the wind is free, why does THIS power cost 4 times as much as the power I’m using now. Good idea, not gonna fly. But we have wind, we have solar (it’s said that 92 square miles of solar panels could power the entire United States), we have wave, we have geothermal…all these technologies that are not destructive, don’t produce waste, and are free for the taking if we just harvest it. But harvesting, storage and distribution are bottlenecks. Problem is, with those bottlenecks in place, the cost is greater than what we have today, and in order to bring those costs now, we need R&D, which costs money, which you need to raise by selling your product to people.
I think one of the best solutions we have is to invest at a governmental level in these kinds of things to inject some capital in the market to get around the problems so that the technologies become competitive in the market, which will eventually 1) remove our dependence on foreign oil, 2) save the planet via less polution, 3) make energy cheaper for everyone causing greater prosperity at the ground level which will expand our economy, 4) give us an energy source that will never run out, and 5) create an entirely new green sector of the economy which will spur job creation and expand our economic growth even further.
The next thing I’d say is, look at cars. Even your hybrids get between 30 and 50mpgs. You know what…back in the 80s, I had a compact car that I once got 43 mpgs in on a road trip. In most of Europe, you can’t even SELL a car unless it gets something like 40mpgs. But we all drive cars that seem to get 25mpgs or less, unless we want to pay MORE for a smaller car. I think we need an intiative…I wish our leaders would call on America to drive smaller, more efficient vehicles, and do what it takes with tax incentives to bring those vehicles to America. Most Americans want a bigger and bigger car, but in Europe, people often just drive only what they really need. Indeed, Ford introduced a car this week that gets 65mpgs, but they’re only selling it…you got it…in Europe. We need to try to break our bad consumerism habits of getting more car than we need. That I think is doable.
And we need to invest in more public transportation. I live in a city that is VERY myopic when it comes to this. It took 30 years of arguing for us to get a light rail system, and now that we did, it’s EXTREMELY costly, and we have one section that heads north and south for about 10 miles. We’re a city of 3 million people (Minneapolis/St. Paul), yet only a tiny fraction of it is connected by rail. But we’ve gone so far away from a rail system in this country, because we’ve gotten so individualistic and want our own little space, that we’ve gotten spoiled. But look at a freight train, it can move 400 tons of cargo a mile on a single gallon of fuel.
I do think incentivising a distribution of our skilled professionals to farther flung areas is a great idea, because I think there are huge pockets of America where we could be more prosperous if peole could have the kind of lives they want without living in the city. I think massive public transport on a national scale connecting all of America, and greater investment in internet infrastructure to allow people to stay connected while in more remote areas, could decentralize our population and lead to greater overall prosperity (more communities to build up = more jobs, more opportunities, etc).
Now, we have to be realistic…Americans aren’t all going to start growin their own vegetable gardens…some have no interest in that, and many don’t have the land. Bikes are great, but they’re only ever going to appeal to a certain segment of the population, and as streets get more crowded, it’s a more and more dangerous option. It’s also less feasible when people are living further and further away from work. So I think things can be done there, but I think we have to be realistic and accept that no matter what, some people can’t make public transport work, some people NEED a bigger vehicle for one reason or another, some people live too far away from work to bike…but we can encourage those who really don’t do these things for economic and structural reasons. We can incentivize and we can innovate…that’s what has always made America great…whether it was the industrial revolution, the post war boom, or the tech industry explosion, when we innovate, everyone benefits…we need to encourage that, and our government should take a greater role, both as a cheerleader AND an investor.