Congratulations Dr. S. You actually did offer a real suggestion as opposed to mere mindless ravings you’ve been pushing out lately (althought your ad hominen attacks smack more of blind rage than serious discourse). There is only one problem with a massive Federal intervention to change American behavior vis a vis energy consumption: they haven’t worked.

The CAFÉ standards are the most notable example of the Law of Unintended Consequences manifesting itself. Change the laws and make cars more fuel efficient. Great. Then people switch to trucks because these cars do not meet their needs.

Government dictates can not move economics. Price controls – and imposing taxes above and beyond the “real price” of the good or service is price fixing – never work. The actual cost of a barrel of crude from Saudi Arabia without OPEC’s intervention is about $2 a barrel. Raising taxes on fuel – Al Gore’s mantra for almost decade – would plunge the US and most of Western Europe into a depression the likes of which hasn’t been seen in 70 years. Even if such a measure were attempt, it would result in revolution, and the tax raiser and their advocates would end up with the heads on pikes.

However, advocacy of such a position is wonderfully attractive as it is essentially cost-free. Such a thing would never happen so its supporters can scream all the want to without ever having to face the consequences. It’s easy for one to be for if one never has to pay for it.

As for suggestions that mass transit could somehow replace the car, this is patently impossible. Even in Japan, an island nation far more congested than America, people still have cars and still drive them. Gas prices hover at .90 cents per liter, or $4 per gallon. And these people have no petroleum reserves at all.

Government dictates are not always benign and are frequently detrimental. The rise of fascism in Europe, was a function of government intervention. The French (and Woodrow Wilson, that distinguish academic) demanded that Germany pay reparations to the victors of the Great War, an act which bankrupted the country and set the hyper-inflationary cycle we are both familiar with. Germany did not melt down from within, but from without. The Irish had plenty of food during the famine years, but the government in London forced the Irish tenant farmer to export what they could produce for the mother country and the expense of the Irish countryside. And the Irish haven’t forgotten this to this day.

As for this little piece

If condescention [sic] cloaked in piety is ineffective, then will pleading work? I doubt it. Will calm statement of the facts and stern warning with real dialogue work? No, because the hat trick is always, "then go off and do your thing" or "walk your walk". As if there is no moral obligation whatsoever to nature, neighbors, or future generations. Sorry, we're not going to let you dam the stream and take the water.

If you really wanted to do you part, then you would lead by example, rather than rant that everyone else has to change their ways in order to conform to your vision of the world. I heat my house with wood, and will add solar this year if market conditions allow. My wife takes mass transit to work daily and I work from home. Great. If my neighbor drives a Hummer, fine. I might think him a pig, but this is America, and he can do as he pleases.

Look, conservation is good thing. Plowing resources into finding alternatives is also a good thing. Launching the country into a mind-bending depression through government dictates to assuage the boomer guilt concerning undeserved prosperity does not in any way resemble the common good. It is merely one set of people telling another set of people how to live.

Pushing pistons is the way the world works. Until there is a real economically feasible alternative (as opposed to one offered in light of artificially inflated energy prices), petrol will be the fuel that powers the wheels of industry.

dpny