Without a Price Signal...

Another two reasons to raise the gas tax. If the US public doesnt take the windfall of cheap oil the oilproducers will. A gas tax would provide a clear source of repayment for the debt that must be sold to rebuild infrastructure. This is far preferable to simply printing the money and hoping the rest of the world continues to fund US debt. There is already an international competition for funding infrastructure projects. One of the ways to be a winner is to have a way to pay for it.

Additional benefit of up-front money and high Federal gasoline tax:
Money talks.
So long as there are economic supports for Big Oil - free usage venue (highways), drilling incentives and no clean up fees, Big Oil will be king until there is no more oil or us. Any "road" or other tax they pay is pittance and charged mostly to the user.
Money does talk and that is why up-front money - in form of Federal Income Tax rebate followed by per gallon Federal Tax - specifically to repay the rebate (not to highway trust fund) will change our behavior.
In these trouble economic times having $2000 up-front could allow many people of modest means to repay credit card or other high interest short term debt - sort of borrowing from future energy expenditure and therefore spur future conservation.
Read my gas tax plan: www.geocities.com/dpierce3

Thank you for Hot Flat and Crowded. While at times it was depressing, it left me with hope that we can solve these issues.

A few issues struck me while reading your book.
1. In your discussion of Outgreening, a great concept, I found it interesting that what you described on p.335 how be green was similar to how Deming promoted creating products using Total Quality Management. When Detroit was using TQM in the 80's they seemed to do better. It seems to no longer be a focus. Deming also emphasized that consumers pay for any waste created so efficiency and quality were key.
- Another key point Deming emphasized was not buying on price Tag alone but look at the total cost because products with higher quality have a lower overall cost - just like green products. Overall, the green movement seems like it could gain a great deal by using TQM principles as outlined by Deming.

2. I was surprised you did not mention the impact food has on the environment. A great amount of research has demonstrated how our animal based diet consumes excessive energy, is fossil fuel intensive, and also is bad for our health. This research suggests a move away from an animal based diet would have multiple benefits beyond health. Using price signals, such as paying the true cost for beef would help here also. Again a government regulation issue.
- Also, the increased number of cows desired by the West has led to destruction of rain forests so 3rd world communities could raise cattle to be sold to the West. An issue I had not thought about before was the methane, you explained that methane is a potent greenhouse gas and the extra cattle raised for beef means more methane.

3. Overall, I see a match with many of the things you are suggesting and my research in health that shows people are more motivated to act for a gain rather than a non-loss. That is people want some tangible benefit for their effort more than the absence of something that might happen. (my research demonstrates people want a better life in some tangible form - a gain, not just the absence of illness - a non-loss) In the case of ecology, if we prevent global warming problems, things remain as they are, no gain - it is a nonloss. To motivate people to adhere to a green movement, we must demonstrate gains. I liked your focus on a growing economy with the new energy future should be key. I believe this is something Al Gore should have emphasized - he did not highlight any gains, just catastrophic losses.
- You documented this in your book when you discussed the "Arks" in Indonesia. People became motivated to do something when they were shown how to get more out of their land rather than save the orangutan. On page 309 you explained, "[focusing on] what was in it for them and not just the orangutan." If the orangutan benefits and the community doesn't, "we lose the foundation for protecting the whole."

Overall, thank you for outlining a great plan to help America lead in the ECE. I was happy to see the Obama team seems to have a strategy that matches up well with your plan. He even put Dr. Chu in charge. I am hopeful and am anxious to assist. Please advise as to how I can help.

Be Wellr,
Craig M. Becker, Ph.D.

Hey Friedman, your mom is hot, flat, and crowded!

Here's something typical of what's out there:

"Walmart: We Are Not Green"
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/200...

Lee Scott Jr. has earned a reputation as something of an environmental guru for actions he has taken over the past few years in getting Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to green up its act.

But this morning at the ECO:nomics conference in California, the president and CEO of the retail giant took some attendees aback by flatly declaring: “We are not green.”

Mr. Scott was actually being candid when a questioner asked how he could reconcile why Wal-Mart’s carbon emissions were continuing to grow despite its much-publicized efforts to reduce its carbon footprint. He said Wal-Mart is trying, but it also needs to grow at the same time. In fact, Mr. Scott said, “I haven’t a clue,” when asked when he expected the company to meet his stated goal of having zero waste and 100% renewable energy over time.

It appears that price increases are the only truly effective methods to reduce the use of fuel. When gas and diesel prices were $5+ in our region, I saw real changes in the way people conducted themselves. Considering the short-term fluctuations in fuel prices, which apparently give some incentive for maintaining the status quo, what are your thoughts on how to keep people fucussed on the realities of their long-term decisions?

Because:

1) The problems are so huge that no one person will be able to solve them (observed several times by Thomas in HFC); and,

2) Relatively few will read HFC (as observed by Susan below)...

It strikes me that we need a way to harness people's "constructive" ideas "as they think of them", and have a way to organize them. It is frustrating to see good ideas buried in these blog comments.

Part way through reading HFC, the idea of an "Energy Technology Revolution Wiki" began to make sense to me. I think I even did a search to see if one existed yet on the Internet, and couldn't find one.

Since that time, I read the book "Tribes" by Seth Godin, which practically formulates the prerequisites, strategies and tactics of building a groundswell movement.

If anyone knows how to create a "wiki" that is easy to use, and could organize it into the major problem areas Thomas has defined in HFC (climate change, petro-dictatorships, clean-cars, education etc.), then people could focus on building on each others' ideas in a constructive way.

So,

a) Read Tribes;

b) Think about which part of the revolution you'd like to lead or contribute to; and

c) If a Wiki doesn't exist by then, start one.

If I knew how to create one I would, but am keen to contribute once it's there. I think many would be. Anybody have connections with Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger (founders of Wikipedia) or other successful wiki-growers? If the government allocated seed money to people who wanted to start or manage one, that could help, too.

Finally - to address the immediate question Thomas asks above regarding oil prices, there should be a section of the E-T Wiki that explains the current global oil supply- demand-"price signal" relationships, to illustrate the effect of price signals and supply changes.

Are America consumers supposed to be 90 day suckers? We've seen major swings in gas prices before but I don't think anyone would say this latest low is typical or a good reason not to reform our bad habits. Driving though Huizhou on Sunday I pointed out a Prius passing us on the highway to a Chinese friend and asked him if hybrids were becoming more popular in China. He asked why and I felt obliged to remind him of the endless gray haze that surrounded us.

I agree with Kate that education is the key. A great many, if not most, Americans will not read the New York Times or a book like HFC. The explanations contained in the book of the interrelationships of the issues, especially the chapters about petrodictatorships and being on the cutting edge of new technologies and the business opportunities that would provide, would help to invoke Americans' sense of patriotism as a goad to change behavior. Mr. Friedman, have you considered doing a television program that would distill the concepts into a format that could reach less academic people? I envision something along the lines of Carl Sagan's "Cosmos". It needs to be on network television so that it can be seen by people from all backgrounds and education levels to raise their understanding and awareness of our situation.