There is a formula out there that states that alternative energy will be economically feasible once gas prices hit a certain level; but I wonder how true that is.
A story in today’s SF Chronicle tells of the much higher price of gas in the Europe, where taxes are so high that they absorb much of the volatility in price. In early August, gas prices in Britain were around $7 per gallon. That’s pretty damned high in anyone’s book… but where are all the alternative energy cars in the UK? I’d bet you that the US has far more hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles than the UK does. They have so many cars in London that they’ve instituted a congestion charge to keep traffic flowing through the heart of the city.
Granted, London does have a comprehensive subway and transit system which many, many people use. But where are the hydrogen powered buses for London Transport?
And with $6.75 per gallon in Germany, why aren’t the Germans all driving hydrogen hybrids on the autobahn? $6.50 in France hasn’t seemed to generate any switch to new energy sources, either.
Where is that magic number, the high price that will force us all to divert resources to developing new sources of energy? If we are currently at $2.50 and an increase of $5 on top of that isn’t enough, we’re headed for an economic hell hole where gas is $15 per gallon, a coach plane ticket costs $2300, a tank of gas is $160, and a head of lettuce trucked in from another state is $25.
There is a proposition on the ballot here in California, one that I’ve been waiting for for a long time. I wondered a long time ago about the possibility of raising taxes on gas high enough that it would begin to discourage use and then dedicating that tax revenue to developing alternative energy sources. I thoroughly believe that we should have been doing this for the past couple of decades — I think that each source of energy should be used to develop the next source, stepping stones.
But would such a plan work? Obviously, it wouldn’t do much to curb demand. Just as the spike in prices earlier this year didn’t stop people from driving.
Of course, California’s proposition 87 isn’t quite as straightforward as one might, naively, hope. I wish that there was a law requiring laws themselves to be simple and written in less than four sentences, so we could all see when we’re being manipulated or misled. I don’t know yet whether 87 is good or bad, I haven’t finished reading the whole thing. I do know, however, that all the “No on 87” ads are paid for by Chevron, which just gives the “Yes” side more credibility.
