The confluence of several big things may have presented an opportunity: the “fiscal cliff”, the hurricane Sandy, and the outcome of the 2012 election.

Avoiding any Discussion for Four Years

Obama has done a lot of good things in four years. Like saving our asses. And using stimulus funds to invest in clean tech. And increasing fuel economy standards dramatically. But he punted on climate change. Not sure he had much choice.

The election campaigns were downright pathetic in their avoidance. The words “climate change” and “global warming” were taboo, and meanwhile the deniers have rebuilt their cases. In some cases, “energy independence” was used as a proxy. I understand the rationale and strategy. Obama is a pragmatist. Look at the stupidity around Solyndra — a debate about climate could only had been bad for Obama. So he agreed with the “all of the above” strategy, tossing a bone here and there to include renewables.

So, while Rome burns it took a costly climate disaster to finally get us talking again:

While We Weren’t Talking About Climate Change

The thing is, this “all of the above” strategy has had a little boost from natural gas fracking which has caused the price of natural gas to fall dramatically, and open up shale oil. The US will be the top oil producer in 5 years, according to an IEA report summarized in the New York Times yesterday.

The Rebound Effect: Yes, and No

I have argued in more than a few cases that the rebound effect from energy conservation is not likely to result in significant consumption increases.

I think I need to eat my words, at least to some degree.

The NY Times article asserts “The United States’ reduced reliance on coal will just mean that coal moves to other places”. While increased supply is largely due to technology that reduces the price of getting at formerly expensive oil and gas, it’s also because we’ll need less … because of the dramatic changes in vehicle fuel economy standards. The rebound effect predicts that reduced prices due to efficiency gains are offset by increased consumption. I railed on the conclusions of a 2008 article in The Economist.

What I didn’t account for was a local effect, where “local” is, in this case, the US. Our efficiency, cleverness (and continued luck with natural resources) gives us the chance to shift to natural gas … and ship our coal to China, or maybe Germany which has eschewed nukes. The world’s energy demand is growing as China, Indonesia, India and other countries grow.

Time To Export Something Else

So imagine that we do eventually find our way out of our current economic morasse. And imagine that continued severe weather events with big price tags continue to show people little glimpses of the impact of climate change. Perhaps then we will regain some political will to get serious about climate change?

As noted above, gas prices have plummeted, and we have seen a dramatic conversion of electricity generation towards natural gas away from coal. Price matters (duh). Here’s a chart from the EIA

If we get our act together and start accelerating progress on R&D of renewables, they may catch up in cost advantage. To be sure, this is not a simple conversion, as it is (relatively) for an electricity generation plant. There are many bits that need to be worked out. And yes, when we do and the overall supply of energy increases, prices will fall and make less high-tech energy sources more attractive in growing economies.

The difference is: just as China has exported inexpensive solar panels to the US, increasing adoption here, the US (and other leaders in R&D) can export the same technologies that make clean energy a better and cheaper alternative than fossil. In the end, cheaper wins.

Another difference is climate change. The goal isn’t necessarily to use less energy, it’s to use less carbon-based energy. It is a global problem, and while some countries will be less able or willing to reduce carbon emissions (as the US and some others have been to date, mostly) we cannot escape climate change impacts.

Cost-Benefit Analysis

I think for the first time, as a result of the Sandy hurricane hitting New Jersey and New York, the impacts and costs are being discussed openly as a trade off between spending money now to save more later. This is just a cost-benefit analysis.

I (and many others) have been arguing for years that the cost of fossil energy fails to account for the cost of climate change — a classic example of externality in econ-speak. This externality is the justification for solutions like cap-and-trade or a carbon tax.

The problem is that these costs have been seen as unquantifiable and distant. Even if we have attempted to estimate impacts in any systematic way, such calculation is inherently imprecise, and lack of precision is fodder for the seeds of doubt. Similarly, prices in the future are discounted — you’ll pay less for a dollar you’ll get in a year than one you’ll get now. So it’s really hard to say how much we should spend now to mitigate a problem we’ll have in the future.

The good news is, climate change is arriving more speedily, and with more gusto than predicted. Climate change is here, and at least in some ways, its costs are now calculable.

Of course this is terrible news, since it merely confirms that we will pay a huge premium for our failure to plan ahead, just as an insurance company won’t cover an accident after it has happened.

But having the ability — and more importantly, the political will — to quantify the costs of climate change lets us actually do that cost benefit analysis.

With some real numbers, even just by way of examples, will provide a clear justification for legislative change. And here’s why the “fiscal cliff” may be an opportunity: it’s about taxes. And carbon taxes sound relatively appealing, at this very moment.

A Moment in Time for a Carbon Tax

Perhaps, just perhaps, we can capitalize on this right now with

What I came to understand more clearly in these last few years is that our legislative process is an opportunistic process of changing the status quo. It’s very hard to do. Obama’s message in the last weeks of the campaign was “you know me”.

We picked the devil we know (don’t get me wrong, this was definitely a good thing). Likewise, the fact that Obamacare has passed and with the election has survived it’s first real threat means it will increasingly become the status quo. Looking back further, Roe vs. Wade, and even the Clean Air Act all have endured, despite extended opposition.

So, our chance may be now to get some foothold in real legislative action to help address climate change. We may be getting past some of the delay tactics of Merchants of Doubt. For the first time in more than a decade, perhaps we’re finally coming to accept that “tax” is not a dirty word. And the fiscal cliff may force this issue.

If we can get past these roadblocks, the question becomes not whether to tax, but what to tax.

Carbon producers aren’t exactly up there amongst the country’s best loved corporations.

Now that “tax” is back in the lexicon of approved words, we have an opportunity to get out of the mealy-mouthed language of Cap and Trade (even if it is the better option) — language matters: it’s a carbon tax.

The key is, now is the time. We’ll certainly continue to have extreme weather with costly impacts, but this one got peoples’ attention at the right time.

These programs are for the city itself, businesses, and residents

…our Energy Smart Newton program and the additional costs-savings and efficiencies we found by becoming the first community in Massachusetts to procure 100% of municipal electricity from green/renewable sources, through the purchase of renewable energy credits (REC’s) to offset the usage of an estimated 70 million kilowatt hours of electricity over the next three years, as well as our receipt of a prestigious Climate Protection Award from the United States Conference of Mayors.

Sounds expensive. But it’s not: it will save $300,000 over the next three years, even after the purchase of RECs.

REC’s will always be controversial because they are indirect — most of our electricity will still come from coal burning plants. But the RECs we pay for are bought at an auction, sold by producers of green energy, thereby lowering their cost and making sustainable energy sources more cost-competitive. This strategy is the basis of the RGGI initiative that Massachusetts is part of (and New Jersey notoriously backed out of, recently), and shares the incentive-shifting properties of either cap and trade, or carbon tax proposals.

Newton also was one of the top five small cities to be recognized for local climate efforts.

While it is quite certain that I see this as an effort that on it’s own will do little, perhaps it’s biggest impact will be that the city is saving money without firing city employees. At some level, one has to think every city and town in the country could get on board with this kind of plan.

One company CEO is making very small and efficient switching transformers (converting A/C into D/C for electronics), and has found that LED lighting is a great application, since replacement lamps need to fit in small spaces. Many in the audience were clearly anxious to hear her confirm that her market was made by people whose motives were environmental. She said “nope”, and thus her market was business not residential. She also noted that the transformer is just one part of a set of components needed by LED lights, and her product also would make it possible to change the color balance or temperature of the light being produced … and this feature was the only one she had heard any interest in from companies selling consumer products. People would pay $60 for LED light because it was a cool gadget, not for the savings, and certainly not to “go green”.

People want sexy features. They don’t give a damn about ROI. And nobody gives a damn about being “green” or “sustainable”, except for businesses seeing the really long horizon. And those businesses are making change because they see a long-term financial benefit.

This is the cold truth, not really a revelation for me, or probably anyone reading this. It’s just reality.

One thing that motivated changes in people: rebates, tax breaks, and other incentives. In short, people will respond to free money.

Yet meanwhile, climate change rolls along and we’re doing far from enough. And it’s all about the economy these days, and apparently there’s something wrong with the government jumpstarting strategic technologies or solving big problems the market has not yet found a way to exploit. Props to the EPA and others who are managing to address as much as possible through non-legislative means, but it’s not enough.

Are we all really this dumb? Do we just want sex? Are we so bad at math that the promise of money (or pain) in the future isn’t sufficient to change our behavior in the present? Psychologists and behavioral economists will answer: yes, that’s exactly how our irrational brains respond.

So I guess we need to work in this framework to cause change. It’s who we are.

These sorts of questions have been raised by football experts, not just in this year’s contest, but, according to some reports, for all prior Super Bowls. Dismissed as “ridiculous” by mainstream followers of the sport, the evidence supports a consistent and nagging uncertainty about the veracity of Super Bowl scores, and researchers have found the inconsistency may be endemic, not just in professional football, but in other sports as well.

Sports Score Deniers

Roger L. Verisim holds a PhD from Rutgers University in Astrophysics, and reported within minutes of the game’s conclusion, “No way. There’s simply no way the Patriots could have lost this game. It’s impossible.” Additional reporting suggests that many other scientists who also observed the game made similar assertions of lack of confidence in reported outcomes, including “Unbelievable”, “Ridiculous”, and “Beyond belief”.

An analysis by The Kraft Group of the statements suggests strong correlation to the temporal proximity of the statements to the time period in which the game was played. Scientists and analysts have clearly demonstrated that observational recollection is more accurate relative to the time of the event, often by as much as 46% over the course of several weeks. This phenomenon has been shown to be reinforced by social factors, in particular, consistent repetition of falsehood.

Eyewitness Fallacy

In one experiment, study participants were shown to have their accurate recollections altered by repeated assertion by experimenters of an alternate outcome. In this case, many (although not all) news organizations and other media outlets quickly reported the asserted final score of the Super Bowl, leading all but a few of the more determined to accept the reported findings as fact. Yet researchers report this as normal human response. One characterized such false beliefs as “group think”, indicating this kind of phenomenon is common, both in our present day world, and throughout human history.

Estimates suggest that even in cases where greater than 99% of subjects report “complete certainty”, a persistent cohort is able to ignore the distortion of facts and retain their conviction in the truth. Studies in criminology suggest that eyewitness accounts are as often incorrect as correct, especially when dealing with subtle numerical details such as height, weight, distance and so on. One can presume this kind of phenomenon translates to game scoring confusion.

So for now, the actual score of the game remains unclear. The Kraft Group will submit its findings and report within the next several months, but has indicated that there are a sufficient number of “irregularities” to warrant significant doubt about the reported outcome.

(All of the above is false and baseless. It is not intended to be a statement of fact.)

And Now, in Unrelated News…

The New York Times reports today that “Rising Sea Levels Seen as Threat to Coastal U.S.”. After reporting the primary findings, the report goes on to say:

..the ocean could rise a foot over the next 40 years, though that calculation is not universally accepted among climate scientists.

The handful of climate researchers who question the scientific consensus about global warming do not deny that the ocean is rising. But they often assert that the rise is a result of natural climate variability, they dispute that the pace is likely to accelerate, and they say that society will be able to adjust to a continuing slow rise.

Myron Ebell, a climate change skeptic at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington research group, said that “as a society, we could waste a fair amount of money on preparing for sea level rise if we put our faith in models that have no forecasting ability.”

Several paragraphs later, “Insurance companies got out of the business of writing flood insurance decades ago…”.

(The above is a true accounting of the New York Times article published today).

Money, Mouth

I have a proposal for the free-enterprise-minded Competitive Enterprise Institute: put your money where your mouth is. If you believe the models have no forecasting ability, then they can only predict as much chance that sea levels will rise as not. Thus, there’s a good chance they will not rise, and perhaps CEI should decide to promote and support an insurance company that would base its rates on the level of risk, and thus make a great profit. One thinks it’s rather odd that market-based companies such as insurance have not found this profitable. Go figure.

At what point did respected news organizations like the New York Times feel an obligation to devote about 20% of an article on a scientific finding to reports about a group having little or no scientific basis for retort (CEI is not a science research organization, and Ebell has a masters degree from the London School of Economics)?

Hmm, what was it again that happened in late 2008?

Energy security. That’s what we are allowed to say we want. Today, oil prices are well over $100/bbl and are predicted to keep rising. Instability with Iran is the cause, right?

Perhaps, but it’s also possible that gasoline prices are rising because employment rates and other economic factors are improving. The decimation of our economy in 2008 was the best thing to happen to gasoline prices. It’s pretty clear that economic growth and demand for energy, and oil in particular are strongly correlated:

Hmm, what was it again that happened in late 2008?

But whatever the cause, the rise in gasoline prices certainly has the potential to reinvigorate the hollow cry of “Drill, baby, drill!” — it was stupid then, and it’s stupid now.

Perhaps the most stupid part of it is simply that the Obama administration has lived up to their promise — one very unpopular amongst environmentalists — of delivering on “all of the above” which included all new sources of energy. We’re moving towards pulling more oil out friendly territories than ever in the past. We’re still hooked on coal. And, perhaps above all, the stunning increase in domestic energy capacity from natural gas has begun to make a real difference.

I believe the above count as facts. Gasoline prices are higher and rising. We have moved aggressively to get more oil. We have not moved to surpress the potentially risky impacts of new methods of extracting natural gas. And even though we have made really significant improvements in overall car mileage averages, gasoline prices are still on the rise.

And these are some of the facts that, perversely, are providing fodder for the Republican platform. (I haven’t written here for a while — just to make sure no one is unclear: I am fiscally conservative, and thus a strong and vocal supporter of progressive agendas, if not always the full-on Democratic platform.)

Climate Change: Don’t Mention It

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I don’t know about you, but in the last few years, all of those predictions the climate change experts made seem to be coming true really quickly. Here in New England, last year we almost beat an all-time record for snow, and then we had a catastrophic hurricane, then a catastrophic early season snow storm, then … near record low snowfall and warm temperatures this winter.

Yet check this: no one gives a damn about climate change or global warming.

Google Trends shows that neither people nor news outlets are paying attention to climate change or global warming, dramatically dropping from our public awareness as the economic depression, er, recession took hold:

It's The Economy, Stupid

And so, the energy produced from renewable resources in the US has been essentially flat, and is predicted to stay that way:

So Much for Renewable Energy

So, while Rome burns (figuratively and literally), we’re once again worrying about the price of gasoline. And yes, it will be a topic of conversation that, as in the 2008 election, diverts attention from the real problems.

This cannot be a good sign for the energy monitor business, especially the middle tier, notably Blueline PowerCost Monitor and The Energy Detective, but also CurrentCost Envi and others, even WattVision. All are priced at a point that is sufficiently high to make you think twice, and have a difficult task of demonstrating that the savings you’ll get will be enough to warrant the cost.

Higher-end models such as the eMonitor make a lot of sense, because what I saw was that the people buying them either had massive houses, or lived in places where electricity prices were high (e.g. Hawaii). I would not be surprised if these folks were getting bills around $500 to $1,000 per month. Not only did these customers have more money, they had a harder problem to identify, but easier to solve — one pool pump turned off for a few hours, or one AC unit turned down a little could easily justify the much higher cost. This same math doesn’t work for normal folks whose electricity bill is just one more $130/month bill.

Back in those heady days of 2008 when people gave a damn about things past the end of their nose (like energy conservation, climate change, etc.), businesses arose to support the novel idea that you should be able to keep track of how much energy you used. And Google and MS both offered services that supported these businesses by storing power data and providing a web interface.

But the start was rocky.

I blame The Energy Detective, or TED. I had the distinct displeasure of working with this company for some time, and have really pretty much nothing good to say about them. At first, it seemed great. But it turned out to be terrible. They created a product that was ridiculously and needlessly complicated, turned out to be very difficult to install, required an electrician and a network engineer, had poor quality control, and which is fickle at best, and for many people (including me) broke or failed repeatedly. Add to that several people in the support department, and the company’s CEO who were arrogant, dismissive and repeatedly pissed off customers with horrible service. Oh, and lets not forget the time in Fall of 2009 where they reported a short delay in shipment, which was only resolved about 5 months later. How to make people angry, 101.

TED 5000 was the first product that connected to Google PowerMeter, and in the Google support forums, people became angry at Google (whose service was free) when the TED 5000 failed in any of the numerous ways it could fail. Reports from Google, and even from TED competitors were that the outpouring of disgust against Google due to TED failures made Google reluctant to support any other products. Eventually they opened their API, but the TED had left a sour taste in everybody’s mouths.

So I blame Energy Inc, and TED 5000 for killing Google PowerMeter.

If the TED 5000 experience were not bad enough, Google PowerMeter also provided an interface to utilities who could upload customer data. Few joined, and reports were that many of those that did had spotty support. Utility companies get runner up for this dubious honor.

As Google found out, no good deed goes unpunished. It was noble of them. If only simpler and more elegant products like Wattvision had been the first to go, the world may have been a different place — their product sells in the same price range, does not require an electrician, and has a far better (i.e. simpler) design than TED, or even the venerable PowerCost Monitor. Of all that I tried (and I tried them all), only Wattvision “just worked”, and still does. I would think that there’s a way to make it much less expensive (remove the WiFi chip!!) and more useful (add a simple display). But chances are, the game is up.

I still find it odd to think that electricity (and other household energy) monitoring is not just something every house has. I still save tons of money every month, about $100/month at current rates (paying for all of my monitors many times over). We did this simply by finding small loads that I was able to eliminate. Until we make energy something that people can feel, nothing will happen. This is evident every time gas prices go up because paying for gas is something you do enough to know it costs something. Not so for electricity, and mostly not so for heating energy — they are hidden.

It will happen eventually, but not now. Our infrastructure is in terrible shape. Our will to take action appears to be in even worse shape.

Oil & Democracy: A Costly Mix

We need the oil, and we need to support democratizing movements in the world. And these days, for the right reasons, these two goals are once again at odds.

The precarious balance between the two is getting more so. It won’t get better.

In the last Presidential election the alarmingly high price of oil was framed as energy security, but it’s not about energy. We have plenty of energy in gas and coal. And nuclear and solar and wind. Plenty or energy.

Oil is special because we don’t have easy substitutes at the moment. Liquid fuel is what we run on today. It is technically possible to convert most transportation to alternates, notably natural gas, then electric. But that is happening glacially.

By 2007 it was pretty clear that oil prices were on the rise again, and this was an issue in the election. What if we had started “doing something” in earnest then? The single thing we have done? CAFE standards coming into effect over five years. Woo hoo.

But as we’re seeing again, oil economics is non-linear. Either prices are “normal” or they are out of control. When prices rise, non-rational behavior occurs. People buy hybrids. Laws get passed. Investors invest. And after the correction, these responses seem like over-reaction.

They are. We behave non-rationally (in oh, so many ways).

These days the world is nervous about oil so prices are rising — $104/bbl last time I checked.

So if all the oil dictatorships became democracies (at least with regards to oil as a free market commodity) what would happen? I predict first a race to the bottom, with now carefully controlled reserves being exploited for cash and leverage. Then, increasing instability. Today’s prices are steady at $100/bbl because OPEC and USA set aside reserves. But new, free countries sitting on oil will liberate the oil, too.

Again: we don’t have an energy crisis. We have an oil crisis. We have a leadership crisis. We need to make more energy we can use, and that means making an actual energy policy that considers not just what is expedient now, but what is strategic. But in this absurd effort to drastically reduce government spending everywhere that helps without having the balls to address the real problem, we’re squeezing out any opportunity to make even minor incremental progress on our energy policy.

What is scary is that for these next two years at best we’ll backslide on progress made so far. To be sure, some of the forward progress will be “sticky” — CAFE standards, EPA with teeth, some progress in R&D, but at the end of 2010 many important subsidies expired. And meanwhile, voices are calling for “drill baby drill” (a pointless pissing in the ocean, hopefully not pissing oil, as with BP last summer).

What is really scary is that this current oil shock (combined with “deficit reduction”) will set back legitimate economic gains and make people think Obama is to blame. If we elect Republicans in 2012, and this seems probable, the US will take no action and watch as we slip further into reactive chaos.

Arguably, as the US becomes an increasingly secondary economy, China, which seems ironically more pragmatic about oil and climate change may lead the world out of this mess.

That’s not the route I would choose. But inaction and dithering by the US is a defacto abrogation of power and leadership.

Or, we could lead. Democracy and oil don’t mix.

Photo credit: expertinfantry via ]]>We are torn here in the US. We need the oil, and we need to support democratizing movements in the world. And these days, for the right reasons, these two goals are once again at odds. The precarious balance between the two is getting more so. It won’t get better. In the last Presidential election [...]http://fivepercent.us/2011/03/05/democracy-and-oil-do-not-mix/feed/0http://fivepercent.us/2011/03/05/democracy-and-oil-do-not-mix/http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/fivepercent/~3/hwkz6_lHju4/Save FuelTipscarsconsumptiongasolinehybridTom HarrisonThu, 10 Feb 2011 15:13:02 PSThttp://fivepercent.us/?p=2223

Beat The Cold

The Prius will normally turn off the engine when the car is stopped, which, for my commute is frequently — many lights, and heavy traffic in some parts. But in the winter, until the car has warmed up, the Prius decides to keep the engine on. Idling in traffic isn’t good.

But, if I turn off the heater, off goes the engine. Ha!

My mileage this week has been back up to normal (a little lower than the normal 50+ MPG in winter — in cold climates they change the fuel mix in winter so cars will run properly, even if less efficiently).

So when the car is moving and the engine is on, I turn on the heater, while slowed or stopped, I turn it off. By 10 or 15 minutes the engine is hot enough that the engine will stop on its own. It takes a little longer to warm up the car, and sometimes you need to turn on the AC to prevent the windshield from fogging up, but otherwise, it’s a pretty good trick.

Photo Credit: kalevkevad via Flickr.

When the climate bill was killed in the Senate, they world changed. Important incentives that affected consumers, home owners as well as businesses expired at the end of 2010. Cancun was hobbled from the start. Don’t invest in clean energy for now (unless you’re shorting).

So now in the US we wait to see how the rest of the world will Raymond lunch. All we can do is take a different tack.

The EPA has teeth and has bared them several times, this week vetoing a previously approved mountaintop removal coal mining permit, for example. I am glad they have these teeth, but it’s not a solution, just a firewall.

In an odd paradox, the tool left to the EPA after the climate change bill was scuttled by Republicans not wanting regulation was an EPA whose only weapon was regulation. At the same time the business friendly, conservative created Cap and Trade approach, which would have provided predictable, incremental change was killed. So the more fickle act of regulation is now what businesses got.

Massey Energy and I are both sad about that outcome. Strange bedfellows.

Meanwhile, our old friend, oil prices, are sticking over $90/bbl and gasoline prices continue to creep up. Weather events continue to be extreme and unusual, consistent with predictions of climate change science. GM and Nissan have electric cars for sale. We continue to subsidize mortgage interest, but have revoked incentives to make homes more efficient. Odd.

Business is back to usual. Let’s hope the true believers in market forces are right. All indications are that they are wrong, but don’t let the facts get in the way of political expedience and dogma. If they are wrong, the dogmatists, we will have caused the US to lose an edge that will be hard to regain. To China!

Irony? More like stupidity

Where She Stops Nobody Knows

There are two groups of people who say things like “Oh, yeah!” when passing a gas station selling unleaded for $3.09/gallon, or fist-pump when they hear that light sweet crude is selling for $91.41/bbl.

Rex Tillerson and his cronies in the oil business (e.g. Republican Party)…

and

Me (and my family and some others).

Our reasons are different.

Rex wants money. And he’ll get it.

I want climate change and related legislation. And I’ll get it … eventually.

Am I A Bad Person For Wanting Oil Prices To Rise?

No, I am not a bad person.

The bad person is all those in our Senate who failed to recognize the importance of climate change, and deniers, and all the others who are foolishly preventing a rational response to climate change.

Most of these people know they mainly want to retain power, or remove people from power. They know what they are doing, and that it is wrong. These are bad people.

To be sure, rising oil prices tend to hurt many people, mostly the ones with less money (a recurring theme these days). Here in the northeast, many people heat their houses with oil. People use gasoline to drive to work. It’s real.

It’s so real that one could argue in the last big oil price spike, it set the national agenda and was a factor in electing our President. Some would even argue that high oil prices were the straw that broke the camel’s back, sending us into the Great Recession. High oil prices hurt.

How High Oil Prices Help

However, high oil prices also do a few other things:

1. High prices help remind us that we’re dependent on oil (and other energy)
2. High prices help demonstrate that relatively small price increase signals can result in significant reductions in consumption
3. High prices also demonstrate that change is temporary; when prices fall again, so will our memory
4. High prices let us know that putting a price on carbon would help us finally get off this roller-coaster

Because the US Senate failed to act on climate change in 2010 (blame whoever you want, it doesn’t matter: we failed) the world will take even longer to start dealing with the issues of climate change in a real way.

(I recognize that oil is a relatively small contributor to GHG emissions compared to coal and natural gas. Price isn’t the point. As we have seen lots of things change when oil prices increase. It’s not just increased fuel efficiency — everything about energy is affected. It hits people in their wallets, and, whether for the right reasons or not, they react.)

So all we can do now is hope for oil prices to rise. Because of the reasons cited, high oil prices seems to be the only thing that will awaken us as a nation sufficiently to result in longer-term legislative response to climate issues.