"When a person is addicted to crack cocaine, his problem is not that the price of crack is going up. His problem is what that crack addiction is doing to his whole body. The cure is not cheaper crack, which would only perpetuate the addiction and all the problems it is creating. The cure is to break the addiction.
Ditto for us. Our cure is not cheaper gasoline, but a clean energy system. And the key to building that is to keep the price of gasoline and coal — our crack — higher, not lower, so consumers are moved to break their addiction to these dirty fuels and inventors are moved to create clean alternatives. . . If you want to know what an alternative strategy might look like, read the speech that Al Gore delivered on Thursday to the bipartisan Alliance for Climate Protection. Gore, the alliance’s chairman, called for a 10-year plan — the same amount of time John F. Kennedy set for getting us to the moon — to shift the entire country to “renewable energy and truly clean, carbon-free sources” to power our homes, factories and even transportation.
Mr. Gore proposed dramatically improving our national electricity grid and energy efficiency, while investing massively in clean solar, wind, geothermal and carbon-sequestered coal technologies that we know can work but just need to scale. To make the shift, he called for taxing carbon and offsetting that by reducing payroll taxes: Let’s “tax what we burn, not what we earn,” he said.
Whether you agree or not with Gore’s plan, at least he has a plan for dealing with the real problem we face — a multifaceted, multigenerational energy/environment/geopolitical problem." [Op-Ed Columnist - 9/11 and 4/11 - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com.]
Yet again, it does make you wonder what would have happened if Al Gore had been elected President by the American People the Supreme Court in 2000. I'm obviously still of the opinion that that a smart science-minded guy without familial ties to the oil industry would've been the better choice.
On the other hand, by not becoming President, Gore has been able to focus on critically important issues in a way our Chief Executive would not be able to do.
And while I agree with Friedman's take on this, for the most part, the consumer can't just "decide" to stop on a dime and stop using fossil fuels. If the government really wants a quick turn-around on this, we're going to need help changing the heating systems in our houses. There would have to be a multi-year phaseout of the use of heating oil -- and assistance for people who couldn't afford to switch out their current heating system. If you want people to use public transportation and/or drive hybrids, there would probably have to be some public monies to help support new and existing public transportation initiatives. There are large swaths of this country where it's too sparsely populated to support adequate public transportation. There would have to be an adequate supply of hybrids to buy and charging stations along the interstates. (Note: I'm not 100% sure how hybrids work! Think they only go so far on a charge or something? Or is that just completely electric cars?)
Updated 7/22/2008: Oh, and the public transportation already in existence will have to be better than described here.