Proposition 2:
The majority of people will see an inability to drive to work, or to visit relatives, as a decrease in standard of living.

Proposition 3:
As gas prices rise, demand for cars that run on alternative fuels will rise accordingly.

Proposition 4:
Car manufacturers like to sell as many cars as they can.

Given propositions 1 and 2, people are going to continue purchasing cars that can travel indefinitely with only a single refueling, taking a few minutes, every several hours.

Given proposition 3 and 4, it will eventually be in the best interest of car manufacturers to sell alternative fueled vehicles, because they will sell like hotcakes. Note that proposition 1 and 2 require that for these cars to sell, they have to perform similarly to current cars.

Are you honestly saying that you think the technological barriers to electric or hydrogen fuel cell cars are going to keep them from ever being produced on a large scale, even in the face of $10/gallon gasoline? Do you really believe that?

Chevrolet will be selling the Volt, which can run entirely on electricity, starting in 2011.

Honda already has a hydrogen fuel-cell pilot program running in southern California via their FCX vehicle.

Here’s what will happen: As oil supplies shrink, prices will rise. Car companies will realize there’s billions of dollars in consumer spending to be won if they can bring alternative fuel cars to market. They will succeed. The technology isn’t far off from what we have already. We’re halfway there and market forces (gas prices) aren’t even forcing their hand yet.

In fifty years, everyone will be driving electric cars that charge in five minutes and go 300 miles per charge. No one will have given up their current creature comforts.

This analysis is not grounded in “global warming” nor in the “desire to keep profits” but in the basics of economics, that is supply and demand, and the human track record of coming up with all sorts of creative solutions to problems when they know they can sell a million of them.

Your viewpoint on this topic looks to me a lot like someone pooh-poohing the possibility of air travel in 1885 as a technological infeasibility. Meanwhile, some very smart people who have actually been studying the problem and the engineering challenges required to overcome it are already laying the groundwork for that to happen.

Yes yes yes, we must change / transform our concept of travel, like you said. It can be done. I myself have not travelled for over 15 years, and I don’t miss it at all. I just readjusted by ice cream gimme gimme needs, and I am content to live in one place, see friends every day, read voraciosuly on the Net and in the newspapers and magazines, email all over the world, and work on my polar cities concept. I’m in your camp, also Monbiot’s camp. We need to stop all air travel now. But as you say so well, we have become accustomed to our travel fixes, as if it is a human entitlement, BUT ONLY BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE INVNTED SHIPS AND THEN AIRPLANES…….but with global warming on the horizon, it’s time to reconfigure our travel needs. sure, we will miss it. travel broadens the soul. But there are OTHER ways to travel now, via the Net and email, and with climate change a possibily tragic event for the future, we need to rethink all of this. you should write a longer essay on this and submit it as an oped piece to the NYTimes……sure, the travel industry will say no, as will all the other people who profit from travel……BUT it;s over folks, we are in a LONG EMERGENCY and we must drop our travel needs, and go back to earlier kind of lifestyles revolving around where we live. We shall get through it okay. I have.

What are polar cities? In case you never heard of them yet, check here:

http://northwardho.blogspot.com

Danny
Tufts 1971

It is radical to think about travel in this way, because it is apparent heresy to so many. Accepting that travel may not be an option that remains wholly compatible with its implications for climate change is a radical act.

At the risk of being labeled an apostate, I am going to side with Einstein on this – we can’t solve our current problems with the same level of thinking that created them. Our fascination with technology is what got us into this position, we need to look at something else, such as our behavior, to get us out.

We need to accept that we may be at the pinnacle of human frenzy, not that we are at the pinnacle of human development. Instead of looking at technological solutions, lets look at behavioral solutions, which is where radical acceptance fits in. And in terms of forced conservation, B SMith is right. But not in a lifeboat.

We need to change our behavior. There is a wealth in living in a strong community. You cannot travel your way into solutions.

I think we are both arguing the same point but from different perspectives. Our current technology isn’t going to solve the problem. As Albert Einstein said (paraphrased) “we can’t solve today’s problems with yesterday’s solutions.”

We need to find ways to break through the barriers we see today. The answer isn’t just to conserve. That is like trying to become wealthy by scrimping and saving alone. That just makes you cheap! The other side of the equation is to increase your wealth. Note: while living within your means is a critical first step, increasing your income is ultimately more powerful.

It is the same with the energy crisis. Part of the answer is to reduce consumption or energy efficiency. The other part is to develop alternatives.

Also, you can’t force someone to conserve. It is arrogant to even try. It is contrary to the beliefs this great country was built on. You can develop compelling technology to solve the problem.