Whether saving gasoline is the ultimate goal or reducing total energy consumption while reducing carbon emissions is the ultimate objective is irrelevant, but there is a more comprehensive strategy that can be pursued in the interim to achieve both of these ends.

Objective of the X Prize is to develop an automobile that gets 100 miles per gallon of gasoline– a Noble aspiration indeed and one that does generate interest with consumers looking for personal money savings. But often the most energy efficient thing one can do is drive the vehicle they own instead of buying a new one because the energy required to manufacture that new car (depending on driving habits) can exceed the energy required to drive one’s current, less fuel efficient vehicle.

Yes, on the aggregate it does make more sense to make modest fuel efficiency gains to the whole fleet of all present fuel inefficient vehicles conserve gasoline, but people act on an individual level and they need impetus to switch to a more efficient vehicle and potential savings for each person is far greater switching to a 100 mpg car than to a 35 mpg car. So, why is little attention being paid to getting better fuel efficiency now? The reason is capitalism emphasizes incentives for the individual consumer; it does not stress groupthink (recall “Tragedy of the Commons” by Garret Hardin). People are focused on the savings they can achieve as individuals rather than savings that, we, vehicle drivers, can collectively produce. Ultimately, collective gasoline savings would reduce demand and therefore drive price down, which would behoove individuals, but supply would adjust eventually too and gasoline prices would stabilize. This reality would also require groupthink and group action uncharacteristic of our system.

Tangible results are not being made because the most tangible, immediate results in conserving gasoline could be made through behavioral modifications– drive less, commute by bicycle more often, walk more– unfortunately, advocating behavior modifications in Washington is very politically unpopular. Advocating changes in behavior is akin to political suicide for politicians. So we are relegated to incentivizing the private sector through special prizes in the hope that technological innovations lead the movement to reduce our dependency on oil. Additionally, people are handicapped by a dearth of transportation alternatives. Very few resources have been allocated to alternative modes of transportation and demand for alternative modes has quickly exceeded existing infrastructure of alternative methods, or lack thereof. Most cities have poor bus systems; many cities lack subways and light rails; many cities lack adequate bike lanes; etc.

Kuang is spot on when he says there is no silver bullet, but it seems the success that he wants to see requires not only varying technological innovations but it also requires behavior modifications– something media, with articles like “Forget About 100-mpg Cars”, is hopefully helping to elicit.

Whether saving gasoline is the ultimate goal or reducing total energy consumption while reducing carbon emissions is the ultimate objective is irrelevant, but there is a more comprehensive strategy that can be pursued in the interim to achieve both of these ends.

Objective of the X Prize is to develop an automobile that gets 100 miles per gallon of gasoline– a Noble aspiration indeed and one that does generate interest with consumers looking for personal money savings. But often the most energy efficient thing one can do is drive the vehicle they own instead of buying a new one because the energy required to manufacture that new car (depending on driving habits) can exceed the energy required to drive one’s current, less fuel efficient vehicle.

Yes, on the aggregate it does make more sense to make modest fuel efficiency gains to the whole fleet of all present fuel inefficient vehicles conserve gasoline, but people act on an individual level and they need impetus to switch to a more efficient vehicle and potential savings for each person is far greater switching to a 100 mpg car than to a 35 mpg car. So, why is little attention being paid to getting better fuel efficiency now? The reason is capitalism emphasizes incentives for the individual consumer; it does not stress groupthink (recall “Tragedy of the Commons” by Garret Hardin). People are focused on the savings they can achieve as individuals rather than savings that, we, vehicle drivers, can collectively produce. Ultimately, collective gasoline savings would reduce demand and therefore drive price down, which would behoove individuals, but supply would adjust eventually too and gasoline prices would stabilize. This reality would also require groupthink and group action uncharacteristic of our system.

Tangible results are not being made because the most tangible, immediate results in conserving gasoline could be made through behavioral modifications– drive less, commute by bicycle more often, walk more– unfortunately, advocating behavior modifications in Washington is very politically unpopular. Advocating changes in behavior is akin to political suicide for politicians. So we are relegated to incentivizing the private sector through special prizes in the hope that technological innovations lead the movement to reduce our dependency on oil. Additionally, people are handicapped by a dearth of transportation alternatives. Very few resources have been allocated to alternative modes of transportation and demand for alternative modes has quickly exceeded existing infrastructure of alternative methods, or lack thereof. Most cities have poor bus systems; many cities lack subways and light rails; many cities lack adequate bike lanes; etc.

Kuang is spot on when he says there is no silver bullet, but it seems the success that he wants to see requires not only varying technological innovations but it also requires behavior modifications– something media, with articles like “Forget About 100-mpg Cars”, is hopefully helping to elicit.