| High gas prices certainly preceded the housing crises, but good luck convincing anyone it caused. Very subjective opinion ahead- High gas prices is probably this single most effective way to curb greenhouse gases and I am shocked that Biden and his climate Czar aren’t embracing it. As it stands, even prices doubling or tripling, I would conjecture that a very significant portion of Americans can make significant changes to their driving patterns at the great expense of a mere “minor inconvenience”. Carpooling to work and school, taking mass transit where available, planning errands/trips for efficiency, driving the more economical car in the family unit when no one else is using it (I.e. drive the wife’s wagon on the weekends instead of the big truck). A LOT more people can be driving motorcycles/ scooters. Complaining about high gas cost is almost a form of conspicuous consumption. At least around city, most people do not think twice about fuel cost of running errands all over town, they just complain about the bi-weekly fill up. For one example, some families schlep their kids all over the city every day for a very packed schedule of events; carpool more or just don’t design up for such an erratic day from the first place. Don’t sign up for that basketball league with a daily practice on the opposite side of town from school. Don’t take as many YOLO trips up to Lake Tahoe or Napa or whatever… or at least pile in with other people to reduce the number unit cost. Until people begin to reorganize their livelihoods and consumption patterns, then gas prices aren’t really too high, it’s just more than we are used to spending, and I’m not at all convinced an extra $100/mo at the pump is really that big of an impact for majority of folks to behave differently. We just complain instead. (Caveat- Low income workers have a different story, but I anecdotally also don’t not see an embrace of more efficient transport means amongst low income population in my city. Late model luxury vehicles and large suvs and trucks remain very popular in low income areas. Gas cost is simply not a significant enough portion of the equation as it stands) |
Partially. The problem is, if you allow (or introduce) a high gas price as a politician, you'll be causing social unrest - and that not just in the US where having a car is mandatory outside of the core of urbanized areas, but also even in modern places like France where precisely that was the cause of the infamous Yellow Vest riots. And that social unrest can deal way more damage long term than the GHG emissions you'd save - social unrest is how the 45th took power. Imagine a repeat of the 45th (or someone even worse)... say goodbye to anything done on the political side to curb GHG emissions.
> taking mass transit where available
Yes, the problem is that you'd need reliable mass transit in the first place. And in many areas - again not just in the US but worldwide - mass transit is either not existing at all outside of urban areas or very spotty (i.e. once in the morning and once in the afternoon as school bus). Governments will have to take a lot of money to build out that first. And in urban areas, the side effects of large homeless and/or mentally unwell people makes mass transit pretty unattractive, so again governments will have to take even more money to fix that mess.
We're all sitting on decades worth of political ignorance and now climate change, Putin and a lot of the population (the ones who deny climate change) collide together in a perfect storm event. And I'm not sure which way out it will take.