In light of the sometimes strident, more often obscure and low-key debate over the effect of the oil and gasoline’s monopoly of American fuel markets and its simultaneous impact on the economy, the environment, climate change and security, I often wonder if and what pictures might attract an individual’s and the public’s attention and generate a more vigorous national dialogue. In the past year, we have seen clear, telling pictures in the media of signs posted by gas stations showing rising fuel costs; of U.S. servicemen continuing deployments to foreign countries to preserve America’s (and the world’s) capacity to secure oil; and low and moderate-income people unable to pay the price of gasoline for their commute to work.

We have also seen vivid pictures of melting glaciers, resulting from rising temperatures; destructive damage to coastlines in California and the East Coast, resulting from incredibly intense storms; and EF5 level tornadoes that make cities and towns in the Midwest look like bombed-out ruins.

Precise cause and effect relationships are not always easy to discern concerning the economic, environmental, security and climate change impact of gasoline as America’s favored fuel. But in light of the relatively large GHG emissions from gasoline, the relatively high price of gas, a tepid economic recovery, and the placement of U.S. soldiers in the Middle East, consensus by most scientists, economists and military experts suggest there is a strong causal link.

So how do we interest the American public in a commitment to supporting opening up fuel markets and the use of replacement fuels? Should we seek more frequent publication of pictures covering the severe problems caused by America’s addiction to oil and the monopolistic characteristics of the transportation fuel markets? Sure! But I expect the results will be modest.

Americans have almost become immune to repetitive pictures in the media that relate to human problems or tragedies. They occur almost every day now. We see them on our cell phones, conventional TV, cable TV, YouTube and the Internet. Yes, we sympathize with those in trouble from storms, droughts and high gas prices. Some of us even send money to help those in need. But the very pervasiveness of the pictures and downside stories makes us turn inward, a phenomenon likely exacerbated by America’s economic woes. Individual and family well-being, in these times, are understandably paramount. No one is marching to end gasoline addiction or to support replacement fuels. If they did, I bet many Americans would think the marchers were kooks. Similarly, the negative impact of our reliance primarily on gasoline to fuel our vehicles (it’s a dirty, expensive fuel), despite the pictures, has not captured the hearts and emotions of most Americans. Regardless of pictures, addiction to fuel is not like Vietnam, civil rights, the women’s movement, or gay rights. It hasn’t reached our gut levels — even for most folks who are involved in advocating change. It’s still mostly an intellectual issue.

The key question is whether somewhere near the surface of the American psyche is an awareness or concern, perhaps deepened in the past by pictures in the media, that there is now, and will be in the future, extensive national and local problems if our cars continue to “drink” only gasoline. Maybe the development of a strong coalition of business, environmental, academic and nonprofit organizations could work together to develop a coherent, robust strategy that could result in a push for cleaner, cheaper, transitional replacement fuels (e.g., natural gas, ethanol and methanol) as competitors to gasoline. At the same, the coalition could generate support for the development of renewable fuels and flex-fuel vehicles that could satisfy the needs of low and moderate-income Americans.

But right now, the different competitive agendas of some possible key coalition groups, often ideologically driven, impede development of a collective coordinated replacement fuel and flex-fuel vehicle strategy and voice. If they take a bit of time to understand the pictures and the narratives the pictures tell, with or without accompanying words, they might be able to dig deeper than the often cursory public opinion polls and so-called expert reads of the American political mind. Perhaps, using focus groups, they just might be able to secure insight into the public’s subliminal, inchoate concerns about the negative relationship of gasoline addiction to the environment, the economy, security and climate change; perhaps even enough to gain the public’s support for policies that would reduce oil dependency. Remember that the successes of the civil rights, women’s rights, antiwar and gay movements were not based on country-wide public opinion, but on the persistence of small groups of advocates who were able, at least for a short time, to work together and, with the support of pictures, to convince the American public to do what’s right.

The late, much-respected, public policy scholar and friend, Dr. Aaron Wildavsky, once indicated to me that big policy changes require big crises, and that we are fated to incrementalism. It was Wildavsky’s big bang theory. Incrementalism provides a level of confidence that when uncertainty as to impact and costs exists, and when no immediate problems seem apparent that threaten the republic, the nation will not make big mistakes — only cumulative small ones. While I am not sure, American political history bears Wildavsky out entirely, major crises do stimulate political leaders to act boldly. But, despite the gas-related environmental, economic, security and climate change problems we face now and will face in a more dramatic and intense way in the future, the outlook for boldness among leaders is not very good.

Can our leaders in government, business, universities, nonprofit and community group close the ideological divide that poisons our body politic? Can they find a way to reach needed consensus concerning policies to substitute replacement fuels for gasoline and increase the number of flex-fuel cars, through both conversion of existing vehicles or amendments to new cars on the production line? Can they, perhaps, using pictures that clearly suggest compelling narratives and/or words that do the same, convince the public to join them? Can they raise the level of their own intellectual understanding and emotional commitment and convey to the public that real quality of life issues would result from failure? I have my doubts concerning a positive answer to each of these questions. But hope springs eternal!

I believe America is an exceptional nation with respect to its historical commitments to improve economic opportunity, extend civil rights, steward the environment and reform education. It is probably exceptional with respect to innovation and technology-at least for the time being. The American creed supports constant change and it implicitly, if not explicitly, suggests that we are not perfect, but perfectible. This is a tough concept to put forward in a political campaign where perfection is a comfortable state of mind for many Americans, and imperfection is sometimes difficult to contemplate by folks still remembering Parson Weems, George Washington and the tale of the cherry tree.

Now you’re likely wondering how American exceptionalism relates to the serious, current debate over the Saudization of America. You have heard the phrase, I am sure. While at first, some thought the term related to the expanding deserts in this country (perhaps because of changing weather patterns), the etymology relates to America’s newfound ability, in light of its real and specific technological exceptionalism, to drill for shale oil in hard-to-get-at areas. Fracking and horizontal drilling, it is said by some in the oil industry, scholars, and the media, will save us from dependency on Middle East oil, including oil from Saudi Arabia, that is, assuming we could reason together and agree on environmental regulations. Reaching consensus through the democratic process remains another part of the American creed although not presently illustrated in the nation’s political life. If we succeeded in developing consensus regulation and lots of oil, the White House would need to make fewer calls to Saudi leaders, pleading to keep OPEC production at steady levels to avoid increased gasoline prices. America could and would be able to survive the politics of, and tension in the Middle East. Further, one respected oil leader recently said, “U.S. oil production is at its highest level since 1972. More importantly, the U.S. oil production surge will help tamp down the possibility of chronically recurring oil supply shortages and help keep a lid on oil price spikes for the foreseeable future.”

Clearly, the list of the number of existing and possible new oil shale developments is expanding, often reading like Expedia’s website, for seekers looking for less expensive tourist areas. Exotic names, such as the Bakken Shale, Monterey Shale, Cline Shale, Arctic Circle, Three Forks, Tuscaloosa, the Gulf of Mexico, Marine Shale and more, entice many to believe that good times are just around the corner.

The IEA and the EIA, generally, agree with oil company projections. They are bullish on U.S. oil production and its positive impact. If we wait just a short time, oil nirvana will be our good fortune. America will be economically stronger and its security will be enhanced considerably. Agreement about fracking and horizontal drilling will allow the nation to secure the environment and lower GHG emissions. More oil and less harm…the new American Dream!

Maybe! But, the data is not so simple or as convincing as the rhetoric. It is clear that environmental concerns relative to fracking and horizontal drilling will delay production in some key proposed fields. Likely court cases, as well as community opposition, for example, in the Monterey Shale, may well reconfigure and diminish the size of key proposed drilling sites. Consensus probably will be achieved concerning drilling regulations, consistent with reasonable environmental concerns and the public interest. However, new or amended regulations will increase production costs.

The IEA and EIA numbers in the past seem to have suffered from oil industry optimism. They still do! The latest analyses play down the influence of falling demand, disruptive technology, the problems with infrastructure, the uncertainties concerning the output of oil shale production, the competitive quality of light oil and the higher costs of tight oil. Both the IEA and the EIA also seem to forget that oil prices are only one variable affecting production, oil costs to the consumers and oil spikes (or declines). Most of the trading in Wall Street is done by investors as well as speculators, many times only peripherally related to the oil industry. Neither the IEA nor the EIA really considered the suspicions of several analysts and some political leaders that the oil industry, itself, appears adept at managing prices and supply, thus blurring the numbers concerning supply and demand.

But assume for the minute that America soon reflects Saudization and its technical exceptionalism in drilling enables it to meet or surpass the Saudis in oil production (and lessen the influence of OPEC). Will these facts limit American imports and reduce oil costs and the costs of its derivative gasoline? Probably not, at least not significantly. The Saudis and OPEC will still be key players in determining supply and, to some extent, demand. The Saudis have the largest agreed-upon reserves in the world. They alone, without other OPEC members, can influence oil prices by lowering or raising them, depending on their perceived wellbeing. If all or even most OPEC participants and the Saudis agree on strategy, they would be able to affect both the magnitude of U.S. oil exports as well as imports and the production as well as price of oil in the U.S. Indeed, because Saudi Arabia and most other OPEC nations use their oil money to pay for social welfare subsidies and buy political stability, their skittishness about using oil as leverage in lowering prices to strategically undersell competitors redounds to the benefit of U.S. oil producers. But things could change relatively quickly, as they have over the last five or six decades.

Remember, despite arguments that increased oil production will make America secure, oil companies have one legitimate objective: to make a profit. Oil exports and imports will continue to reflect increases and decreases over time, depending at least in part on the perceived relationship between costs of production and distribution in the U.S. compared to the price of oil and its derivative gasoline in the U.S. and globally. If global and U.S. oil prices fall, the oil company’s ability to sustain costs to gain access to tight oil for domestic consumption or, indeed, export will face rigorous opportunity costing. To prove my point, last week’s headlines indicated oil executives decided to pull out of the Arctic, in an area supposedly holding 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil. Why? The Arctic presents high risks and high costs in drilling. It is a very sensitive environmental area and the drilling regulations are tough. The global and U.S. price of oil is not predictable or high enough to cover the costs and allow a significant profit.

Introducing competition into the transportation fuel market with replacement fuels, like methanol, would both lower the price of oil and help stabilize fuel prices, perhaps as well or better than the ethereal Saudization. Besides, replacement fuels as transitional fuels would be better for the environment, GHG emissions, costs to the consumer and American dependency on oil. They would serve the nation well before specific American technical exceptionalism leads to competitive renewable fuels and vehicles for low, moderate and middle-income Americans.

During my travels, from 2005 to 2012, Shai Agassi, founder of Better Place, was often the subject of dialogue, whether on the street or at fancy lunches and dinners. Contrary to Israelis’ general habit of disagreeing (generally without being really disagreeable) about most things, Agassi was lionized by the Israeli public and its political, professional and intellectual elites. Almost single-handedly, through vision, intelligence, wisdom, charisma, tenacity and a bit of hubris, he produced a new idea and a related product that he and others thought could revolutionize the structure of the auto industry and simultaneously save humanity from its dependency on oil as well as increased greenhouse gas emissions. Many thought him the Thomas Edison of Israel.

Agassi won deserved applause as well as a chapter or more in the best-selling book, “Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle” for his invention: an electric car that allows drivers to charge simply at home or work to drive relatively short distances, or quickly exchange batteries that are low on power at swapping stations for longer drives (over 100 miles). Consumers would buy the car, but lease the battery. Because gas and automobile prices in Israel are high, Agassi believed his package would provide a better shake for owners while doing well by the public interest.

Society needs more people like Agassi to challenge our oil dependency and to consider feasible replacement fuels. We need thinkers who talk and, more importantly, “do.”

Regrettably, Agassi’s grand idea only worked technically, in itself a real accomplishment. Just this week, Better Place failed financially. The company issued the following statement, which says it all, “This is a very sad day for all of us. We stand by the original vision as formulated by Shai Agassi of creating a green alternative that would lessen our dependence on highly polluting transportation technologies. Unfortunately the path to realizing that vision was difficult, complex and littered with obstacles, not all of which we were able to overcome.”

Could Better Place have succeeded? Cause-and-effect relationships are often difficult to define with certainty.

Agassi, likely, was a better founder than he was a manager. His vision, idea and charisma captured the hearts and minds of early venture capital folks, the executives of Renault who built the first and only car able to switch out batteries, and President Shimon Peres of Israel, who helped him meet potential investors and opinion makers around the world.

But Agassi’s financial model assumed reasonably rapid sales. He had no realistic long-range strategy to fund the relatively expensive infrastructure associated with switching stations, even in a small nation like Israel. Nor was he able to convince automakers, other than Renault, to produce cars that could switch out batteries and provide potential owners a model choice.

The mini-charging stations to allow owners to charge their vehicles for brief trips were not easy to build and place, given lack of suitable electrical outlets in high density areas relying on garages for parking. Combined with the absence of model options and the relatively high costs of the car and battery leasing arrangements, Better Place cars were competitive only at the margin for price conscious Israelis.

Perhaps a carefully defined marketing strategy could have built more sales to help cover early high-burn rates. But innovative products are sometimes their own worst enemy, if potential customers cannot be convinced that they work for them.

Steve Jobs knew this well. To market Apple’s iPhones, iPads and iPods, he had to find a way to make consumers want products that were often not on their personal radar screen. According to observers, Agassi was unable to grant the need for a “Jobsian” marketing effort his priority attention. This is understandable, perhaps, in light of his need to raise capital to keep the company afloat and his need to respond to the range of responsibilities required by even conventional startup companies. Better Place was not a conventional company!

Agassi’s celebrity status also reduced his ability to grant full-time managerial attention to Better Place. Being chosen as one of TIME Magazine’s 100 Most Influential People in the World and the subject of books and articles led Agassi to conferences, forums and speaking engagements. He spent lots of time away from operations in Israel and the company’s California headquarters. Further, Better Place’s dual primary locations (which I could never quite understand) and its effort to expand into other nations, perhaps too fast, seemed to lead Agassi to cut corners concerning his onsite availability.

But the role of a critic is easier than the role of an innovator and doer. Niccolo Machiavelli once said, “There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.” Agassi took us far beyond where we were concerning the ability to power cars by electricity and reduce at least some range anxiety.

Agassi’s genius, even if he focused 24/7 on Better Place, probably could not have sustained the company beyond a relatively short time period.

I believe the model was flawed. Being small, Israel was a great lab. Yet many Israeli consumers still feared running out of power at an inopportune time. Buying a car, after a home, is often the largest acquisition most people make in their lives. Making the purchase without a permanent battery in the car requires a psychic and value change that really necessitates convincing people of what they need or their country needs.

Agassi overestimated sales and underestimated front-end development and infrastructure costs. While President Peres was gracious and helpful, his help was not translated into actions by the government, which could have monetized Better Place when it needed early cash. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, supported by the Knesset, could have guaranteed fleet sales by government departments and encouraged the same by municipalities and the military.

Shai Agassi took us to a better place concerning our collective understanding of the wisdom of replacement fuels, including electricity. I am sure that the demise of Better Place is not the last time we will hear from him. He has made, and will continue to make, many contributions to Israel and the world with respect to the quest for a zero- to low-emission electric car. I am positive he will not be in need of a job. But I have some suggestions for his human resource counselor or whoever is advising him. Agassi, given his background and talent, could foster efforts to extend battery efficiency and amend battery chemistry to secure more mileage on a single charge. Maybe, given his work over the past several years, he could lead an effort to develop super-fast chargers and a dual automobile battery capable of storing unused power to use for utilities.

Finally, in light of Agassi’s multiple talents, it would be a mitzvah (blessing), if he helped make Israel, in light of its new natural gas discoveries, the pilot nation for the increased use of replacement transportation fuels, like natural gas and its derivative methanol. If this were done simultaneously with Agassi’s efforts to make electrically powered automobiles competitive for and desired by middle-class and lower-income Israelis, the country would demonstrate to the world that it is capable of developing and using cleaner, safer, cheaper, and environmentally better fuels than gasoline. If I were theological, I’d say that Israel would become a beacon unto nations with respect to the critical need for an alternative to oil. Agassi’s statement that “the end of the oil era will not come because we ran out of oil — it will come because we don’t want to use any more oil to drive,” is true. God may have helped Moses part the Red Sea quickly — building the fastest GHG proof and efficient thoroughfare ever, and history’s only disposable highway. No accountant would have approved the cash flow. Israel, if it becomes a replacement-fuel pilot and demonstrates success, will become a good junior partner. It will show how God’s progeny can and hopefully will become wonderful stewards of a cleaner, safer universe.

What happened to natural gas as a fuel? Cheap oil (and the power of oil companies) overpowered it during World War II and became the primary consumer fuel choice. Decades of repetitive oil shortages combined with concern over U.S. oil dependency and growing environmental sensitivities to increased pollution and GHG emissions continue to make natural gas table conversation among advocates for alternative fuels. Regrettably, Detroit has not really joined the dialogue in a serious sustained way — a fact probably related to fear of consumer interest and related natural gas vehicle costs as well as profitability. Detroit’s historic alliance with oil companies also played a role in the U.S. hesitance to support open fuel markets.

Are we on the cusp, or as some call it the “prelude” to the cusp, of change? Recently, the Wall Street Journal announced that America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA), stimulated by the increased production of natural gas and predictions of a 60-100 year supply of natural gas, will publically preview several natural gas-powered vehicles in Southern California. According to the Journal, ANGA will demonstrate about a half dozen natural gas-powered vehicles to demonstrate use of CNG in retrofitted popular vehicles. As relevant, given ANGA’s episodic marketing to date, the preview will be followed by an extensive educational campaign to generate consumer interest.

Almost simultaneous with the Journal’s article, Bloomberg BusinessWeek published an almost gushing piece about how shale gas juxtaposed with rising gasoline prices is changing the perceptions of investors and producers concerning the use of natural gas as a fuel for vehicles. In sum, according to the publication, there is new enthusiasm that natural gas-powered autos and trucks are the wave of the future and the future is starting now.

Not so fast! Natural gas has many advantages as a fuel. It is safer, burns cleaner and emits fewer pollutants, including GHG emissions. It records cheaper maintenance costs, is abundant and is less expensive than gasoline. But the need for storage capacity for natural gas cars to permit them to achieve 200–250 miles on a tank of CNG limits storage space compared to similar gasoline fueled vehicles with higher mileage totals per tank. While the numbers differ from news article to article and while there is consensus that they are increasing, there seems to be only about 1,500 natural gas fueling stations in the country, some of which only service fleets. Consumer fear of running out of natural gas, while driving long distances, has placed a premium on bi-fuel vehicles — vehicles that can run on natural gas and gasoline but adding additional costs to the purchase price. Natural gas cars cost about $8,000–$10,000 more than similar conventional cars and conversion packages now on the market range from $1,000 (small tank) to several thousand dollars. The big hang-ups concerning conversion are federal regulations concerning changes in fuel composition and EPA certification.

The nation has some way to go before natural gas as a fuel becomes really popular and natural gas cars are able to significantly penetrate the auto market. But where there is light, there is hope! Yes, natural gas is a fossil fuel and not perfect with respect to emissions. But saying this, it is important to note that natural gas is much better for the environment and emits less GHG as well as other pollutants than gasoline. It is also cheaper. As part of a transitional strategy taking us to renewables, conversion of older vehicles to natural gas and the increased ability to purchase flex-fuel vehicles using natural gas are in the public interest.

I have no relationship with ANGA, but if I did or was asked for advice, (without charging), I would suggest it support the coalition of 22 states fostered by Gov. Hickenlooper (D) of Colorado and Gov. Fallin (R) of Oklahoma. The group has agreed to replace outmoded conventional state vehicles with natural gas vehicles, if Detroit agrees to find ways to lower vehicle prices. The initiative, in which Detroit carmakers recently have concurred, will generate technology and marketing innovations that will ultimately lower the cost of natural gas vehicles to consumers. I would also (nicely) suggest to ANGA that they pressure Detroit and perhaps the government to speed up investment research to lower natural gas car costs, both in terms of new vehicles and conversion packages for existing cars. Finally, if I could, I would ask ANGA to work with environmental, business, foundation, and government leaders to develop consensus and support for transitional fuel policies and needed regulatory changes.

If I were a betting person, I would bet that natural gas could play as important or a more important role, in at least the near future, as a source or feedstock for alternative fuels than as a direct competitive marketplace replacement fuel. For example, methanol, a derivative of natural gas, does not require major additional costs either for new or converted existing cars to use efficiently, and the price now is far less expensive.

Photo credit: www.musicstack.com

North Carolina, the state that gave us the missing governor, is now trying to preclude the direct online sale of electric cars, including Tesla cars. Why this intrusion in the marketplace? Apparently, unless the story is a late April Fool’s Day joke, local car dealers, who are politically very strong in the state, oppose Tesla’s effort to sell cars on the Internet or directly. With lots of energy, they have secured legislative support for a bill to make it illegal for Tesla to go it alone without dealers. While there are other states with such laws or which are being pressured now by auto dealers to enact such laws, most states have made accommodation to the 20th and 21st century technological breakthroughs and online sales. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect North Carolina’s efforts will be challenged concerning restraint of trade.

Selling its models in dealer showrooms doesn’t fit the Tesla economic model. Of all the electric car startups, Tesla seems to be moving fastest toward financial viability. I’m not sure that the statement put out by Tesla’s vice president that compared a Tesla in a showroom of subcompacts and SUVs to selling Dom Perignon in the local mall’s food court reflects great political wisdom, particularly given the company’s support from the federal government. Neither did the representative of North Carolina auto dealers somewhat sarcastic comment, “You tell me they’re [Tesla’s] gonna support the little leagues and the YMCA?” Yes, they are! It is likely that the folks, who, at present, want to buy Teslas because they can afford it, include many people who give to charity, including the YMCA and the little league, because they have kids who play or played their first baseball in the little league.

Tesla’s success, likely, will generate lower-cost electric cars from its own factories and other much larger conventional car makers. Because Detroit will be operating on more traditional financial models, many franchises in North Carolina will benefit, as will large numbers of consumers who will gain vehicular and fuel choices. As important, the nation will benefit because of lower GHG emissions.

To hobble Tesla with the costs of a dealer system would certainly slow down its ability to reach sustainable profit levels and market penetration. I understand that many dealers fear the loss of sales, income and jobs. Their problems could be lessened if they were able to secure a better dollars-and-cents agreement with Detroit. They also might think about cutting a reasonable deal with Tesla for service and maintenance. Clearly, the value of competition and the nation’s ability to move to alternative fuels would be frustrated by efforts to protect special interest groups.

Canada is a wonderful polyglot of a country. Many of its French citizens in Quebec Province still want to separate from the British-dominated nation. Its natural resource minister has threatened to take the European Union to the WTO over its plans to define oil from tar sands as “highly polluting.” Although it should be, the argument among grown men and women isn’t about data and analysis. Tar sands are highly polluting, over 10 to near 25% more emissions than oil produced in Europe. It’s about perceptions of economic impact.

The Canadians have not yet called out the Royal Mounties and the European Union has not yet thought about Dom Perignon to soften the heated tar sands dialogue. Maybe to resolve the issue in good spirit, we should bring both to Tesla’s front office for extra bottles.

Obviously, the Canadians are worried that if their oil sands are tarred with the label of “highly polluting,” they will lose possible sales of oil and market share, particularly in countries that have strong environmental movements and concerns. Some worry that the label of highly polluting will add to the conflict in the U.S. over the Keystone XL pipeline.

The tension over the attribution of the phrase “highly polluting” is important to think and talk about on four grounds. One tests government’s truthfulness and the degree to which governments are willing to tell the truth or will waver when short-term economic objectives appear to intervene. The second tests the nations of the world, and regional groups, concerning their willingness to legitimately set standards and stick with them when contrary to the views of individual governments, or pressure from the private sector. The third provides insight into the difficulties in making decisions, ostensibly, involving significant competing public interests (e.g., Canada’s economic and environmental interests and European’s interest in lowering GHG emissions) when data and analysis rest on some uncertainty. The fourth and final one analyzes the ability of nations and regions to consider alternative transitional fuels when faced with environmental, social welfare, security and economic issues concerning oil.

The current issue of the MIT Technology Review has a provocative article titled “Why It’s Okay that Tesla Makes Cars for Rich People.” The author, Kevin Bullis, suggests, no, actually he unequivocally states, that “there are many valid reasons for objecting to the DOE’s funding of Tesla — or for any startup for that matter — [but] the fact that the car it makes is expensive isn’t one of them.” He has a point.

No doubt, as a result of Tesla’s innovative approach to cars like the Model S, the automaker will generate lessons learned for all other car makers concerning battery development. While the existing Model S is pricey ($65,000 to well over $100,000), I am convinced that experience and further development will allow electric vehicles, including Teslas, to go longer distances on one charge with less costly, longer lasting batteries and therefore less costly vehicles. Consumer Reports recently gave the Model S rave reviews concerning its design, its efficiency, its drivability and its great range. Indeed, Tesla’s Model S, now, can go approximately 265 miles on one charge.

So hats off to Tesla! While they still have financial issues to resolve, it looks like they have turned the corner, or at least one corner.

Tesla confirms my belief in strategic federal help to meet public interest objectives and the need for public-private partnerships that have emerged concerning renewable energy. The support of Tesla is probably justified, given its likely ability to generate future models with cheaper, better batteries for vehicles. This, in turn, will ultimately lead to competitive electric cars able to secure larger market penetration among middle and lower-income Americans. It’s important that, as sales increase over time, all Americans will see benefits in terms of a cleaner environment and reduced GHG emissions.

However, I do worry about the negative public and, among some, political response to equity issues regarding the federal support to Tesla. The “feds” have yet to come up with an explicit, powerful, convincing rationale for supporting Tesla as well as other renewable and alternative transitional fuels. They can! It clearly should be based on the long-term interests of the nation and the short-term benefits to its diverse population, particularly low, moderate and middle-income households. Remember, in this context, that Tesla received a loan, not a grant. It recently promised to pay it back early. Even though Tesla is a startup, the loan was about a tenth of the loan provided to Ford. I wish that the mega-billion dollars in tax subsidies granted every year to the oil companies were loans, premised on need and public interest, and required a payback. According to the Congressional Research Service and the Heritage Foundation on, the funds were not needed for production. The oil subsidies, however, are lost forever.

Clearly, the federal government’s relationship with Tesla would be more acceptable to the public if it were defined in the context of a set of overall alternative energy as well as transitional and renewable fuel objectives that ultimately included benefits to non-affluent folks. But up to now, the justification has suffered from fear of the critics more than describing the real opportunities for America and its people.

Budget decisions, ostensibly, mirror who we are as a people. But, the budgeting process in the U.S. is a bizarre one, often informed more by lobbyists and special interests than by national objectives, priorities and even a hint of risk analysis. The process has taken one of my favorite (non-MIT) political scientist theories to the extreme. Dr. Charles Lindblom provided intellectual support for the “science of muddling through” to resolve complicated policy issues, in light of data limitations as well as economic and political problems. Unfortunately, Congress has often forgotten the “science” and just muddles through the development of federal budgets. The most flagrant violation is sequestration, a process that diminishes the very reason we elect our favorite Congressional folks — to think, reach consensus and make efficient and equitable decisions.

The public has a right to be skeptical about how we allocate scarce resources. What we have now is a budget system that appears to the public to grant privilege to the already privileged. We have socialized the rich and privatized the less affluent. Need proof? Recall the “too-big-to-fail” financial institutions and the recent bailouts as well as the varied federal housing insurance programs which protect the lenders and foreclose on the borrowers. Combined with justifiable concern for the deficit, the flawed behavior of some in finance, the extensive unnecessary subsidies to the oil industry, the reduction of some valuable discretionary programs to aid low- and moderate-income people, and the well-publicized failures of some of the early loans and grants aimed at stimulating invention in the energy sector, public and political support for future federal involvement to wean the nation from oil remains uncertain. This support could be bolstered if alternative fuel, environmental, business and nonprofit groups would find common ground and develop a logical strategy supporting replacement or alternative fuels and renewables as two parts of the same policy coin, separated only by the transition from the former to the latter when they are able to compete in an open fuel market.

I mention the book only to reference the fact that I am still debating in my own mind, and with friends, the wisdom of long-range planning. I accept the fact that our political system relishes short-term ribbon cutting and often understandably prefers short-term decisions to longer-term strategic plans when faced with powerful interest group advocacy. Conversely, I remain concerned that long-term planning, at times, seems to mute or blur the priority interests of the disenfranchised.

But having recently focused much time on energy issues, particularly related to the transportation fuel sector, I am convinced that a well-defined, long-term transparent strategic planning process might make sense with respect to policy decisions concerning fuel needs and use. Why?

There is something like a Tower of Babel across the country concerning the relationship between climate change, security, the economy and the nation’s present reliance on oil and its derivative gasoline for vehicular fuel. In his State of the Union address, the president indicated we must wean ourselves from oil, a laudable goal, given the still-high price of oil and gasoline and uncertainty as to the likely direction of the prices of both in the future. The president also spoke clearly of oil and gasoline’s environmental and GHG emission defects when compared to alternative fuels. His comments, in this respect, are concurred in by most in the scientific community.

However, there is no consensus in Congress or in the nation about getting America off of oil and opening up the constipated, constrained gasoline market to alternative fuels. While quasi-monopolistic conditions reflected in the transportation fuel market are a drag on the economy and the effort to clean up air, ground and water pollution, the demand to do so has not yet stimulated large-scale debate in Washington nor public passion — the kind of passion associated with dialogue concerning the Vietnam War, or that allowed civil rights legislation to move through the Congress in the ‘60s.

Why? No crisis is apparent to most of the American public. Arguments or debate occur at the present time, primarily, in policy and academic journals or among interest groups, sometimes in the media. There is more shouting than dialogue. At this juncture, the debate is, at times, over numbers and differing assumptions, and at other times, motivated by ideology, right and left. Arguing causalities concerning the impact of alternative fuels and possible oil surpluses on fuel prices, the environment, America’s security and the economy tests the mettle of Washington leaders and is not the stuff that family dinners are made of. Media hype concerning the federal government’s handful of flawed efforts to develop more efficient batteries for cars or solar energy to power utilities and homes is often mistakenly, and sometimes purposely, linked by politicians and interest groups to issues related to alternative fuels.

Recent headlines about the Saudization of America, based on oil shale development, worry advocates of alternative fuels — both fossil and renewables. Some feel that pressure from the auto industry and oil companies, because of a projected oil surplus, will frustrate the logic and politics of opening up the gasoline market to competition.

Interestingly, some environmental groups and leaders have expressed opposition to the use of alternative fuels. Despite shaky assumptions, they fear that continued reliance on fossil fuels, like natural gas, will postpone the advent of renewable fuels, even if alternative fuels reflect significant public interest objectives. There is hope! Both advocates of alternative fuels and some key environmental organizations (and their leaders) are increasingly working together on strategies to lessen oil’s rigged market dominance and allow consumers fuel choices at the pump. The ties that bind them relate to an increasing awareness that alternative “replacement” fuels would be better for the environment and would reduce GHG emissions. They agree on the concept of open fuel markets and flex-fuel cars. Some time, hopefully sooner rather than later, when renewables are able to scale up to meet the needs of low, moderate and middle income consumers concerning costs, convenience and distance, they will be very competitive.

Somehow, the nation needs to get its act together with respect to alternative fuels. Maybe it’s time to establish a transparent strategic planning process aimed at increasing competition in the fuel market and providing the nation and consumers a break.

Contrary to planning in the ‘60s, if I had my way, it would include balanced representation from all interested and relevant parties and, through the use of technology, the public. Again contrary to the ‘60s, it would place long-term goals in the context of short-term doable strategies and grant environmental, economic, fiscal, security and social welfare issues equal weight at the table. Options considered would be based on the preponderance of solid data and analysis, recognizing that perfectibility, not perfection, with respect to both are required, if the public interest is to be achieved in our lifetimes. It would acknowledge that precise cause and effect relationships are often hard to determine from a policy perspective. Governed by cost and time constraints, as well as good will, the process can access sufficient data and analysis to evaluate and ultimately present supportable strategies and initiatives to the president, Congress and the public.

Who should run this strategic planning process? No current polls show great confidence in public or, indeed, most private institutions. Maybe a bipartisan commission appointed by the White House and, perhaps, Congress — a “bipartisan coalition of the willing” — could be formed to lead the proposed strategic planning process. Who could be against finding efficient, environmentally and economically sound, safe and equitable ways to open up the transportation market to competition? Leaders who do risk sounding like hypocrites or worse, in light of what I bet are their frequent luncheon and dinner speeches supporting capitalism, free markets, and the American way of life.

Yet, there is sadness in Oslo land. Its efforts to substitute renewables for fossil fuel may run out of gas (excuse the pun). Oslo is running out of garbage and is thinking about importing it from the U.S. and Asia. Getting it from Europe, at least on a big scale, is out of the question, given that Europe is less profligate than the U.S. in production of refuse of all kinds and shapes. Europe also has underutilized capacity to convert garbage to energy. Besides, “old” Europe doesn’t want to risk importing waste from other less cultural and less profound nations — after all, clean energy means good old European energy, none of that energy from the multitudes in other nations who eschew foie gras and cannot speak French or other relevant ancient languages. Clearly, old Europe doesn’t want to be garbage dependent on any country, particularly the U.S. It goes beyond security to pride. Garbage nationalists argue that we can and will be as garbage productive as America!

Now it is my understanding that the U.S. government, business and environmental leadership is uncertain what to do about exporting our surplus garbage. Congressional hearings will be held soon on the “geopolitical effect” of garbage exports. There is a push from the new “Protect Our Garbage” political party. They fear, oh do they fear, about what we might export next if we start exporting garbage — our high technology, our way of life, our values? They also worry about the price of garbage, if we export it. Norwegians since the Vikings have always been good at bargaining. As HBO has indicated, those with Viking DNA are crisis-oriented and are always looking for conquests.

If we set a low price, it is likely to become the world price and garbage collectors will lose their incentives to secure product. Unless we build a home-grown, waste-to-gas industry, the market for garbage in the U.S. will not grow significantly. While we might save some environmentally sensitive land from being used for storage, waste-to-energy initiatives could well find it tough to survive as costs of garbage collection, storage and transportation exceed the global price. If the price we get is high, there will be landfills everywhere and Easter egg hunts will be replicated every weekend as garbage hunts. Our children will become orphans, while their moms and dads are out looking for garbage. They will be watching reruns of soaps like “Our Sad Life,” “Opportunity Knocks, But Not Frequently” and “Searching for Love and the American Dream.” Maybe they will turn to rock music and worse. Remember the warning of the Music Man in River City? This could be the precursor of intense problems for the American family, already suffering from a weak economy, budget deficits and high gas prices. Could it mean the breakup of the American family!?

A second group has become visible in opposition to the export of garbage. It has joined Weight Watchers (a growing powerful political group of Obesity Hunters), the “Society for the Protection and Preservation of Everything,” some nice nerds in the Pentagon as well as business leaders worried about America’s security. Their arguments range from, “If we export garbage, it will lead to more incentives for encouraging waste,” and “Overconsumption in the U.S. will cause obesity to triumph.” If the hole is empty or emptier, garbage will fill it. If the landfill or the waste-to-energy plants in the U.S. are underutilized or, conversely, fail to get built because we are sending garbage to other nations, it will just stimulate more garbage.

Now the Pentagon also is worried about the exports of secrets that are hidden in garbage (as is, according to the movies and cable T.V., the Mafia). Business leaders are concerned about the theft of things like credit card numbers left on old receipts captured by garbage pickups. Some researchers who have written little-read energy policy reports have recently joined the coalition against garbage exports. They appear frightened that extra copies of their documents will be found in faraway landfills and other storage facilities and subsequently criticized anew in refereed journals or the media. Let them lie in peace!

Exporting garbage has allies. Many businesses and some government leaders, and their economic consultants, believe that exporting garbage will be good for America. We have a surplus of garbage and if we can get rid of it at a decent price, it would be good for the economy and jobs. When asked, “Why not keep our garbage in the good ol’ U.S.A. and pursue increased waste-to-energy projects, as well as related new jobs for Americans?” they remain relatively quiet. Some respond by arguing that exporting garbage will help other countries use renewables to power heat and electricity and someday soon, vehicles. They, correctly, argue that nutrient-rich organic matter, like garbage, is a largely untapped source of renewable energy. If converted to biogas and natural gas, it could reduce GHG and provide environmentally safe and clean power, as well as low-carbon transportation fuel. But they, often, look away sheepishly when asked, “If that is true, why export garbage and risk higher global prices, why not do the conversion here first?” America first!

This garbage thing is tough to wrestle with — the dialogue gives off a foul odor. But we are Americans. Ain’t no garbage mountain too high , no valley filled with garbage too low, no river wide enough with garbage flows to overlook

I should close this piece by indicating that any relationship between my narrative and the current debate over exports of natural gas is unintended and probably inconsequential.

Paine suggests that the electric car, despite the financial and battery-supply problems faced by Fisker Automotive, is still alive and ready to kick butt. He quotes a new report from the IEE, a part of the Edison Foundation, that projects “between 5 million and 30 million electric cars will be on the road by 2035.”

In a similar vein, Paine debunks “range anxiety” or the fear that drivers will run out of power far from their destination and a power station. He notes that the technology is improving and that, on a normal day, the Tesla Model S can travel up to 265 miles on a single charge. He also calls attention to hybrids, like the Chevy Volt, the Toyota Prius and the Ford C-MAX, which all use electric power for the first 20-50 miles, and then are able to switch to gasoline for the relatively infrequent longer trip.

Paine seems to understand that consumers are hesitant to endorse electric car charges that take a long time, including anything between 8 and 24 hours. He points out that charging docks sold with plug-in vehicles can cut the time to 4-8 hours, and that public charging stations can power electric cars even faster.

Paine cites the Union of Concerned Scientists 2012 Report that electric cars powered by coal-generated electricity may not be much better for the environment than small gas-powered vehicles. But he also highlights the comment in the report that states that less than 40% of the U.S. electricity now comes from coal and that this percentage is likely to go down in the future as natural gas and renewables are substituted for coal. Owners of electric cars or plug-ins can feel good that, over time, they will earn their environmental laurels and that they will do their part in reducing GHG emissions.

Paine agrees that the Fisker Karma and Tesla Model S were, and remain, nice baubles for the more affluent. At the same time, he describes the efforts by several car companies to bring down the costs of electric cars. With the tax benefits, for example, the Nissan Leaf costs only about $20,000, and with $1,999 down, it leases for only $199 a month.

Chris Paine’s optimism is infectious. However, it needs a dose of reality. For example, even if the IEE estimate, described above, concerning total electric cars on the road by 2035 is correct, they will constitute only a relatively small number of existing vehicles. IEE’s broad range projection of 5 to 30 million electric cars indicates that the factors governing production and sales are still guesstimates. Similarly, while it is likely that charging stations will multiply, they will still be relatively few and far between when compared to gas stations. “Road anxiety” will remain a factor until technology and investment for infrastructure to power cars catches up with consumer desires.

Major cost reductions will be related to consumer demand and consumer demand will be predicated, in part, on reasonably priced batteries able to power automobiles much farther than 100 miles (now prevalent) and power stations conveniently located along highways. Detroit will continue to produce electric cars, but their decisions to enter into the market in a big way will be tempered by their already fixed investment in the internal combustion engine and the desire of their partner oil companies to restrict the fuel market to gasoline. Don’t expect a big leap forward immediately unless required or subsidized (even higher than they are now) by government—both highly unlikely in the current, and likely future, political environment.

Paine’s article deserves discussion. It suggests that electric car advocates and flex-fuel as well as replacement fuel supporters should join forces. There will be an interim or transition period, while we are waiting for electric cars to catch up with policy needs. It may last a decade or more. During this period, individuals and groups sharing environmental objectives and concerned about global warming should work together to open up the now almost monopolistic fuel markets to cleaner, cheaper, environmentally safer replacement fuels and flex-fuel vehicles. As soon as electric vehicles are really ready for prime time, that is, when their costs are low enough to appeal to a broad market, when road anxiety is eliminated because of battery innovation and when infrastructure is readily available and accessible, they will find a broad market. Their ability to produce zero or almost zero emissions at reasonable fuel costs will make them very competitive in an open fuel market. America will benefit when this time comes; America will benefit if, until this time comes, we open up the gasoline market to competition from replacement fuels.

Now, I don’t want to make this piece overly long. But perhaps believers, skeptics and nonbelievers could come together on low-hanging fruit strategies – ones that are relatively easy to effect, like opening up the now almost-monopolistic fuel market to replacement fuels such as natural gas, methanol, ethanol and biofuels. Recent technological innovations have made most replacement fuels better for the environment than gasoline. Indeed, gasoline is the worst in terms of total carbon emissions and many other pollutants. Let replacement fuels compete with gasoline and when renewables are ready, make it easy for them to join the crowd of options at the pump.

My cup is always half full rather than half empty. Hopefully, Americans will respond to climate change before the low-hanging fruit is dried up because of warming. I think the odds may have increased that rationality and consensus building will govern public opinion and leadership in Washington.

Why? I recently noticed a brief news item in the Science Section of the New York Times. It, and a companion piece in Yahoo News, said that because of global warming, the wine-producing regions of the world are threatened…including Bordeaux and Tuscany in Europe as well as Napa and Sonoma Valleys in the U.S. “Vast swaths of France, Spain and Italy would become inhospitable to wine grapes by 2050,” including California and other parts of the world that are now growing fine wines. According to one reporter, we will probably end up buying wine from Chateau Montana. I am sure others will soon propose Cabernet from Canada and I know as the Arctic ice melts, we will get some bright marketing guy pushing Merlot in the Arctic Circle. Somehow, even if the product survives, the ambience doesn’t resonate and the taste likely will not either. Can you imagine trying to charm your significant other, with “I took you here so you could taste champagne from northern Russia?” I have nothing against any of these places though, and maybe disruptive technology or innovation will provide worthy grape and wine substitutes in many areas of the world.

If not, what are wine lovers to do? Many of you are in political life, are business CEOs, run academic institutions and nonprofit groups or are just plain good community folk. Rise up! Demand your rights as wine drinkers. Claim legitimate health and, if relevant, religious benefits. Or maybe, just articulate the benefits a fine wine brings to conversation among friends or would-be friends and colleagues. The world’s economy and social welfare often spins (hopefully not you) on a glass of wine and good cheer at lunches and dinners. Forget the fact that the French are sometimes haughty to Americans. We have coalitions to build and policies to foster. Help secure your quality glass of wine by working with your fellow oenophiles to develop low-hanging policy fruit to respond to global warming. While you may discriminate as to wine, join with non-wine drinkers, growing numbers of consumers, business leaders and nonprofits to grant a priority to opening up the transportation fuel market to replacement and, when competitive, renewable fuels. Paraphrasing a famous economist, whose name need not be mentioned, wine lovers of the world unite, you have a lot to lose if you lose your access to the best grapes and their wines.