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

But what happens on the rare occasion when oil prices go down (albeit ever so slightly)? Do people continue their penny-pinching ways from the days of higher gas prices? Not really — a University of Michigan study shows that in April the average MPG of new vehicles sold actually fell from the previous month, likely due to lower gas prices. So this small drop in prices may be emboldening some consumers to buy less efficient vehicles, putting them at risk of a more restrained budget (or less driving) when gas prices inevitably go back up.

So, when gas prices go up, we all suffer and our economy lags. When gas prices go down, we position ourselves to be more at risk of rising gas prices in the future. Seems like a lose-lose situation. The chains that bind us just get heavier.

What we really need are more choices to break the iron-clad grip that oil prices have on our lives and our economy. We shouldn’t have to rely only on oil to power our transportation. Doing so gives oil a monopoly over transportation, perhaps explaining why it costs so much and why we are largely helpless to do anything about it.

The solution to break oil’s iron grip on our lives requires giving people more choice. For example, some people need to drive gas-guzzling, heavy-duty trucks for work, others just like driving those kinds of vehicles. Either way, when gas prices rise, these drivers have to spend significantly more money just to try to fill up their tanks. However, if they had a flex-fuel enabled engine that could run on ethanol, or possibly even methanol, they could choose to fill their tanks using fuels that, unlike gasoline, aren’t so closely linked to oil prices. If they had hybrid plug-in electric technology they could choose to “plug-in” more often and fuel up less.

These fuels would then be competing against each other for your transportation dollar. And if centuries of economic theory and real-world application are any indication of what may ensue in a competitive, open market, fuel prices will inevitably decrease.

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.

What if all that old stuff you no longer have a need for suddenly becomes very valuable, and you could actually make a great deal of money by selling it? Not only would holding a yard sale be worth your time and effort, but you may even put in extra effort to collect more old things to sell to increase your potential profit. You may even spend some of your own money in getting all this together so that you’ll have more to sell and could make even more money.

That’s a lot like what’s going on in the oil market. In recent years, the price per barrel of oil has skyrocketed and now, we’re looking at extracting and selling oil that once wasn’t worth our time or effort. Arctic drilling, deep-sea drilling, tar sands, shale oil, etc., are all coming online in greater numbers because they are now worth the time, effort and expense to bring them to market. If the price of oil keeps rising, who knows what other oil, or oil-like reserves, may be extracted.

This whole notion may run contrary to what most people believe. On a simple supply and demand curve, usually if the price of a good goes up, demand goes down. However, as the price goes up, supply also goes up, much like in the illustration below. And since we all still need to drive, for the most part, the demand curve for oil is relatively inelastic, meaning prices don’t affect our demand that much (sorry for reverting to all these “Econ 101” terms).

In short, the higher the cost of oil, the more oil there is. After all, if you had a product that kept selling even after you tripled or quadrupled the price, wouldn’t you want to try and sell more of it?

This doesn’t mean that for oil consumers (i.e., the average driver) hope is lost. Just as oil became more valuable, more of it became available for sale, the same could happen for other fuels.

Take, for example, “gas flaring” in oil wells, a particularly acute problem in North   Dakota. A common byproduct of oil drilling is that gas, embedded deep in the ground alongside the oil we extract, also rises to the surface. This gas is often flared because harnessing it and bringing it to market may not yield a profit for oil companies since there is less demand and less value for it. Essentially, we’re wasting a non-renewable resource because it’s not profitable.

So what if we were able to give it value? What if we made it so that our cars could have the option to use that wasted gas? One way to do this would be to convert that flared gas into methanol. This would have the many benefits of giving us a choice of what to fuel our cars with (back to our “Econ 101” thinking, choice means more competition which helps drive down prices), not wasting a finite resource, and reducing emissions including significantly reduced drill-site emissions of methane, which is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

Why should we give so much value to oil when we have the proven technology to use other fuels that we are currently wasting? By giving value to other fuels we would reduce the value of oil, lower prices and even out the playing field in a true open market.

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.

But how much of a boom is this really? How much can it actually influence the price of oil and America’s decades-old quest to become “energy independent?” To answer this, let’s take a brief look at the facts. U.S. oil production levels have recently surpassed 7 million barrels per day (mbpd) for the first time since 1990, while oil imports in the first three months of the year averaged 7.7 mbpd. This means that despite the new American oil boom, we are still not producing enough oil to meet even half of our demand.

In fact, it’s not just America that is consuming more oil than it can produce —the entire world is exhausting the commodity. The U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) estimates that global oil consumption is outpacing supply by 1.1 mbpd. With demand for oil so high, coupled with rapidly growing and modernizing populations in India, China and other countries, perhaps we shouldn’t focus on how long we can enjoy this ephemeral lull in oil prices, but instead worry about how fast and how high oil prices are guaranteed to rise once the calm has come to an end.

Let’s also not forgot that the U.S. economy, while still not stellar, is growing. This means more people are on the roads, almost all of whom are using transportation powered by oil. So even as our own oil production may or may not continue to rise, our appetite for oil most surely will.

That is, unless we look to ways to replace our need to rely on oil for our transportation needs. It seems that not only are we unable to sustain such a disconnect between oil consumption and supply, but we also cannot afford to maintain this, or any greater such disconnect in the oil market. In short, we cannot drill our way out of this.

The only way to fill the gap between the demand for transportation fuels and the supply of it is to use other fuels, besides oil, that can be produced in large quantities to safely and reliably (and preferably cheaply) power our transportation.

Although the recent decrease in gas prices has felt like a minor blessing ($3.50/gallon nationwide and $3.87/gallon in California) and I’ve found myself quietly gasping in excitement every time I realize that a gallon of regular has decreased by a few cents, in reality, gas prices are still too high. Let’s do some math.

Every week, I drive about 270 miles during my commute in my ‘99 Acura Integra (which achieves about 27 mpg on the highway — not bad for a 14-year-old car), or 14,040 miles per year. If California gas prices are able to miraculously maintain an average of $3.87/gallon, the 520 gallons of gas I burn up this year will come to a staggering total of $2,012. Suddenly, those few cents I’ve been saving at the pump are no longer what takes my breath away.

What’s even more maddening is the amount of fuel I waste while sitting on the heavily congested 405 Freeway, waiting as patiently as possible for traffic to slowly lurch forward. A study done by traffic and navigation service provider INRIX estimates that Americans burn 2.9 billion gallons of gas annually while sitting in traffic. Another recent study reveals that commuters in the Los Angeles megalopolis (which includes Orange County) spend an average of 61 hours per year trapped in traffic, equating to $1,300 in wasted time and gasoline per person.

Although low and middle-income individuals and families (including commuters) are affected the most by high gas prices, the amount of money I squander each year on fuel actually mirrors the typical spending in America. In 2012, U.S. households paid an average of $2,912 to fill up at the pump (4% of pretax income), the highest percentage it has been in three decades. Basic economics suggest that when the price of something increases, people make the decision to use less of it or switch to an alternative, but because of the monopolistic grip that oil has on the fuel market, it’s not that easy.

Will we ever be relieved of high gas prices and traffic? Let’s be frank — the severity of traffic congestion in major cities like Los Angeles won’t be alleviated anytime soon (unless Elon Musk’s recent 1-405 improvement contribution was only a down payment), but we can change how much we spend on fuel. It won’t be easy, but it can be done, by opening the fuel market to viable replacement fuels that are available today. Let’s take all that pent-up road rage and channel it toward some good — Americans have a right to drive for less.

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.