Edit: Normally I’d suggest a carbon tax and rebate to low income folks, but that would directly work against Fed FFR increasing efforts and Congress is so pathetic as to not be able to get it done.
Lots of folks interested in EVs when fuel is $5-6/gallon, which will remain for some time. Gotta scale up faster, build the machine that builds the machine and whatnot.
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/new-analysis-suggests-we-have-p...
https://about.bnef.com/blog/electric-vehicle-sales-set-to-ri...
Don't get me wrong. I WANT an EV, but there isn't one out there I would buy. No way am I getting a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd year EV. I'm not going to be a beta tester. No way am I getting an EV with just touch screens. No way am I getting an EV which is a pain to maintain or repair.
To say leaded fuel is still available is a little bit of a misnomer, in the states anyhow, its not legally available as a road fuel, nor is a TEL additive - there are lead substitutes, but they're potassium I think, largely to prevent valve seat wear.
As far as I know, low octane unleaded fuel has always been available, you could always get a 'regular' grade gas without TEL, and premium fuel was marketed as with TEL.
And cars didn't last nearly as long as they did before.
This definitely varies on the definition of "the electric future" is. Are we in the electric future when the number of total passenger miles driven increases or stays the same while the gallons of gas combusted for passenger car travel decreases? Is it when >50% of cars on the road are electric? 100% of passenger cars?
Oh yeah that'll get past congress. I'm sure one of our parties won't have an aneurism over this idea :)
That could happen tomorrow. It could be challenged in court, but the internal running of federal departments hasn't traditionally been successfully been upheld unless they have some novel legal theory as to why this is unconstitutional.
Relax regulations which prevent companies from building new or expanding plants?
> The market is responding to the probability of an electric future.
The "electric future" is so far out there. The fuel would likely just be exported. Also, fuel is not the only thing produced at refineries.
- reduce speed limits, like in the 70s. Actually enforce with speed cameras everywhere (bonus, fewer people will die). - mpg mandates for new vehicles, like Obama, but now also include light trucks. (bonus, fewer people will die).
The fact that they are not even being discussed by policymakers in this context of high gas prices tells you that driving fast with large vehicles is fetishized.
The problem is that Congress is functionally ineffective at responding to popular demand, intentionally. The Senate is structurally allowed to act anti-democratically against the will of the populace: two representatives for fifty arbitrarily defined land areas are allowed to override proportionally elected representatives, and the filibuster allows only a third of them to block any action.
We are at a political impasse. Things will get worse because it does not look good to the minority party for the majority party to enact real economic wins.
If only the majority party were willing to wrestle a tiny speck of that anti-democratic power away from the Senate by overriding extreme rules like the filibuster...
Or reverting back (pre-1970s) to the "Talking Filibuster,"[0] where you could only stop a vote by continuing to "debate" on the floor of the Senate.
That won't solve the problem, but it would be a step in the right direction: Talk until you can't and in the meantime, try to negotiate with the majority.
Core inflation in the UK is 6.2%, in the US is 6%, more than half the inflation rate. This is not the same in countries more affected by the energy shock, such as the eurozone.
So we could see recession AND inflation at the same time. Then tack on higher interest rates, and everything goes squish.