Why $16/g would be a solution

At every income level the economy redefines its stragglers and the price points are where people drop off with alternatives like car sharing, biking, etc. Turkey for example where the price of burros is up 7X in rural area is one such price point.

The resource depleting economy and its peak everything consequence provides high return on investment for increasing fossil fuel consumption, low ROI for reducing fossil fuel consumption.

Consumption patterns for some are changing under duress which leaves the underlying problem intact. In other words those who can afford will still toast the biosphere and we are not going to get to 350 ppm of CO2. Oil is off ~$5/bbl today and if the risk premium is further reduced it could fall back to ~$100 and oil consumption with Sacramento SUVs would resume its growth path.

We need to be at $16, relative to how prices changed in the mid seventies, so the Sacramento ped friendly vision can be realized. Economic changes that, more than incentives, will institutionalized low resource consumption, are no where in sight. The weak blueprint submitted by the California Air Resource Board for implementing AB32 is an example. The carbon trading CARB wants to implement is just a new market in polluting our lungs.

All we have today at $4/- a gallon is some good discussion at the policy level as mayors etc look for alternatives to city budget shortfalls. Much better would be policy that took into account resource conservation based on built in incentives.

> [planning]
>
>
> Sacramento Area Council of Governments, Urban Advantage
>
>
> Sacramento officials used photo imagery to show how different parts of the
> city could be brought in line with their pedestrian-friendly vision.