If you knew someone who really liked something they did, had done it all their lives and virtually had a cultural attachment to that something, how would you get them to change (assuming for their own good)?
You could entice them to try something new or you could break their affinity to that something so they wanted to change for the presumed better. If they were not only happy, but nearly addicted to the status quo (and no, we are not talking about drugs or smoking) enticing them would be difficult. However, gradually making the attractiveness to that something less attractive would eventually cause the person to seek better options even if it were initially unpleasant.
What the heck are we talking about? Gasoline and the good old internal combustion engine of course.
The current Administration seeks to get us off the fuel of the last century by subsidizing cars nobody wants to buy (because those vehicles simply do not meet Americans needs or equally important perceived needs). You can waste all you want subsidizing an electric car, but if it goes only forty miles and holds one bag of groceries or a golf bag minus the clubs, it won’t get plugged into many garages in America unless it becomes the most desirable option.
At the same time, as gas prices rise many Democrats in Congress want to release oil from the Country’s strategic reserve to artificially hold down the price of gas.
Well duh!
Could anything be more at cross purposes? Here you have the political mind in action. Don’t do what’s right, do what won’t get you unelected. In Europe gasoline is $7.00 to $9.00 a gallon (equivalent). Guess what, your greatest risk in Holland is getting hit by a bicycle, in Rome by a motor scooter and in most other places by a car that might fit in the third row of an American SUV. In addition, their rail system is very convenient. Why, because it is too expensive to not use these means of transportation.
It is all about creating the environment for people to want to change. If we did that, there would be no need for electric car or any other efficient vehicle subsidies because people would be demanding cars that were cheaper to operate because they needed them and wanted them and someone would fill that need.
Perhaps I’m on to something, I think I’ll call it free enterprise and market demand.
Here is another way to view this motivation thing. North Korea just announced it was launching a new ballistic missile and space satellite shortly after the US pledged to send 240,000 tons of food so it can feed its people.
Washington said a launch carrying a satellite could violate Pyongyang’s agreement last month to stop nuclear tests, uranium enrichment and long-range missile launches — and thereby scuttle U.S. plans to resume food aid.
Does North Korea have any motivation to divert money from space or its military to prevent starvation? Of course not, they have been subsidized by the same people subsidizing electric cars and windmills. Clearly once again this carrot didn’t work and neither did a $7,500 tax credit for buying the Volt.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
One comment