I think this is an interesting idea too, and I think we should do more along these lines to encourage the development of alternative energies. I think that he should offer more specifics up front because this is slightly different that the Longitude Prize - there weren’t many people opposed to the idea of better ship navigation. Today, there are tons of people who are vocal opponents of automobiles, and will see rising oil prices as a way to force them off the roads - conversely, they will see this prize as a way to keep them, and they don’t want that.

I think you can eliminate a lot of the opposition to something like this be being up front with the specifics. It makes it harder for opponents to criticize it as too vague, or not effective enough, etc..

You have an interesting point about the Chinese, but I think if you were to do something like that here it would have to be coupled with some sort of sunset date on the legislation and a penalty if you didn’t convert to the electric cars.

I think something along the lines of what they’re doing with the TV companies switching from analog to digital. If you don’t make the switch, the service ends and you’re up the creek.

I agree that you don’t want to create a situation where you continue to inflate the demand or foster a reliance on cheap oil, but I don’t see a problem with allowing people to stay in the suburbs if it becomes feasible to do so without oil.

As for direct subsidies, I understand the Chinese just stopped subsidizing oil, because unrealistically low prices were pushing up demand. When they announced an end to oil subsidies, the price of crude oil dropped. I understand that people are taking it in the teeth from the price of oil, but any attempt to prop up the current model (people spread out in low density housing, reliant on the availability of cheap oil) should be avoided.