Just read a soc med post by some true believers arguing over whether adding hydrogen to conventional fuels would solve the energy crisis.

These technical arguments matter not one iota. Our 19th Century fuels, as improved more recently, are an extremely efficient way to create goods and services and move them around, and those of us who have the option will not easily give them up.

Now raise the fuel consumption of the whole world to that of the USA and Europe, and it becomes impossible or at best improbable that we could run the system without massive heating of the atmosphere and seas. Sadly we are like the fabled frog in the warming pot of water, who never imagines his ultimate fate.

The solution to our transportation problem does not lie in the type of engine used, but in elimination of individual vehicles driven short distances and parked to await the owner's pleasure.

A permanent solution will require that all vehicles be almost perpetually in motion and not used only at the whim of the owner. This is how airlines can afford aircraft worth hundreds of millions of dollars; they are almost never still, pausing only for loading and unloading or for maintenance. Profitability depends on full occupancy.

Try to imagine vehicles of several sizes, from single-occupancy to hundreds of passengers, in almost constant motion, with through and local pathways all managed by computerized switching. "Seat density" — the number of passengers per mile of roadway — and the number of destinations reached could be many times current levels.

Using a handheld or wall mounted device, a traveler would define a trip, and a vehicle would be routed to the origin and take the person to the destination or to a transfer point, where the vehicle or seat would be released to the next person. Presumably one could opt for a single or small-group seating arrangement if desired or for security reasons.

In this scenario, the number of vehicles moving during any given period would be greatly reduced, and the total investment in vehicles could be shifted to better infrastructure, both of which would lower energy and manufacturing costs.

The fundamental power generation would be overwhelmingly electric, based on heat-sink technology in lieu of batteries. Such power plants already exist and will only get better. Fueled vehicles will probably not go away for a very long time in remote regions with low population density.

The only losers would be the man-children who live only to race their engines at traffic lights to impress the other boys.

We have the intellect and are acquiring the technology to solve the conflict between energy and environment, so the question is: Do we have the will?