Top and center of Page 1 today, the Boston Globe's Jenn Abelson writes about the people who have decided to sell their Rams and MDXs and Hummers and 4-Runners because they can no longer bear the $80 fill-ups that have resulted from gas-price increases.

I am really trying not to gleefully celebrate this development, because, truly, real people are hurting, and I hope that when I'm suffering financially for my stupid choices, others won't celebrate my struggles. But the best I can do, so far, is to add that wiener-ish disclaimer before saying: "that's what you get for insisting on having overly huge, piggishly wasteful vehicles when you could have done just fine with less."

Schadenfreude aside — and yes, I guess I'm courting my own — the far more important point to take from this is the solid evidence that prices pretty quickly lead people to drastic action — these SUV owners aren't selling for profit; they're just hoping the sale price will cover their leftover payments — where rational thought and/or rectitude never will, at least to the necessary degree.

And that, of course, is the thinking behind cap-and-trade schemes and carbon taxes: Put a price on carbon emissions, and people will change how they use it.

Conservatives would argue that government-imposed solutions differ from what's happening with SUVs, but that's just incomplete thought: Private enterprise has always sought to fob costs onto the public. Factory owners dumped waste in the river instead of paying for it to be disposed otherwise. People downstream lost water quality or could not longer eat the fish, and eventually taxpayer money had to be used to clean up the groundwater, or PCB-laced river sediment, or whatever. The term for these is "external costs."

That was the failure of the market: The factory's prices were artificially low, because they didn't include all the expenses of production. So now, rather than government meddling, it's really a case of the people assigning a price to expenses that industry has heretofore avoided. Only the militantly close-minded still maintain that burning fossil fuels doesn't incur public costs.

It's good to note, I think, that it will be you and me, not industry, who will be paying the fees created by cap-and-trade systems or carbon taxes — just as it has been you and me who historically haven't been asked to pay the external costs. Yes, it was the factory owner who decided to foul the river, but it was you and me who got to pay less for the product, and who wouldn't rather pay less?

But if the costs exist, someone's gotta pay them, no? Isn't that what the market teaches? Right now, of course, it's teaching SUV owners that they should have bought the Camry instead.

As you know, Georgie and I bought a Prius last spring, just ahead of my cross-country trip, and we still are very, very happy with our purchase. As a car, it is very effective:
* Better than 40 mph even in winter (when, apparently, the batteries aren't as effective)
* A fabulous turning radius that is easily its most unsung attribute; excellent electronics integration, both for charging multiple handhelds and for channeling both iPod and phone through the car's speakers.
* GPS, which of course isn't limited to Priuses but we do tend to think of it that way, since it's our first exposure to it.
* And the quiet satisfaction of knowing that we made a fairly responsible, pretty successful large expenditure.

But on a couple of fronts unrelated to utility — and God knows, people buy cars for reasons well beyond mere transportation — I see a couple of threats to its luster:

One: There sure are a shitload of them out there. I long ago decided that seeing another one on the road  was no big deal; now, my ever-revving brain automatically looks for a third before it registers an unusual event. But the other day in Cambridge — and I understand that location probably had an influence, FIVE other Priuses were within view, either with me in traffic or parked.

Anyone who bought to be ahead of the curve is now bumming, because that thrill is gone.

Two: Concomittantly, I noted a not-insignificant backlash of the Prius phenomenon from speakers at the just-concluded Building Energy '08. One derided the people coming up to him to report that they'd bought a Prius, as if they were expected a gold star for it. Another, while talking about trying to sell conservation to the public, said that only Priuses and solar panels have broken through public consciousness, and that's because many other measures are invisible, and people are into the cred, more than the conservation.

Notice I said the "Prius phenomenon," not the Prius, because they sure weren't dogging the car; surely, 95 percent of the attendees would be happy if everyone drove one, because — oh yeah! — they burn less gas than so many other vehicles.

I was offended at the sniff-ish attitude, because even though, yes, I am as shallow as the next American — ooh, I forgot to mention: four (!) cup holders! — I didn't buy it to impress. After considering a number of options for cross-country transport, we decided the Prius was the best choice on all the factors.

Impressing the neighbors was on the list, but well down it. And even then, behind that line item isn't vanity, it's making a statement to others that energy efficiency is worth paying for, even in a hardly zippy, kinda geeky package.

Obviously, I'm not running for office, ever.

And, I assure you, I'm as money-focused as my fellow Americans. I would like to earn more, while doing less. I would like to win the lottery. Get a huge inheritance from some surprising source. Have an even nicer computer. Build a wicked cool off-the-grid-but-still-warm-and-comfortable house, with a nice view. Further hybridize our Prius to make it even more efficient. Or get one of them Teslas!