Not with the same end-result. If it goes slower, the nature has more time to react. And using low energy cars should be only a temporary solution until we find better drives than burning something. Additionally, using low energy cars produces less costs for fuel. I don't see any disadvantage for the end user.
That is really just pure speculation. Nature will react either way, whether slow or fast really doesn't matter.
Besides, you can bet your healthy life alternative energy sources will be and in fact already are being exploited for similarly high prizes
even when costs involved are actually lower (I don't think that's true either).
These markets are designed around profits, not designed around what's best for nature... not even the green stuff. Just look at the other pollution that is involved with those 'alternatives'. I don't think it's right to categorize them as alternative energy, when in reality it still isn't pollution free.
I'm pretty sure it's because of how our economies work that it will be too late by the time everyone's actually really motivated to start some proper change in this world as far as waste deposition and fossil fuel sources goes.
Don't be fooled, not even the seemingly 'for free' solar energy is waste and pollution free.
