Sorry for the late reply. Maybe you'll never read this?
>> They bought all the toilet paper
> 1. While I acknowledge that [...]
> 2. You can hoard toilet paper but not gas.
Yes that's true. Actually my comparison here wasn't totally serious. But you're right that the state and energy companies, and the citizens, would need to co-operate a bit for this to work. Or the state could raise the gas and oil prices, for a household that has used too much. And the state could calculate the prices, so heating would work out okay I believe. Combined with jeans and sometimes a jacket and winter cap, indoors.
>> [People wouldn't get angry when] they know the higher prices are for saving people in Ukraine
> see my other comment on revealed preferences vs stated preferences
Hmm. Two things: 1) revealed preferences, for example by saying one would care about the environment, but continuing buying environmentally destructive things. This is "passive aggressive", in that they aren't actively trying to sabotage anything -- they're just continuing life as usual, in the old more comfortable ways, not doing what they said they would.
Or 2) revealed preference, by actively protesting against the new policies -- demonstrations, even riots and smashing windows etc. But this is lots of effort. Personally, I'd be surprised if people were willing to spend time demonstrating, instead of just accepting the fact: gas and oil now cost more, so I'll put on another jumper. -- If they go outdoors to protest, they'll need to put on even more clothes! And travel somewhere. That's more work.
Meaning, raising the gas prices, and explaining why, could work pretty well I'm thinking. -- Even if people are dissatisfied, although they said they were ok with it, they are unlikely to protest or riot -- because that's more work, than just accepting the new situation?
>> If the politicians make it clear that it's for stopping the war, then, there'd be some social pressure for saving energy.
> Why's that not happening right now?
I don't think people see a relationship between their cars and indoor temperature, and how much bombs Putin has. Most humans are already poor at abstract thinking and seeing anything else than what's in front of their nose -- and this, with cars and bombs, is a slightly complex relationship? Plus, humans being a bit lazy and selfish, they wouldn't want to think in this direction at all?
I think the government and newspapers, would need to explain for and motivate the people.
>> In Europe, there are more buses and subways, and fewer people have cars.
> Doesn't that argument work in the opposite direction? ie. "there are more buses and subways, and fewer people have cars", so people are already taking public transit. From there, it's pretty hard to reduce fuel consumption even further as the people who are driving probably really need it?
I'd think it's simpler to reduce fuel consumption -- there're subway lines built already, and possible to increase the subway train frequency, without having to spend 20 years building new subway lines.
Most, or everyone, I know with a car, use it for convenience, to save time. Probably I'd done this me too, if I had kids to drive from and to school. And I would have been happy if the city where I live, introduced school buses, or built a ride sharing website, so I could let others go with me in my car and save fuel.
(I also replied to a sibling comment of yours, maybe you're interested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30803577 -- did you know that there's just 1.1 - 1.2 people on average, in a car on the way to work. But if people shared their cars, 50% or more fuel could be saved.)