LJWorld.com / Energy-efficient lifestyles

Archive for Wednesday, May 21, 2008

By Mike Hoeflich

May 21, 2008

I had a very painful experience the other day. I had to go to the gas station to fill my pickup truck with gas. As I stood there and watched the pump go from $10 to $20 to $30 to $40 to $43, I thought about the good old days when I could fill up for 20 bucks. The good old days were only a couple of years ago. At the next pump a woman was filling up her SUV. Her tab was over $60. I thought she was going to cry.

We both knew that the “old days” were never coming back. According to the news reports, gasoline is already over $4 a gallon in a number of American cities and there’s no relief in sight.

I cannot imagine that very many Americans, other than those who own oil companies and those on the Forbes 400 List, are happy about the price of gasoline and other petroleum products. Our society depends on petroleum not only for transportation but as an ingredient for numerous products like plastic. It’s not just the price at the pump that’s going up. Food is far more expensive because of the shipping costs. Virtually everything is getting more expensive. We’re addicted to petroleum and, like most addictions, it’s costly.

It also seems as though almost every attempt to bring oil prices down fails. The president’s recent trip to Saudi Arabia to ask the Saudis to help failed miserably. Suggestions for a gas tax “holiday” this summer make little sense economically and, if implemented, are likely to have little or no effect. The search for alternative energy sources is progressing, but still fairly far away.

We can tell people to trade in their present vehicles for more energy-efficient ones, but most folks cannot afford to buy a new car in this economy, let alone a hybrid which is generally more expensive than a regular model. And what are the truckers, already near bankruptcy, supposed to do? Where are the alternative-fuel 18-wheelers and the loans to purchase them to come from?

I think that there’s really only one serious way to deal with the oil price crisis in the short term. All of us need to reduce our consumption of petroleum products to reduce demand and, therefore, prices. It’s time to stop driving our cars except when necessary. It’s time to get the bicycle out or start walking. It’s time to start tailoring our cooking to use locally grown foods which don’t come from distant places. It’s time to replace the powered lawn mower with a push model.

It’s time to give up being a society in which people always want the newest gadget, the most fashionable clothes, the newest everything. In short, I think that the best way to bring down oil prices both in the short run and the long run is to recognize that we need to practice a new frugality. It is time to stop being a country of “first adopters” and become a country of savers and recyclers and reusers.

Of course we must pursue alternative energy sources. But at the same time, we need to rethink our daily lives. We must come to realize that frugality is a virtue, not a punishment. Then, and only then, will we be able to free ourselves from our petroleum addiction.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

21 May 2008 at 6:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…

And why not drill for more oil here in the US? We have it. But, oh, I forgot, the “greens” have their 5 NO's and they rule the day: NO to oil. NO to natural gas. NO to coal. NO to hydroelectric. NO to nuclear. Can you say 3rd world here we come?
21 May 2008 at 7:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

Your lack of imagination and creativity is very striking, Brent.
21 May 2008 at 8:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

St_James (Anonymous) says…

This LTE makes sense. Happily, I've seen that many folks are already getting the picture. Many of my friends and neighbors have started gardens for themselves, use their bikes frequently, and find ways to cut down on the amount of junk they create. I think the trend will continue and grow stronger in relation to prices at the pump. Hard to see the majority of us completely compensating for $4-per-gallon gas but a little more frugality and “victory garden”-like plots will definitely help.
21 May 2008 at 8:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

acoupstick (Anonymous) says…

I have no doubt we will eventually expand our drilling in this country, even including ANWR. However, the push to do so as a response to high gas prices is short-sighted and ill-advised. In comparison to other industrialized countries, we pay comparatively low fuel prices, even now. Given its indispensable non-fuel uses and the fact that petroleum is a finite resource, we need to move away from using petroleum as fuel. We need to do it now. We need to do it quickly.
21 May 2008 at 8:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Black Gold.

Let's say that you were the owner of or otherwise in control of oil. You have a captive audience. You have a steady income.

You realize there are patents out there for alternative energy sources. Some great ones unlike some being promoted in these forums. You realize this, because you and others in the field have purchased them. This ensures a demand for your oil.

Now, you realize that those patents are set to expire after 20 years and that time is almost up. Your oil may not be worth very much in the near future. What to do.

Ask yourself, what would YOU do if you were in this situation?
21 May 2008 at 9 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blue73harley (Anonymous) says…

The demand for oil is global. Millions more cars are being put into service in China, India, etc. Whatever we do in the USofA to decrease demand here is not going to matter one damn bit.
21 May 2008 at 9:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

webmocker (Anonymous) says…

Well researched, non-partisan solutions exist.
See them at http://www.oilendgame.com/
Be forewarned, it's not for soundbiters. Allow time to read. The book is available at the Lawrence Public Library, too.
21 May 2008 at 9:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

salad (Anonymous) says…

I filled up for $12.95, which will last me about two weeks driving every day, but my ride gets about 55mpg. If everyone rode a motorcycle then there'd be more gas, less SUV's, and more parking for everyone. You want americans to get serious about conservation, then either start a war with Germany, or make energy really expensive.
21 May 2008 at 2:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…

Conservation will not and cannot solve this problem. Not unless you get really serious about limiting demand. By that I mean eliminating users. Is that what we want? And why can't we drill for more oil? Is it better to be beholden to nations such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia? Yes, I agree, we need to ultimately move away from petroleum. I am personally a big advocate for fuel cell vehicles. However, I also realize that unless we want to plunge this entire country to third world standards we will have no choice but to use oil for the foreseeable future. Given that why not do all we can to be as self-reliant as we can? To a large degree what we have is an imbalance between supply and demand. Since the price is rising that would mean demand is outstripping supply. The only two ways to fix that is to either lower demand or to increase supply. Somethings, such as greater efficiency in our vehicles and other energy using devices, will reduce that demand. Taxing us to lower that demand will be a pathway to economic bankruptcy. Besides that, I already feel like too much of my money goes to Topeka and Washington. Increasing supply is a logical thing to do. But, if you worked for an oil company, big or small, all you would see is restrictions on your efforts to find new sources for oil. At a time when prices, and by that indicator, demand is rising, limiting supply is a guarantee of higher prices in the future, not lower ones. Just look at Europe. They have much more mass transit than do we (they are also much more densely populated than most of the US which is why mass transit almost pays for itself there) and yet, they pay much, much more for fuel than do we. Why? Because it is taxed very heavily. Yet, that taxation has not lowered demand nor reduced prices. All that taxation has done is give their governments more money for more government programs and more socialism which in turn has killed Europe's productivity and creativity. I would, therefore, judge that to be a failed approach.
21 May 2008 at 2:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“Not unless you get really serious about limiting demand.”

Demand doesn't need to be “limited” unless we continue to try to pretend that there is no problem until there's no time to do anything about it. Demand needs to be consciously and intelligently reduced, not limited.

“Yet, that taxation has not lowered demand nor reduced prices. All that taxation has done is give their governments more money for more government programs and more socialism which in turn has killed Europe's productivity and creativity.”

Europeans, on average, drive less with more fuel-efficient vehicles than Americans do, and generally use considerably less energy and other resources. While there are economic problems there, just as there are here, their productivity isn't much lower than here, and as energy gets more and more expensive (even if you get your drilling in ANWR and more nukes) the more energy- and resource- efficient Europeans will be at a distinct advantage.
21 May 2008 at 2:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…

A further thought. It has been claimed that speculators are helping artificially inflate the price of a barrel of oil. This is potentiallly true. Should speculation be allowed? That depends on how you define speculation. One of the things that has made the present housing debacle so painful is that people would purchase homes with mortgages so large that it was all they could do to make just the interest payments. They purchased these homes in the belief that if they held them for 2 or 3 years the price would appreciate 20% or 30% and then they would sell and take a profit. This worked well, especially in California, until that house of cards came crashing down. As we can see from that, speculation creates a false market that inflates prices and hurts everyone in the long run. How then to drive specualtors out of the market? Presentlly, in the commodities market one only has to put up 10% of the value of a future's contract in order to control that contract. Now this is a very risky approach but it is allowed. What would happen if the present rules were changed so that the purchaser of a future's contract had to post at least 50% of the contract's value? That would increase the cost of speculation and drive many speculators from the market. Of course, personally I think they should have to put up 100% of the contract they are buying. I read an article recently that explained how hedge fund managers may be using commodity speculation to recoup their losses from the subprime lending fiasco. If that is true, then this speculation truly has a dark side to it.
21 May 2008 at 3:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

salad (Anonymous) says…

“All that taxation has done is give their governments more money for more government programs and more socialism which in turn has killed Europe's productivity and creativity. I would, therefore, judge that to be a failed approach.”

Untrue. I've been to europe alot over the past 10 years, and while they agree that their taxes are high, they say it's worth it for all the benefits. They also say that americans are fat and wasteful, which is true. If conservatives want the market to settle things, then let prices go as high as they need to go to reduce demand. The restrictions on new oil exploration are there for a reason. Additionally, there's just not enought oil left on US controlled territory to really make much of a dent. We could use more refinery capacity, but the oil companies have gone out of their way to reduce capacity to drive up the price of their product (KC Star did a front page series on this in 2006 or 2007).
Increasing supply is not an option. Reducing demand is.
21 May 2008 at 4:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gayokay (Anonymous) says…

Slow down. In round numbers driving 75MPH uses 20% more gas than driving 55MPH. If a lower speed limit were implemented and enforced we could see a dramatic reduction in gas prices and stave off a worsening recession.

Sorry Bob Segar

www.KansasEqualityCoalition.org
21 May 2008 at 4:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

Question for bkgarner (or anyone else who wants to take a stab at it)…

While you and I will disagree on any number of key points in this thread, I think there is one thing we can both agree on: At lease *one* driving force behind the current spike in the crude oil price, is increased demand. The booming, expanding middle classes of both China and India are ratcheting up demand for raw crude, necessary for the automobiles and other “upgrades” these people are coming into, for the first time.

Agreed?

Let's say that later this summer, Exxon manages to score drilling rights on a piece of land out in the middle of South Dakota. They start drilling… and they hit the Mother Lode of all Mother Lodes. Donald Trump-J.R. Ewing Greazy-Sleazy Oil Orgy kinda strike.

As I understand it, Exxon is a private corporation… correct? Not some government-controlled entity like Citgo.

So… Exxon can get maybe $130/barrel for this South Dakota crude, right here in the U.S.A.

But India says they'll pay $140.

And then… China says they'll pay $150/barrel.

What would stop Exxon from selling that South Dakota crude overseas for a tidy profit?

And if they did… how would selling domestic crude to other nations reduce our dependency on “foreign oil?”

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
http://www.americanplan.org
21 May 2008 at 5:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dsmith84 (Anonymous) says…

in addition to the previously mentioned idea of driving more slowly on the highway, buying premium gasoline can actually increase the gas mileage of your car enough to more than make up for the extra 4 to 8% you'll be paying at the tank.
seems like a weird idea at times like these to voluntarily pay for the expensive gas, but 30 extra cents at 4 dollars a gallon isn't that bad compared to the benefit.
also, live closer to where you work… less 40 minute commutes will dramatically decrease the amount of gas you use… (no brainer)
21 May 2008 at 5:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

Doesn't a large percentage of Alaskan oil go to Japan (and possibly China?)
21 May 2008 at 9:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

parkay (Anonymous) says…

Why is Congress wasting their time berating oil company executives for allowing their companies to make excessive profits? They make about a dime profit on a gallon of gas, much less than the taxes imposed by Congress. Why isn’t Congress instead busy removing the silly tree-hugger restrictions on oil drilling and new refineries, so that increased American supply can ease this oil price crisis with 8 or 10 years? Congress should be telling tree-huggers to take a hike for the time being, and to go focus on reducing our demand for oil, for example, by encouraging fuel efficiency, which takes a lot of tough engineering work, but is being done.
21 May 2008 at 9:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cowboy (Anonymous) says…

saw gas at 3.89 a gal tonite , trying to decide between a smaller truck , scooter or bringing my horse to town. Kind of a bitch to carry my ladders and lumber on a horse though !
21 May 2008 at 10:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Citizen (Anonymous) says…

gayokay (Anonymous) says…
Sorry Bob Segar

Do you mean Sammy Hagar?
21 May 2008 at 10:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Citizen (Anonymous) says…

also must say i agree with the 55mph speed limit. it would definatley lower gas consumption. that is, if you can get people to obey it.

on K-10 and the KTA, fear of 'the man' cant even keep the traffic under 80mph. let alone 55. most would continue on at the speeds they are used to driving, regardless of the signed limit. thats what they do everytime the speed limit changes.

if you think the fear of a traffic ticket will scare them, you are probably mistaken. if the fear of being killed in a tin can barreling along at 80mph with the kids in back doesnt scare them, then likely a ticket wont either.
21 May 2008 at 11:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

salad (Anonymous) says…

” We could use more refinery capacity, but the oil companies have gone out of their way to reduce capacity to drive up the price of their product”

Although no new refineries have been built, I believe capacity has actually increased by expanding existing refineries by the equivalent of a new refinery per year for the past ten years or so. Of course, some refineries have been offline due to various weather disasters (including the floods not too far away), but somehow I doubt the oil companies caused the floods.

******************************

dsmith84 (Anonymous) says…

“in addition to the previously mentioned idea of driving more slowly on the highway, buying premium gasoline can actually increase the gas mileage of your car enough to more than make up for the extra 4 to 8% you'll be paying at the tank.”

If your car was designed for and *requires* premium fuel, this might be true. For the rest (and the majority) of them, it is not. My 13 year, 125,000-mile-old small American 4-cylinder A/T car (small and old enough that it even has 13 inch wheels) averages 34.5 mpg while commuting, on regular gas.

***********************

Some folks want to conserve, and that's great. However, we have no right to tell everyone they have to drive smaller cars slower and live closer to work and take mass transit. Which ends up being the same thing as the futility of decreasing national demand when there're a couple of billion people in China and India drinking the stuff up. While some will conserve, many others will keep paying whatever it costs, and that means the oil companies will keep charging whatever they can get. And guess what - that's the way we buy every other product or service we use. Don't like the oil companies' profits? Stop giving them your business.
21 May 2008 at 11:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gccs14r (Anonymous) says…

Depends on the size of the ticket. If the fine was $1,000 for going 5 over, there wouldn't be a speeding problem.
21 May 2008 at 11:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

gccs14r (Anonymous) says…

“Depends on the size of the ticket. If the fine was $1,000 for going 5 over, there wouldn't be a speeding problem.”

1) $1,000 is far more than a good radar-laser detector costs. Which would likely exacerbate the problem, not alleviate it.

2) A lot of the people flying through on the interstates are not from around here. Unless there was some kind of national speed limit and associated fine structure, the out-of-staters wouldn't know they had a reason to worry.

3) There are crimes in this country that can be penalized by losing your life.

People still commit them.
21 May 2008 at 11:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“While some will conserve, many others will keep paying whatever it costs, and that means the oil companies will keep charging whatever they can get.”

And if we were paying what it actually costs right now, without all the subsidies and externalized costs, $12 a gallon would be cheap.
21 May 2008 at 11:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Yes, we know, nazi_on_the_bus, if we were all good little socialists like you the world would be so much better off.

Incidentally, why don't you try refiguring your math without all the subsidies and also without all the *taxes*?

But since you brought it up, it will likely be $12/gallon some day. And some people will still be buying it.
22 May 2008 at 1:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cds (Anonymous) says…

dsmith84 (Anonymous) says…

in addition to the previously mentioned idea of driving more slowly on the highway, buying premium gasoline can actually increase the gas mileage of your car enough to more than make up for the extra 4 to 8% you'll be paying at the tank.
seems like a weird idea at times like these to voluntarily pay for the expensive gas, but 30 extra cents at 4 dollars a gallon isn't that bad compared to the benefit.
also, live closer to where you work… less 40 minute commutes will dramatically decrease the amount of gas you use… (no brainer)

________________________________________

Sorry you are incorrect on using high octane, higher octane fuel was made for cars with high performance, high compression engines to keep them from detonating too soon. There is no hidden “power” in high octane. Both have the same amount of energy. You are doing nothing but wasting your money buying high grade and putting it in a car that only needs low octane.

http://www.yourautoadvisor.com/articles/…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rati…

Best tips. Slow down, take your time getting up to speed, make sure your car is properly tuned, and make sure your tires are properly inflated (they need to be checked and filled while cold, not after you've drove the car to the gas station, driving even a few blocks will effect the reading). Use cruise control if you have it.
22 May 2008 at 1:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cds (Anonymous) says…

Oh something else I forgot to mention.

Don't use drive thrus, park, get out, and get your food inside, or do your banking inside the bank. Side benefit, you might lose a few pounds walking more.
22 May 2008 at 2:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TopJayhawk (Anonymous) says…

I get about 31 mpg with my '03 Camry.. I drive about sixty in cross town trips on the interstate. I go slow and steady to get up to speed, I drive ahead of myself and often coast for a block or more getting to a red light. I keep my tires inflated and use cruise control on the hwy. I almost get runover and cursed daily by drivers in big SUV's and p/u trucks. Most people are either accelerating or braking. That is just stupid. Let's hear it, how many of you aggressive drivers get anywhere near what I do with a similar car. BTW, by chance, my wife drives an '02 Camry, always has her foot in the carberator, or on the brake. I get almost ten full mpg better than she does. It doesn't get anymore graphic than that.
22 May 2008 at 3 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TopJayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Remember, everytime you touch the brake, you are changing your already paid for exhorbatant energy from kinetic energy to heat, and are wasting it. If you keep that in mind, it can help you save gas. Slow down so you don't have to touch your brake as much. Remember what Yakov Smirnoff said. “it is cheaper to call AAA and have them tow you wherever you need to go!!
22 May 2008 at 4:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cds (Anonymous) says…

Yep topjhawk, and your saving even more than most in-town where cars use the most fuel, just because of the stopping, starting and sitting at lights. Side benefit, almost all the componets like transmission, brakes and engine will last longer the easier you are on them, saving you even more money in the long run.
22 May 2008 at 6:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…

To Agnostick:

Below are two links to articles that bear on the question of what is driving the price of commodities in general and oil specifically. I found them somewhat eye opening. Here are the links:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnfl…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jh…

You may have to read the entirety of both articles, particularly the 2nd, to get the point. Sorry, I didn't write them or the point would have been made up front. Oh well.

The gist of article #1 is that the amount of speculative long term futures contracts in oil has risen from 25% of the total contracts traded to 67% of the total contracts traded. This creates a price distortion. I will try to explain. Let us assume we have commodity X which sells for $100/unit. Some, to hedge against future prices, will buy futures on that commodity. Those contracts may not be for delivery for several months or even years. Now, insert a small amount of increased demand for commodity X. The value of those already purchased contracts begins to rise. It then becomes profitable to simply trade the contract instead of the commodity. This creates a market for the contract independent of the commodity. If this continues, the bidding on the contracts will drive the price of the contract up independent of what market demands for the commodity are. In the real world I am reading reports of oil having to be stockpiled because it cannot be sold and shipped. These reports are coming out of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other OPEC members. They are, of course, potentially subject to bias, but the numbers are being reported by international organizations not controlled by OPEC. IF, therefore, supply is equal to demand or slightly ahead of demand why would the price continue to spiral upward? There must be a distortion in the market. The speculative distortion I described earlier could easily account for that distortion. Further, there is a major loophole in our commodities laws which permits Swaps. Please read the 2nd article fully to find this. In essence there are no limits on how many contracts can be issued on a commodity. No limits can lead to limitless speculation.
22 May 2008 at 6:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…

To Agnostick:

Sorry, had to make two posts.

The first article points out that another distortion in demand is being created because in India, China, and other countries, the governments heavily subsidize the price of fuel. This isolates the consumer from the impact of price and creates the false appearance that energy costs are low. Those countries will not be able to maintain those incredibly large subsidies forever. But, they are riding a tiger. Lift the subsidies, even a little, and they will experience massive economic shock as prices soar. Additionally, there will be massive public protests. Read that as riots. Even so, the impact of rising prices is percolating into these countries. It comes in the form of inlfation. Inflation in the US, even now is at or below 4%. In most of these other countries it is running at 8% or more, much more. This cannot continue forever.
22 May 2008 at 10:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“Incidentally, why don't you try refiguring your math without all the subsidies and also without all the *taxes*?”

Yea, if we all switch to all-terrain vehicles, eliminating all those taxes might be possible.

“But since you brought it up, it will likely be $12/gallon some day. And some people will still be buying it.”

Yep, they will— but a whole lot more will be using mass transit, because that's all most will be able to afford.
22 May 2008 at 1:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…

If what this man in this article claims proves true, maybe we won't be stuck with $200 per barrel oil or $12 / gal gasoline. Of course, the greens may block him because, after all, burning petroleum or its by products is bad for the environment

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?f…
22 May 2008 at 2:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

This could be a very big breakthrough, Brent, but given that we only have so much land available for agriculture, there is a limited amount of biomass that will be available for fuel. And if we use all biomass that's not eaten for fuel, what effect will that have on the soil quality?

I have not doubt that much of our fuel will one day derive from such sources, but they will likely only be useful in conjunction with greater efficiency.
22 May 2008 at 3 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…

Good post TopJayhawk. I drive a 1995 Accord and I'm getting 34 mpg.

Between the time I leave my driveway and the time I hit my office after my commute, my goal is to hit the brakes no more than 3 times. A slow buildup to top speed, keeping it steady on the highway at 65 or 70, and coasting to anticipated stops.

Back when I drove like most people on the road, I got 28 mpg. That's a 21% increase in fuel efficiency, or with gas at $4.00/gallon about 80 cents a gallon. I can easily go 450 miles on a single tank of gas in a 95 Accord, as opposed to about 370 under my old habits. That's 2.8 gallons of saved gasoline.

Here's the nut, though. By changing your driving culture through more efficient habits, you aren't going to make the price of gas go down. You're just going to use less of it, and have a smaller hit on your budget.
22 May 2008 at 3:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“By changing your driving culture through more efficient habits, you aren't going to make the price of gas go down.”

If enough people change the driving culture, then demand will go appreciably down, and prices with it (or at least they won't go up as fast.)
22 May 2008 at 3:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JerryStubbs (Anonymous) says…

It's true that China and India are using more oil than 5 years ago, but the US is still the big oil consumer, and I believe about 1/2 of that is for transportation.

That does give us considerable clout as users.

The ATA ( American Trucking Assoc ) has been lobbying for a 65mph speed limit.

Here's a way to figure your travel time vs. fuel cost:
60 mph is about 1 mle a minute. So driving 30 miles ( from Lawrence to Lenexa, for example) at 60 mph takes 30 mins.

To save any appreciable time, say 15 mins, you would have to drive 120 mph! Driving 80 mph will only save you about 5 mins. You will pay a hefty penalty for those 5 mins.

If you really want to get there that much faster, try setting your alarm clock 5 mins earlier.
22 May 2008 at 8:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

just_another_nazi_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“If enough people change the driving culture, then demand will go appreciably down, and prices with it (or at least they won't go up as fast.)”

Then by all means, nazi, please go ask those two billion people in China and India to use less gas.

“Yep, they will— but a whole lot more will be using mass transit, because that's all most will be able to afford.”

Right. As evidenced by the linear increase of ridership on the 'T' as the price of gas has gone up, right, bus_nazi?

And, um, bozo - what about the people that have to get somewhere the buses don't go?

The part you miss - as usual - is that 'most people,' for all the complaining, are still buying gas, and they will continue to do so. When they can no longer afford to buy it (globally, not in one particular area), the price will come down. That's the way it works.
22 May 2008 at 9:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus:

I don't think you understood the implication. This guy is not talking about turning farmland into “fuel” land. He is talking about using biomass we currently discard. Further, there are vast areas of land, not suitable for farming, that are suitable for such things as switch grass. Remember, if it is green, using this guy's technique, it can be converted to oil. Further, I spoke with a representative of the company behind this when this article first appeared. They are projecting being able to use discarded biomass to produce oil in the $30-$40/barrel range. Frankly, if they could do it and sell it for $60/barrel it would still be a massive improvement.
22 May 2008 at 10:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…

“Then by all means, nazi, please go ask those two billion people in China and India to use less gas.”

Even with all those people, the US remains the largest consumer.

Additionally, just because your friends are doing it doesn't make it right. As I recall, that's an argument you hear quite a lot when it comes to behavior of other nations that some say the US should emulate.

Not being the world's largest consumer of petroleum would hardly place the US at a disadvantage.

The China and India argument is a straw man, unless the US should keep all the world's bad habits but refuse to emulate any of the good ones.