Posted on 04/29/2009 2:47:58 AM PDT by MartinaMisc
ON EARTH DAY last week, Consumer Reports offered recommendations to motorists looking for ways to make "greener automotive choices." At the top of its list: "drive a more fuel-efficient car or SUV."
Consumer Reports wasn't the only one making that suggestion.
In an Earth Day proclamation, President Obama advised Americans to "drive fuel-efficient cars" and stressed his own commitment "to increasing fuel economy standards" as part of a campaign to "reduce greenhouse gases" and "lessen our dependence on foreign oil."
The editors of National Geographic, fielding questions online, heard from one reader troubled by the fact that "transportation is our largest consumer of oil and thus our largest emitter of carbon." Editor Dennis Dimick replied that "buying and driving cars that get better fuel efficiency can only help" in cutting US fuel consumption, along with "driving less and using mass transit more."
At the Huffington Post website, prolific commenter Philip Taylor listed what he called "the equations of conservation," including this one: Autos (Get) 40-65 mpg = Oil Demand Goes Way Down = Oil Prices Go Down. )
NASCAR announced that a Toyota Camry hybrid would be the pace car for the Coca-Cola 600 at Lowe's Motor Speedway next month. "I'd prefer a stock car, knowing how exciting it is to hear the engine roar," said driver Denny Hamlin, "but I think NASCAR drivers are embracing the green outlook of hybrids."
It seems intuitive: Increasing the fuel efficiency of automobiles - or anything else that runs on gas - should lower the demand for oil.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Yep - just like many people who eat low calorie or low fat foods. They feel they can eat twice as much.
"buying and driving cars that get better fuel efficiency can only help" in cutting US fuel consumption, along with "driving less and using mass transit more."
And yet the proportion of Americans’ income spent on a particular sort of goods does change over the years.
The US Constitution is wholly about American Liberty!
One of the most, if not the most, ways in which we (Americans) demonstrate our liberty is to get in our vehicles and drive to anywhere we want to, anytime we want to, and as often as we want to!
The SUV, Pickup Truck, V-8 Engines, etc. are our symbols of our liberty, and, yes, high-mileage economy cars too, if we so choose—but not forced upon us by gubmint!
But that’s not how things go anymore, and liberty and freedom for true Americans is on the wane.
Since 1963 or so, when gubmint first forced the first control on our personal vehicles—the PCV device—they have added more and more of these restriction to control our freedom and liberty.
Americans are quickly becoming the horseless cowboys of America.
A far lower percentage of income is spent on electronics today. There was a time when a TV was only for “The Rich”, now most people have at least one. Home computers and cell phones are the same - as are cars. Today it’s rare to find someone who doesn’t have a computer.
Other things have stayed about the same, back when gasoline was a quarter a gallon I was earning $.70 an hour - about 1/3 of an hour’s wage - equal to about $2.18 a gallon today.
When it gets cheaper demand rises? Maybe in a free market scenario, but in this case the government will keep the gas prices as high as necessary to cut demand and drive consumers to alternate energy sources.
Clarification: via gas taxes or gas mileage taxes
Mr. Dimick should stick to writing fiction. From where does he think the trains, buses and other implements of mass transit get their fuel?
they’re prepping us for government raising the price of oil to encourage conservation.
and of course government gets to keep any difference between what they want you to pay per gallon, and what the actual charge is.
Mass transit’s competition is the motor vehicle, by legislating it to be more fuel efficient, we make mass transit less competitive. Then we wonder why Amtrak requires more subsidies. It’s insane.
This is of course, not true. The largest emitter of Carbon in the US is coal-fired powerplants.
Not that it matters, or anything. Just trying to be accurate.
When my brother moved to a new house in Los Angeles, he bought a Prius so he could use the carpool lanes to make his longer commute. Without the use of the hybrid/carpool lane, his commute would be impossible.
I was in Italy last week, and the food was great. Every thing I ate was wonderful and tasty and just what you would want to eat. The funny thing is, I enjoyed every single bit so much, I wound up eating less. My diet of beer, prociutto, salami and gelato was probably more health than the way I eat back home.
I think the low cal/low fat foods are so tasteless, they wind up doing more harm than good.
Increased efficiency has never ever reduced consumption. Efficiency has gone up dramatically, consumption keeps apace.
The only thing that historically decreases consumption is higher prices.
Regardless of anyone’s stand on raising prices, they should be honest in their arguments about what will and won’t affect consumption and demand.
In this analogy, the CAN eat twice as much, and benefit from it.
They can transport twice as much, they can travel twice as much, they can take the car where they wouldn't before.
The power of the US is based on cheap sources of energy. The ability to use power IS power.
Poor countries burn wood, you can only produce so much using wood, growing, transporting, burning.. it's a very gross, non-dense power.
Computers require extreme refined power. Each step of the way power is become more "refined", more directed, more powerful. The tiny amps in your CPU are among the most expensive amps in the whole system, and their value is commensurate.
The most powerful nations are just that - literally. We reduce our power at our own great risk, and loss.
The reason we consume more population driven: more people means more cars on the road. If we still had early 70s level efficiency, fuel costs would be though the roof. Increased efficiency has allowed more people to drive. If the price goes up, fewer people will drive or they will drive smaller cars. If the price goes down, SUV sales will go up. Its all market driven. I’m all for efficiency as long as I can drive a right-sized car with V6-like power.
Autos (Get) 40-65 mpg = Oil Demand Goes Way Down = Oil Prices Go Down. )
This theory has been proved false. Oil demand goes down and the producers and refiners slow down to keep the price up.
Except use per person goes up with efficiency. You get more miles per gallon, you drive more, take more vacations, use the car more.
If you transport goods and you can transport more miles per dollar, you go try to get more business.
Goods become cheaper, you sell more.. on and on.
As efficiency increases, use increases. Power is powerful. People use as much as they can. That’s what makes them more powerful and what makes the nation more powerful.
Zero used more fuel in his NYC flyby than I will use in my lifetime.
For me, it's a three mile walk to the nearest bus stop at which a bus may show up twice on certain days.
I think the low cal/low fat foods are so tasteless, they wind up doing more harm than good.
I have to agree.
I’m not in favor of the environuts idea that we should return to the stone age. They might want to live in a cave and gather roots and nuts - but I ain’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.