Americans More Likely to Forego Airconditioning Than to Buy Fuel Efficient Car
Gas prices have climped to the point that two thirds of Americans are feeling financially strained by the pressures of filling up their gas tanks. Even in middle- to upper-income families (defined in this story as families earning $50K - $75K per year), the number of people to whom gas prices are a burden has risen by more than 20% in the past year. So how are Americans dealing with rising gas prices? They're turning off the air conditioner and deciding not to take vacations or to pick up their kids from football practice. What they're not doing is deciding to buy a fuel-efficient car: the number of people who say that they'd consider such a purchase has remained unchanged. Erik Merckel, an auto-industry market watcher, predicts that gas prices would have to top $4.00 per gallon before sales of SUVs and trucks will slow down. [Source: Yahoo! News, AP]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
sensitive_man 5:52PM (5/07/2006)
Another novel idea is to bike, take the train/bus/subway or even walk to your destinations!
Reply
Billy C. 8:28PM (5/07/2006)
Thank you for your brilliant idea. What an idiot.
Reply
Doogs 9:55AM (5/08/2006)
"Another novel idea is to bike, take the train/bus/subway or even walk to your destinations!"
Shut up. Just...shut up. Every single post on every single website that mentions fuel use/efficiency has a comment just like yours.
Yes, if you live in New York, or Rome, or London, by all means walk, or bike, or take your city's well-executed public transit systems.
If you live in any but a handful of cities in North America, this isn't much of an option.
Reply
sensitive_man 11:27AM (5/08/2006)
Thank you I know it is both original and brilliant. I appreciate your comment and compliments in regards to my ideas and intelligences.
I realize the truth is hard to hear... such obvious solutions to complicated issues.
If you do not have public transit available in your area or you live in a sprawl community (like me) stop bitching about gas prices and refocus that energy to get Mass Transit in your community.
Reply
Doogs 1:43PM (5/08/2006)
"If you do not have public transit available in your area or you live in a sprawl community (like me) stop bitching about gas prices and refocus that energy to get Mass Transit in your community."
1. Mass transit is not a universal solution that can be applied across every type of urban and suburban area. I live in Austin, which as a sprawling community goes is not bad, especially compared to the nearby parking lots that are Houston and Dallas, but effective mass transit would be ridiculously difficult to implement here.
2. I depended on mass transit during my years at college. It was less than pleasant. I'd rather pay through the nose to have control over when and where I go somewhere, thanks.
3. I traded in my Xterra a year ago for a Protege5. My next car will be a Mini. I accept the hit at the pump, but I've refused to curtail my driving because, outside of rush hour, I truly love driving.
But I still complain because, sooner or later, gas prices are going to hit a point where they stall out the economy. Shipping rates will go up, the cost of goods will go up, and it all becomes a big snowball.
4. In my opinion, mass transit is a solution that ignores reality. I would rather focus my energies on solutions that people might actually adopt, such as:
- Incentives for telecommuting. This would save substantial amounts of gasoline because a) people working at home wouldn't be driving, b) lower traffic density during rush hour would lead to less gridlock, meaning better fuel efficiency for those who are commuting.
- Tax incentives for purchasing high-MPG vehicles. Available to both business and individuals. Alternatively, make the gas guzzler tax more stringent.
- Invest in and roll out technologies that could dramatically improve fuel efficiency today, not in twenty years. By this I mean things like ceramic engines and hydrogen injection systems such as the H2 N-Gen.
Reply
psych101 12:11AM (5/09/2006)
About 96% of the American transportation infrastructure that we know today was designed around the singular concept that all Americans will own and drive personal cars to get around. This is why we have suburbs, highways, parking lots, driveways, a gas station infrastructure, rest stops, paved roads through national forests, and those are just for starters. That's why biking, walking, or public transportation just doesn't cut it for nearly everybody in this country. For 100 years now our government has steadily and healthily supported our desire to have personal motorized transportation devices. We've given them the money and the license to do this.
It is oh-so-clever and cheeky to suggest that people bike or walk or take the bus. I'm sorry to say it, but I'd fire any engineer on my team who said something like that to one of my clients. Get this: Americans don't want to give up their cars. Americans see that idea as anti-progressive. And there's nothing wrong with that! Until the majority of the American public says differently, it is up to all of us to make it possible for all Americans to keep using the very important, very central, and very beloved automobile. We as a nation should stop trying to convince people that DRIVING is bad and start providing ourselves with the means to keep driving in more environmentally responsible ways. This isn't like a health problem like obesity, where advice like "Eat less" is appropriate. This is a technological problem, not a behavioral one. This requires sound engineering, not PR spin that amounts to saying "Well, YOU'RE the problem."
This article says "They're turning off the air conditioner and deciding not to take vacations or to pick up their kids from football practice." This is a shameful testament to our failure to efficiently and effectively contribute to the ongoing design and engineering of our nation. We keep pointing fingers and laying blame: who cares how it happened? Let's define the problem and start working towards a solution! As an engineer myself, I am ashamed that we can't get our act together and make fuel prices a non-issue to the average citizen. We can supply unlimited use of the internet for a modest fee each month but we can't figure out how to do the same for automobile fuel?!?
Reply
psych101 12:53AM (5/09/2006)
Let me one of the first to say that we need to get the politics out of this and start focusing on the problem at hand.
My suggestions:
1. Stop calling them "alternative" fuels. Start calling them fuels. Using the modifier "alternative" makes it sound like a political issue, like a lifestyle choice. Or like a second place ribbon, or like an also-ran. These concepts don't appeal to Americans, who like to get first place and best of class. Don't argue with the collective psyche of America, just put aside your feelings, acknowledge the psyche, and take it into consideration when crafting your results presentation.
2. Start associating "environmentally responsible" with "economically responsible."
3. If you must spin it, spin it positively. Call it "the way of the future." Call it "progress." Don't focus on how bad oil is, focus on how good hydrogen is, for instance.
4. Please, please stop asking the government to solve this problem. We've elected them to govern us according to rules we decide upon. We, the populace, the people, are the engineers. We're the innovators. We are the architects of our nation. We are responsible for moving the nation forward. Rockefeller was NOT an elected official. Bill Gates is NOT an elected official. The government, believe it or not, is not standing in our way. They are focused on maintaining our collectively-chosen way of life at all costs.
5. Stop thinking there is a "silver bullet" that will suddenly make it all easier. This kind of thinking is naive, but expected. I always encourage my engineers by saying that if there is a silver bullet, it will make itself known only if they stop looking for it. We have methodologies of research engineering for a reason, and these methodologies allow for the impromptu discovery of silver bullets, what many call an "Aha! moment." But you gotta do the hard work to get to that point.
6. Be patient, but also don't be afraid to pick the low-hanging fruit in the meantime. This is what doogs was saying about investing in technology that can start improving efficiencies right now. Interim solutions have a tendency to stick around longer than anticipated, but this effect can be countered and will certainly appease the client in the meantime. And an appeased client is an investing client.
Reply
econ101 8:46AM (5/09/2006)
fair points, but here
"This is a technological problem, not a behavioral one."
I disagree; doesn't Jevons' paradox suggest both are integrally related?
And maybe the innovation crushing Gates and Rockefeller monopolies aren't the best examples to cite in defense of forward thinking big business.
Reply
psych101 10:15AM (5/09/2006)
Thought provoking, econ101.
Big picture, yes, technology and behavior are linked. Suggesting changes in societal behavior isn't like suggesting changes in individual behavior. The psychological profile of a large group of people differs greatly from the profile of an individual. Generally, it takes a much more subtle hand to effect change at the societal level. The point I'm making is that admonishing individuals for their participation in societal behavior is counter-productive.
Now let's see if I can understand your angle, the economics of it. A quick visit to wikipedia illuminates it. Jevon's paradox seems to come from the holistic societal perspective: the greater the efficiency in using a resource, the greater the rate of depletion. Okay, I think I understand. It does suggest that behavior and technological efficiency are integrally linked, but it looks like Jevon's is looking at societal behavior, not individual.
Hmm. Wouldn't Jevon's come into play to our advantage when readily renewable fuels power our cars more efficiently than fossil fuels?
Individual behavior comes into play when we look at how automobiles are used. There is a school of thought in industrial design that says that only bad designs allow or encourage users to use the devices inefficiently. By using stored electrical energy to overcome initial inertia of the automobile, thereby reducing overall fuel usage, Hybrid design fits this philosophy. Design the automobile to take advantage of the individual inclinations of the users. We've been doing it all along, even though some disparagingly call these functional requirements "nanny devices."
Reply
Kevin 5:17PM (5/09/2006)
Back to the original issue, perhaps Doogs can back me up, but i guarantdamntee you that people in central Texas (for example) aren't turning off their ACs. Summer just started!
Also, perhaps I actually travel more than most of you to those supposed mass transit paradises. I spend a good bit of time in the UK -- get outside of London and I assure that none of my Brit co-workers or apparently anyone in their region use mass transit to get to work.
Guess what, they all have to drive cars too, they certainly don't carpool, their roads are very congested -- and they pay $6 a gallon for the privilege. They don't live in suburbs and commute to the city: they live in the city and commute to the suburbs.
Even in densely populated countries it does not make sense to try to build mass transit service to stop at every one of a million different scattered destinations.
BTW our transportation modes have evolved as an utterly intelligent and rational response to our large landmass, cheap and available land, sparse population density, and avalable resources. Doing anything else would have been stupid. So gas is $3? Big deal, as current economic data proves, we can actually afford it pretty easily. If cost encourages some people to be more efficient, all the better.
Reply
Doogs 5:32PM (5/09/2006)
"Back to the original issue, perhaps Doogs can back me up, but i guarantdamntee you that people in central Texas (for example) aren't turning off their ACs. Summer just started!"
We had temperatures hovering around 108-110 for most of September last year. I promise you there won't be any cutting back of A/C use in Texas.
There probably won't be that many people biking or walking to work (or to a bus stop) in that kind of heat, either.
Reply