Latest View from The Nation: Sobering
Recently, I have found myself driving in stop/go/crawl traffic at least 4 days a week. Of course, this now-frequent activity coincides with the current 40 cent hike in gas prices we are suffering thru right now. My 8-year old ride drinks heavily in this style of driving and I don't like spending so much of my dwindling hours on this planet in such an unproductive yet necessary activity.
This whole feeling has been compounded by the latest Michael Klare article on energy in The Nation. Seems the author has put two and two together: The Dept of Energy has quietly shifted from "petroleum" to "liquids" as a word to describe the fuel we use for transportation. "Liquids" refers to other hydrocarbon fuels (propane, natural gas, etc.) as well as biofuels that we are slowly beginning to depend on just like petroleum. Changing this definition will mask the fact that petroleum production is just about peaked and older producing fields need to be replaced by new production before total production can reach the levels needed to meet increased world demand. This is not a good "scenario" for those that think the new Malibu will be the trendsetter for the US auto industry.
If the peak oil predictions are true in the short range - 5 years - then we need to drive a lot, lot, less and learn how to melt down a lot of SUVs and crossovers and replace them with vehicles that weigh about half as much and burn about half the energy currently used. That is essentially making the US national fleet about as energy comsumptive per person as the European fleet. Are we capable of such a transformation? Are we willing?
There is a kind of silver lining to this. Thanks to the weak dollar and our energy habits, more and more of the US is owned by the OPEC nations. Remember, we give them our dollars for petroleum. We burn the petrol up but they still have the dollars. They are so invested in us, they can't squeeze us till we hurt as it would also hurt them.
When I am stuck in traffic, I can't help feeling like the frog that Al Gore described in his movie - the one who can't sense slow change in his environment fast enough to get out and find safety. Is it getting warm in here?
[Source: The Nation]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Lou Grinzo 2:06PM (11/06/2007)
If plugging one's own work is allowed, let me point readers of this site to my recent presentation, The Oil Crunch, which they can download from my site in PDF format (link below). The file contains my PowerPoint slides plus extensive speaker notes, and was intended to help people with their self-education regarding our oil mess.
In short: Just as we're already seeing the early signs of the effects of global warming, long before we see major world cities flooded (assuming that happens at all), we're already experiencing the oil crunch, the pre-peak tightening of markets as cheap oil is increasingly replaced with hard to find, harder to extract, and harder to refine oil reserves. We've been in the crunch for years, and unless we make some dramatic changes to our worldwide oil consumption, things will only get far more "interesting" for years to come.
http://www.grinzo.com/energy/downloads/theoilcrunch09x20x2007.pdf
Reply
Charles S 2:19PM (11/06/2007)
I don't want to get into Peak Oil, because these words, like many others, have been so tarnished that all they'll do is start a flame war.
What I want to get into is how realistically people will react to the prospect of high fuel prices. There is always going to be that psychological factor where people panic and then suddenly they'll be interested in EVs and Hybrids again. But if this new spike is anything like the last 3 years, people will be buying trucks again by summer.
The bottomline is that fuel conservation is not a high priority in purchasing decisions. People will buy what they WANT to buy, and view fuel as maintenance cost, not as a finite source. Even at $7 a gallon in Europe, not all cars are gas-misers there.
Reply
Throwback 2:51PM (11/06/2007)
Well put Charles s. This is the basic problem with CAFE. People will buy what they want. There is much hand wringing over how car companies (domestics are usually singled out) don't build high mileage cars, and force us poor gullible consumers to buy their trucks. The fact is if good gas mileage was a priority for most buyers, fuel efficient cars would dominate the sales charts. There are many high mileage cars available, every mainstream automaker sells them. We Americans (in general) prefer our vehicles big.
Reply
Ernie 4:05PM (11/06/2007)
"When I am stuck in traffic, I can't help feeling like the frog that Al Gore described in his movie - the one who can't sense slow change in his environment fast enough to get out and find safety. Is it getting warm in here?"
And yet you, as an ABG author still commute to work in that 8 year old car that "drinks heavily in those conditions"? Ever consider telecommuting 3 or 4 days a week? Or *any* of the half-dozen other methods of getting to work?
Personally I solved this dillemma last year. I moved to within walking distance of work. I'm also right next to a rapid transit line in a fairly walkable neighbourhood. These were the criteria for my new location, and it's paying off in spades. Not only do I save money by not owning a car and save the environment, I've freed up 7.5 hours per week of valuable, irreplacable time.
Reply
fnc 4:44PM (11/06/2007)
I'm able to get around 27 miles per gallon out of a ten year old six cylinder small truck. That's mostly highway driving, obviously. I'm ginger on the throttle, coast to lights, and keep it close to 55 mph. This truck was rated at 22 mpg new. In other words, I'm able to get somewhere around 10-20% improvement in efficiency JUST by changing my driving habits. And I see people zooming by me on the interstate every day, zipping around me just to sit in front of me at the next stoplight, etc. Americans are such an impatient people.
I don't think it will be easy dealing with the future of our fuel needs, but at the same time I think there are a LOT of areas we can improve efficiency without even using new technology while we work toward our goal. When America actually gets serious about conservation, I think it will amaze everybody what we can do. But, the will has to be there to begin with, and it's unfortunate that high prices (for everything, nothing gets to us without gas) will have to be that motivator.
Reply
Charles S 5:31PM (11/06/2007)
I do not know what the author does, but I do have to defend him by saying that it's not easy to ask people to uproot themselves for the sake of being closer to work.
Perhaps if one is assured that the job will never go away, maybe moving is a good choice. If one owns a home, it's probably not easy selling in this economic climate. What about the kids? What if the grandparents can't travel to see the grandkids after you've moved. There are many reasons why people have to commute. Of course, it would have been nice that all cities/citizens supported public transportation, too.
It is a mixed bag when it comes to high gas prices. Some say that the market will cure us of our bad habits, but it will be a very painful lesson for those who do not have the resources to cope.
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 12:58AM (11/07/2007)
Hillary Clinton's plan for increasing the CAFE standard takes until 2030. We don't have until 2030. When gasoline prices become high enough, people will change their habits.
One aspect that gives me hope is that America's energy usage is so very wasteful that when we finally do start making changes, it will have a dramatic effect.
Look around when you're in the next traffic jam and observe how many vehicles have only one occupant. Around where I live, it will be almost all of them. Increasing occupancy to just two DOUBLES the miles per gallon. That is a dramatic difference. Even more gas is saved because it also decreases the number of vehicles on the road, so less traffic jams, and less time spent idling in place getting zero mpg. More carpooling, transitioning to smaller vehicles and more telecommuting will make a tremendous reduce our gasoline usage.
In my business, electronics, working close to home is very difficult because of the constant threat of layoffs. During the time I was there, my last employer had layoffs every three months for over two years. That's not the sort of situation where you want to spend losts of money to purchase a home close to work. Somehow I escaped all of those layoffs and found a job closer to home. Six months after I left, my entire group at the old company got laid off, including my boss and his boss. It's not just that company, it's virtually every company in this area that's been behaving the same way. Periodic layoffs are part of the corporate structure.
I have a friend who is a teacher in an elementary school, and has held the same job for 20 years. She lives just around the corner from work and can walk there. If you have that sort of situation, great, but not everyone can do that.
Reply
bill 10:07AM (11/07/2007)
Sigh, another moaning and groaning story about a problem we have created for ourselves. We are awash in available oil sources, but we insist upon not drilling for the oil for reasons that are just dumb. Yeah, yeah, the environment is important but so is using some semblance of common sense when making energy decisions. Ethanol - you must be joking.
Reply
Bill 10:58AM (11/07/2007)
Don't forget most oil resources have been nationalized, often with Western oil companies kicked out in favor of national firms or Chinese oil companies.
But the latter don't have the technical expertise and capital necessary to fully exploit the oil fields.
When Hugo Chavez lambasts an executive of the national oil company for not attending the opening of a local school, you know maximizing oil production is no longer a priority in Venezuela:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06213/710226-28.stm
Ironically, nations would have much greater output (and significantly higher income) if they had allowed BP or ExxonMobil to stay and run their fields.
Reply
Richard 2:32PM (11/08/2007)
As Ernie pointed out, how about NOT using fuel or cars in an effort to conserve. Walk to work, bike to work, bus to work. We also bought a house near to our work and my wife and I can now walk to work each day. No parking, no traffic, no stress. There seems to be this misdirected effort to find alternative fuels for everything. The problem is not the fuel source, the problem is the overconsumption and wastefulness of this North American culture. The government certainly isn't going to hand-hold you into a less consumptive behaviour. If you're too lazy to get off your ass and do something to improve your own situation, then you pay the price.
There are plenty of alternatives out there: solar panels on the house, geothermal in the house, better windows, passive solar heating, building above and beyond current building codes, programmable thermostats (does anyone use them for what they were designed?), compact fluorescent lights, drip dry your laundry. Think and research for yourself.
Reply