Jared Diamond, the author of the two very interesting books "Guns, Germs and Steel" and, more recently, "Collapse", has an interesting column in yesterday's New York Times. By his estimation, individuals in the developed world (about 1 billion people) consume resources about 32 times faster than those in the developed world (about 5.5 billion). That means developed nations consume about 85% of total world (human) consumption. This gap is too wide. In our electronic age, most everyone knows how big the gap is, and the knowledge creates jealously and friction. It fills our newspapers with frustration and violence all over the developing world.

Despite the staggering difference in consumption levels, Jared is cautiously optimistic. He feels the developed countries will realize that high consumption rates are not directly required to live a comfortable life. He mentions Europe as an example. Use of petro-fuels there is about half as much as in the U.S. yet their quality of life is the same or better than our own. He feels our consumtpion rates can and will drop so that there is a smaller gap. Rates in the developing countries, notably China and India are rising already. Of course, all this has to be done while dropping our world carbon footprint enough to keep our climates from getting too warm. This is the challenge we must all face in the next decade or so. Are your ready?

[Source: NYT]

On October 22, 2007, Newsweek columnist George Will wrote his column entitled "An Inconvenient Price." He was dissecting a new book by economist Bjorn Lomborg entitled "Cool It - The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming. Based on that column, I got the book and have spent the intervening months reading it. Mr. Lomborg is a very lucid economist but I don't find his writing all that easy to follow. I need to visualize informaation and the are no graphs or tables in the book. In other words, this is a serious read. That's OK. The main point so far is that cooling global warming is an objective among several other worthy objectives. Lomborg says we shouldn't sacrifice the world economy for global warming without considering the negative impacts (aka suffering) it will create. His case is compelling but I am not fully convinced. He does point out how alarmists have been exploiting recent weather changes. Higher world temperature are likely to be caused by warmer night and winters rather than higher summer peak temperatures. I will have to keep reading.

Lomborg writes like he has been out to the year 2100 and returned to tell us what is out there. I would prefer he just go out to 2020. There are just many too societal interactions and too much time between now and then - 93 years. Would anyone trust predictions from 1907 about how life would be in the year 2000? I wouldn't bank on it.

I am more concerned about the next 12 years because that is when you and I, dear ABG reader, will have our biggest influence on the present and future. Will we be driving fuel cell vehicles or hybrids or walking in 2020? Judging from how many 1995 vehicles are still on the roads of the US (probably more than all our Toyota Priuses) there are still going to be millions of 2008 models looking for a fill up. If you remember 1995, you can probably think as far out as 2020. Beyond that, things get pretty cloudy for me.

Carpooling is a great way to cut your carbon footprint. Throw another warm body in your car and you halve your carbon emissions per person. You also halve the amount of traffic you create if previously have both gone SOV (single occupancy vehicle). It is also a great way to justify your SUV. A commuting SOSUV is about the worst single thing you can do for the environment, the energy shortage and local traffic conditions (sorry to harp on that but its the truth, folks).

I carpooled in the 1980s. Same working hours from the same neighborhood to the same destination and back. Is it as convenient as driving your own vehicle? No. Do you lose that precious privacy SOV use allows? Yes. But do you save money? Oh boy, do you! Do you gain some lively conversation and gossip time? Ditto. Carpooling is a social good and a chance to discuss the events of the days - sports, politics, kids, whatever. Why it might almost be as good as Rush Limbaugh or Imus in the Morning!

One advantage 21st Century car pooling has over prior years - cell phones. No one is incommunicado. You can adjust departure and arrival times down to the minute. Another advantage: MP3 players. Passengers can plug in their ears and "opt out" of any on-going discussion. One item that needs further attention, however, is insurance coverage.

So, if you want to put about $20 extra dollars (about 6 gallons) a week back in your wallet instead of giving them to the Canadians, Mexicans or OPEC, find someone willing to car pool with you. Twenty dollars a week adds up to about $1,000 a year for each of you. Also means less service cost for your car, extending its life and value.

Carpooling + Cell Phones + MP3 Players = Perfect Together!!

(Thanks to Tom P)

Greenbacks! That is the other green. How much have Americans paid to move themselves around in 2007 vs. prior years? Well the Energy Information Administration monitors fuel prices all over the country to tell us. Money, as you know, is convertible into all kinds of things. We can turn it into food, housing, clothing, fun or mobility. Many families are finding they are spending more on mobility and hence have less left for those other necessities. Our memories are not so short that we haven't forgotten Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, et al., when average national gas prices peaked at almost $3.10 a gallon. But then they dropped back to $2.20 a gallon in the winter of 2005-6. Almost the same thing happened in 2006-7. But look at the curve for 2007 - 8. No drop. We are still at $3 a gallon. This is what makes the Teslas, Apteras, and Brammo bikes or the biofuels and plug-in hybrids you read about on ABG so interesting. How can we convert our dollars into mobility at a reasonable and sustainable total cost?

If someone really needs an SUV, they should by all means get one. Let them take it to the hills or to their favorite fishing spot. But if not, leave them on the showroom floor or on the used SUV dealers lot. When it costs $40 to fill up even a small car's gas tank, many people feel pity (or contempt) for the 50 million or so SUV owners. Because so much of the fuel we are burning is imported (almost 2/3rds), we are exporting our hard earned greenbacks to OPEC and other oil producing nations. We burn up the petroleum in a few days but the dollars stay in their bank accounts to be invested however they see fit. If they invest wisely, they can be set for generations, even when their petroleum is gone.

Before there are enough Teslas and Apteras, biofuels and plug-in EV stations to make an impact on global warming and local emissions, we need to change the way we use our current vehicles. That is also a vital part of being green.

An 800 lb gorilla. That is what our own Al Gore called the U.S. while at the UN Climate Change meeting. Now, I know Al Gore is not a big hero with everyone who reads this website, but I respect his honesty. All the Chevy Volts and Opel Flexstreams, Segways and Vectrix vehicles won't look so good in the driveway IF the driveway is under water, in a fire-ravaged region of the country, or if the owner of said driveway is unemployed. The simple truth is we can't wait until 200 million hybrids/EVs/fuel cell vehicles appear to start reducing our carbon footprint. That will take about 20 years! We have to start NOW, right here in 2007. Or, at the latest, in 2008.

I am half transportation enthusiast and half energy/environment enthusiast. I enjoy driving when I do drive, but I do so as as little as possible. The U.S. uses 21 million barrels of oil a day - more than any other nation by far - and we are hoping the rest of the world will cut back on their global warming production rate so we can keep driving like there is an infinite oil supply! That is what our policy has been - protecting our old industry economy while other nations aggressively embrace new technologies. Maybe that is why the Japanese make the best hybrids, the Danes make the best windmills, and I don't know who makes the best photovoltaics. Is it the U.S.? Hope so. Others are taking the lead in new energy technologies while we resist change as the Congress did by not adopting a Renewable Fuel Standard in the new energy law.

Remember that pollution is a local problem but global warming and peak oil are global problems. Al Gore sees this but most of us don't want to admit it. Of course Al and the IPCC could be wrong - scientists have been wrong before. Even if they are, is it so bad to cut back a few hundred gallons of oil this year? Or to buy a car that only weighs 1.5 tons instead of 2 or 3 tons?

So, if you get up in the morning and the face staring back has a few more simian traits than it had previously, check the vehicle on the driveway. Is it parked or moored?

I attended a luncheon where Michael J. Stanton, President and CEO of the Association of American Manufacturers, Inc (AIAM) was the speaker. AIAM represents 14 firms who import and/or build vehicles in the U.S. The biggest, by far, are Toyota, Honda and Nissan, followed by Subaru, Kia, Hyundai and several others, including Ferrari. As Stanton stated, "Our member firms produce 31 percent of the vehicles made in the US and 40 percent of those sold." Stanton acknowledged that the new law will raise fuel economy standards to 35 MPG by 2020 which will decrease CO₂ emissions compared to current (that is, 32 year old) legislation. Sadly though, if signing the Energy Bill was a victory and something to celebrate, that celebration is mainly happening in Detroit and Farm Belt corporate offices. It will also resound in the executive suites of OPEC member nations.

Mr. Stanton's celebratory comments extended to the EPA decision to not grant the California CO₂ waiver. The AIAM is apparently satisfied with some CO₂ reduction but not too much. He raised the canard that it is not good business to have two U.S. standards for fuel economy. However, he did not mention that AIAM is already busily responding to EU and Asian fuel efficiency standards or that, if there is to be one US standard, why not choose the tighter one - the California standard that 16 other states have already agreed to accept - worth about 43 MPG by 2016? (Actually, the info packets distributed included a comment that 95 percent of the vehicles made by AIAM members already meet current CA standards.) Or, since CO₂ is a world-wide problem, why not combine all the various continental standards into one global standard so that no nation's drivers overly burden the world's atmosphere. After all, we all share the same air. Finally, if we cease meeting different national standards, the combined engineering power should be able to reach a very high but reasonable efficiency standard.

I still think that driving is mainly about getting somewhere comfortably using the fewest resources. Improving fuel economy seems to be a wise investment in keeping the US auto industry alive. If we make them for a world market who knows, maybe we could export a few?

I just read the ExxonMobil advertorial in the NYTimes. The second in a 3-part series, this one is titled "Energy close to home." It is a very well-done piece that cherrypicks information. For instance, while admitting that the US is the world's leading oil consumer, it notes we are the No. 3 oil producer. It doesn't mention the we are No. 3 out of about 80 countries providing oil to the US economy. Nor does it say we are No. 3 but slowly declining in production or that the U.S.-sourced portion of our oil supplies is only about one third of our needs.

To be sure, we need U.S. and ExxonMobil oil production - I use about four gallons a week myself - and I credit the geologists and petroleum engineers of the world for getting it to us. After all, we need it to keep ourselves moving while we transition to the vehicles you read about here on ABG and their non-petroleum energy sources - biofuels, hydrogen, renewable electricity, plus the alternate lifestyles global warming will require - more biking, walking, telecommuting, etc. The point is we can't live a 21st century life using 20th century habits, not if we want to remain a strong and free society.

The advertorial is meant to attack the U.S. policy of keeping certain energy resources "off limits" to current exploration and production. While tempting, isn't it best that we sip rather than slurp up the last of our remaining petroleum sources? After all, once we use it all up and we are not done transitioning, what do we do then? Turn all our petroleum-dependent vehicles into horse drawn buggies or large planters? Our oil has to last till about 2050. That is a stretch.

Imagine a classic radio announcer's voice in a static-filled newscast. He says:

"Ladies and Gentleman: I am standing at a Washington, DC gas station. You can see the cars lining up. Due primarily to a shortage of rubber needed for the war effort, gasoline is to be rationed to avoid unnessary driving. Normal citizens are limited to just 4 gallons a week. Others can get more gas if they have special needs or obligations such as police officers, doctors, and religious leaders. People are not happy about this rationing on top of the food rationing already underway and the Victory Gardens everyone is growing in addition to putting all the time in on jobs and on buying war bonds. Still this what everyone is doing because it justs seems to make sense. All Americans want to see this war won and the soldiers, sailors and airmen back home as soon as possible. People who act like there is no war on are the ones that everyone else frowns upon. Hopefully, US citizens will never have to ration fuel again."

Gas rationing did reduce the amount of driving during the Second World War but there were a lot of holes in the system. Gas rationing of a sort occurred 31 years later during the 1973 Energy Crisis (limited sales to each customer) and then about 8 years later during the Iran Crisis (odd-even gas rationing). Again, Americans just sucked it up and generally complied until the emergency was over. Now, in late 2007, we have been at war (in Iraq and Afghanistan) for nearly 5 years but we haven't really had to sacrifice anything for the war effort. Will gas rationing ever be needed again in the US? Will Americans used to unlimited travel on the interstate highway system and long daily commutes be able to adjust? Our grandparents did. It happened 65 years ago, and . . . You Are There!

Remember the "Back to the Future" movies staring Michael J. Fox? Remember the Professor character played by Christopher Lloyd who refueled his DeLorean-based time machine with banana peels and half-filled beer cans? Well, we are approaching a similar solution. Not banana peels for fuel, but pond scum instead. Pond scum biodiesel fuel!

Diesel fuel is a small market next to gasoline - only 40 Billion gallons a year or thereabouts compared to about 140 Billion gallons. Still 40 Billion is nothing to laugh at. Biofuels production in the U.S. is still under one billion gals/year. In all of Europe it is 1.4 billion gallons. To ramp up production may cause as much disturbance in soy and other oil-rich crops as ethanol has caused in corn and other food prices. But algae, well that's another story. It grows where and when people don't want it. It is part of nature's system of reprocessing chemicals in water and air, powered by sunlight. Algae grows very quickly and, like all plants, it eats CO₂.

I am not a biologist. The information on algae biodiesel is available in the Nov. 3 issue of BusinessWeek's What's Next section. One venture firm is Imperium Renewables of Seattle, which readers will likely be familiar with. Investments and research are now underway to get to the most commercially viable production system and to get that system up to sufficient size. What strain of algae is most productive and resilient? Which is easiest to process to biofuel?

A production rate of 8 billion gallons a year would allow every US gallon of diesel fuel to be B20 biodiesel. I just hope we get the algae to work with us. What if the best kind of algae for biofuel smells like skunk? Or eats thru piping? Or is toxic to the touch? We'll have to go to the near future to find out.

[Source: BusinessWeek]

AutoblogGreen is about keeping a self-selected group of auto enthusiasts informed about the latest advances in green auto technologies. We are the early adopters, the best-informed among our friends, the trend setters. But, in the great scheme of things, we are too few. In the great battle (and that is what it is) for the remaining petroleum resources in the world, we are small change. What is needed is a much larger group of people who think it is important to be green now, and to self-ration fuel now.

For example, a Hummer uses about 1,000 gallons to drive 12,000 miles. That is enough to give three Priuses (or similar) 12,000 miles of travel each. Even if you can afford the gasoline at the likely price of $4 a gallon in 2008 ($4,000) the fuel is gone and the CO₂ generated.

What can the great American public do with its existing fleet of vehicles to save fuel? We can drive a little less. Combine trips. Save up some fuel for the special trip to Aunt Bessie, by cutting down trips elsewhere. Does it sound like an energy diet? It is.

Un-American you say? Not so, dear reader. The tale of the tape, according the U.S. DOE Energy Information Administration, is that we have done it all before. Using numbers rounded to the nearest 100 miles, the average US car was driven 10,000 miles in 1970. In 1980, during the Iran Hostage Crisis, it was down to 8,800 - a 12 percent decrease. In 1990, we were up to 10,500 miles and in 2000 we were at 12,000 miles. In 2004, the number was 12,500. It might be 13,000 for 2007.

Cutting U.S. average miles 12 percent would mean cutting back . . . to about 11,500 miles - still a substantial distance. But we need 200 million drivers to think "Is this trip really necessary?" before they turn the ignition key. Doing so would mean an unexpected fuel glut for several months causing lower prices at the pump and easing pressure on our rapidly weakening dollar.

It will take more than a decade to substantially replace the U.S. auto fleet with the technology you read about on AutoblogGreen. While that is going on, we have to cope with our current energy situation. Let's keep the Happy in Happy Thanksgiving.