President Calls for Less Driving

Remove all ads!

Today in the NYT: President calls for less driving to conserve gas

Maybe he finally saw the light, and became a born again conservationist (as opposed to conservative).

(since NYT requires registration, and that makes things a pain, I will quote liberally from the article).

but wait:

No word about imposing tighter mileage standards. Relaxing environmental and transportation rules, that's the way to go. And of course, the peons (employees) should take the bus. I do not know if people outside US fully realize how laughable this suggestion is.

Some historical footnotes (to put things in perspective)

Also, as you might guess, the ANWR issue has to be brought up:

 

Why is it so contraversial to cut down on energy consumption? We have a good policy here, where the less electricty we use, the cheaper it becomes.

Public transport is good, and we don't feel the need to drive SUV's to our friends houses... Walking and cycling is good for us.

 

Because that would cut big in the profits of energy companies. And we all know who owns this administration (or we ought to). Just look at the previous careers of Bush, Cheney, etc.

Of course, some people just resent government regulation on principle. They want to be free to do whatever they want; if this means that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, so be it.

 

...and to think that all it took for GWB, et. al., to see the sense behind conservation was two major hurricanes that attacked the oil rigs out in the Gulf. We should have arranged for it sooner.

 

IMHO, Western society as a whole is going to come face to face with the fact that they cannot consume energy and resources at the same ravenous rate as they have for the past century. Not unless there are some serious changes, that is. I'm glad George has seen the other side. I believe, however, that the Green people are also going to have to realize that their New Age pipe dreams are not going to fly. Drilling in many areas is going to happen, as the demand for energy will not drop as much as they dream it will.

 

While I'm all for conservation and "driving less" this is laughable for a large portion of the country - the portion for which mass or public transportation (or even walking or riding a bicycle for that matter) are not even an option, indeed, not even a possibility.

 

How about first making the best use of what we have, and then looking for new resources. When average mileage for cars will go over 40 miles per gallon, and there is still a crisis, I will (grudgingly) agree to drill in the ANWR.

So far, though... I am watching ads on TV for some new 2006 van models, and a big selling point is that some of these cars go 26 miles per gallon (highway driving). It makes me want to cry; my 1996 Nissan Sentra gets 38 mpg (again, highway). But of course, is not a V8 engine, suitable fot towing a small house. For comparision, the Ford Explorer SUV model 2004 (one of the most popular ones, I think) gets under 20 mpg.

But how about this: GM sells a minivan which gets 50 mpg. In China. Granted, they don't go very fast (80 miles per hour top speed) and they are rather flimsy, but it seems hard to believe they cannot make a model suitable for the american market without sacrificing 50% fuel efficiency. However,

article here

 

One of the reasons that America's economy dwarfs that of any other country is that we do not rely on government regulation as the first resort.

Sure, we could mandate higher MPG, but that comes at the expense of safety.

Ford on its own has announced plans to make 250,000 hybrid vehicles by 2010. It required no government regulation. Honda and Toyota are making a killing (IIRC) with their hybrids.

That said, there are a lot of people who do not want lighter, more dangerous vehicles. I know if I were buying one for my daughter I would want some protection around her.

So let Bush use the bully pulpit. Just do not try to force things with more regulation. If energy becomes scarce, then prices and the free market (remember that?) will force change.

 

Eh, let's say that if you buy an SUV, you'll be safer. How about the other people on the road? You think they'll be/feel safer? How about when all people will be driving SUV? Will you be safer then than in a situation when everybody is driving small cars? Read some stuff about these issues here (granted, they are hardly unbiased, but the data they cite is government data).

This does't even take into account the SUV propensity for roll-over. How about this:

From the same article some other fascinating insights: why are car companies selling SUVs? Because the profit is much higher than on a car.

Some fascinating stuff.

Oh, and the reason that "America's economy dwarfs that of any other country" is mostly that USA is pretty big. The only countries roughly the same size are Russia, China, Brasil; not exactly a fair comparision. Also, California, one of the most heavily regulated states in the US, has one of the biggest economies.

 

I should point out that you are able to collide with more things than just other cars.

Regardless of what you hit you will be safer in a larger car. Please note that I did not say "SUV."

(The comment about country size creating a large economy is laughable. Explain Japan.)

But yes, that is off-topic. To the original post: I find it reprehensible that every American president who encounters gas supply difficulties turns to the SPR. It is doubly stupid when the problem with prices now is not a lack of crude oil, but a lack of refineries. All they have in the SPR is crude, so what good is releasing some of it going to do?

In any event, it was created for use in WAR in case our supply was cut off. It was not created for PR purposes.

 

Thought experiment:

Imagine Clinton had presided over $3+ per gallon gasoline, and had suggested that Americans conserve gas by driving less. What would the Republicans have said?

 

The problem with "goverment regulation" and economic growth and success, it doesn't seem to be so clear cut. In general you could say, there is no country nearly as liberal as Switzerland, therefore, Switzerland should be number one. Surely compared to the traditionally more socialistic inclined anglo-saxons: Canada, UK and (a tiny bit less) USA. And then the extremely regulated ones: Austria, Denmark, Norway, (Japan)

The whole thing does not look so clear cut to me. There seems to be a variety of regulation-concepts out there and there seem to be many paths to economic success.

obiter dicta...

2. Luxembourg $58198.22 per person
3. Norway $39843.23 per person
4. United States $39731.65 per person
8. Hong Kong $33990.43 per person
9. Switzerland $33635.99 per person
11. Denmark $32106.03 per person
15. Austria $31264.50 per person
16. Canada $31184.27 per person
17. Belgium $30509.45 per person
18. Australia $30447.98 per person
19. United Kingdom $29483.29 per person

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_gdp_cap

But talking about cars, oil and efficiency. It’s no wonder that the most developed cars in terms of efficiency come from the island that is highly dependant on resources from far, far away the only industrialized country with virtually no resources on, under and above it’s own soil. Ok, except fish, whales and snow.

The very same island that gets it’s oil from Arabia via super-huge tanks, especially developed to make a journey around the world worthwhile. So big, they can't even take the short-cut through Suez in those rare times of peace and non-blockage.

[ September 28, 2005, 00:02: Message edited by: Iago ]

 

Luxembourg.

Regulation-concepts:

1) Locate tiny country next to economic colossus.
2) Adopt far looser banking laws, and far stricter banking privacy laws, than said colossus.
3) Make the tiny country is essential to regional law-making, so the colossus can't squish you like a bug.
4) Build nice, private, underground banks so malefactors of great wealth from the colossus can conveniently deposit all those stacks of cash they don't want their own government to know about without ever having to step out of their Maybach.
5) Profit.

 

@Bion

It also doesn't account for standard of living in those statistics. For example, the average professional in China makes a shade over $30,000 per year. However, with housing costs being only about 1/3 as high in China as they are in Europe and North America, that $30,000 is worth more like $50,000.

Anyway, the whole problem with Bush's proposal to drive less is that most people are already limiting their driving as much as they can due to the high price of gasoline. Where do both myself and my wife do the largest amount of our driving (over 90%)? Going back and forth to work. In fact, other than errands on weekends (like grocery shopping) we don't do much driving other than back and forth to work. There is no public tranportation system in place that would be able to get me or my wife where we need to be. The closest train station to where I work is over 3 miles away, which is too far to walk on a daily basis - never mind I'd have to walk it twice a day.

With gas prices around $3 per gallon, believe me, the average Joe American is already limiting their gas consumption. It should also be noted that we are now entering the time of year where gas prices should be at a low point. Gas consumption increases in the summer because people go on vacations and do more driving. Gas prices go up in the winter because many people use gas/oil to heat their homes. The autumn is a time when you see people not going on vacations as much as the summer, and the temperature is still warm enough that not many people are using gas/oil for heat yet. So my question to Bush is, unless you want people to stop going to work, how are we supposed to be using less gas?

I really hope that hybrid vehicles are the way of the future, simply because I do not think an alternative fuel source can be developed and implemented any time in the next 10-20 years. The only way I see us cutting our oil consumption is by driving cars that use less oil. People will start to purchase hybrid vehicles as soon as it becomes cost effective to do so, which unfortunately it is not currently. The average hybrid in the U.S. costs $3,000 to $4,000 more than a similarly sized all gasoline powered vehicle. Once you add in the additional interest you'll pay on your car loan, the price is even higher. Although you will be spending less money on gasoline, it will take years of driving that car before you break even on your investment. So I think we need to start giving tax breaks on hybrid vehicles - or something of the like - to encourage more people to purchase them.

 

I was already riding the bus to school (even though it takes about an hour-and-a-half extra round trip when compared to driving), but that's mostly because MATC provides a free bus pass when you enroll. But 75 minutes each way in a bus full of people does give me a good chance to practice my ... theories.

 

I agree with Aldeth. People are already cutting their driving. The president is just using this as an opportunity to make himself look good.

Re: Iago's numbers (Hey, are we related?): See Bion's analysis of Luxembourg, and note that Norway's wealth is primarily from the oil the state sells. The U.S. economy flourishes due to a number of factors -- one of the top is less regulation (although international rankings by no means list the U.S. as the most free market). Others include American productivity (no 35 hours work weeks, and typical vacation is two weeks/year), good natural resources (even though we import a great deal of oil from Canada and Venezuela), and the fact that all of our women are hot and our men are virile.

 

Oh, no, no, no.

There is a misunderstanding (or Bion's Karl May style reading and interpreting).

If you compare the list and the link i gave, you'll see that I did some cut and paste to get rid of the small and tiny countries. Number one on the linked list are the Virgin Islands. Than I went and cut the Channel Islands out. It seems, Luxembourg passed the radar.

Go back and read my post carefully again.

-> Notice the groups I've made, i.e. USA/Canada compared to Austria/Denmark. In western continental Europe, the countries are usually seperated in those groups, gerading economical system, political system, social system and so on. Scandinavians (et al.), Mediterraneans (Italy, France), Central Europeans (or "Rhein-Kapitalismus) (Germany, Austria) and North-Europeans (Finland, Denmark).

Those countries are all different in their idealogical outlooks. They all got different political systems, market ideologies, social welfare organisation. Why do their economies end up so close together?

Given that the inital quote was -> We got that and that system, therefore we got that and that economical sucess.

See. That's the point (vacation, work-hours per week, wages, laws regulating the work-place, taxes). Because I've read your post and at the same day an article in my paper (NZZ) with the following Switzerland heading: is the most liberal country in economical matters! yet slacks economicaly behind Austria, the UK and Denmark, even if those are way socialist. Why ? why ? why ?
And all countries on this world get to hear that they should change into Switzerland (being a liberal-anarchistic gun slinging paradis (even if Switzerland isn't mentionend in those sermons by name, usually)). Yet we slack. Liberalisation of the work-place doesn't seem to be the remedy. Even if it's surely fashion.

My point about Japan, being on an island with nearly no resources and focussing on cost-efficency and energy-efficiency didn't get noticed at all.

[ September 29, 2005, 17:36: Message edited by: Iago ]

 

Well, its pretty clear to me that all countries with a modern society (and who did not just come out of a totalitarian regime less than 15 years ago) will tend to have more or less the same order of magnitude income per capita (indeed, it might be argued that one of the outcomes of globalization is to equalize such economic indicators). My point is that "America's economy dwarfs that of any other country" (in St. James words) in absolute terms because US is big (both in population, and in area) when compared with these modern countries.

For example, if you compare US with an similar size economic union (like the European union), it might be that the US economy will come out ahead, but it will hardly dwarf it.

I would agree that te particular type of political system (or economic ideology) may be responsible for corrections in this first order equality (and the exact rankings of the countries), but it hardly is the deciding factor.

 

Aldeth. Me too, I prefer purchase-power-paritity statistics. They paint a more truthful picture. Yet, way back before you joined, I was having some disputes over ppp and their lack of political correctness.

Using PPP statistics, all western, industrialized economies shrink considerably in size. And developing countries rise suddenly to the top. In a PPP statistic, China's economy is the second biggest of the world, more than 1/2 of the US economy.

And this, as consequence, means that the oil price will rise constantly over the next decades. Because the demand of those fast growing titans like India and China can't be easily fed with an equal enormous growth of crude-oil supply. The growth of demand will rise the price. And has risen already for all kinds of raw material.

And by way. That's more or less my opinion too.

[ September 29, 2005, 17:47: Message edited by: Iago ]