If We All Started Driving Priuses, We'd Consume More Energy Than Ever Before

My wife and I own a Prius, becoming one of the early owners of this innovative vehicle several years ago when the new version emerged. We bought it because it provided zero emissions and fantastic gas mileage. We get 42+ mpg locally and 52+ mpg on the highway.

In order to move technology forward in a positive direction, one needs vision, consciousness and, in the case of automobiles, a suppression of ego.

People have to be more conscious of their environment and the effects excessive fuel consumption has on it. Zero emissions is a good start.

In order to advance the technology, the market has to push it forward. Some people have the sense to see this. My wife and I encourage our families and friends to get rid of their gas guzzlers and smog emitters and buy a Prius, if they can. They will be helping to advance a better technology -- not perfect, but a big step in the right direction. We would prefer to be able to run the car on solar energy or be able to plug it in at home to recharge a 100% electric car, but Toyota is heading in that direction.

In this country, half the SUVs and trucks are driven out of ego, not necessity. If a man can get past his insecurities about aging, and flabby and small body parts, maybe he can feel good about getting into a smaller, well-built and fuel efficient machine instead of gunning around in a big ol' truck/SUV that is not used most of the time for hauling things except beer and chips.

As a Prius owner, we don't try to drive more because we get better mileage; we actually try to drive less. It's the consciousness about energy overconsumption and environmental stress that goes together with owning a Prius and consuming less fuel that keeps us off the road more these days.

Sorry, but the theory about driving more because of fuel efficiency is pretty much bull****.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Modern history has been a story of ever more efficient and plentiful extraction of energy -- with some temporary exceptions to that trend. Under those conditions, increased energy usage is likely to persist, especially when the technologies to make use of that energy continue to become more attractive and more affordable.

We are now moving into an era where new energy discoveries are coming less quickly and what it takes to extract or build them is taking more energy and/or other scarce resources to deliver a unit of energy to the consumer. There will be ups and downs, of course, but that does seem to be the general trend most energy forecasts call for. That will have an important impact on overall energy consumption, both due to price as well as limits on who fast supply can be expanded or the rate at which it will contract despite best efforts to increase it.

It is not a given that greater energy efficiency will lead to continual increases in the quantities demanded. In fact, it does not appear that there is a strong causal relationship between energy efficiency and increases in demand at all. A wider array of more attractive uses for energy, growing populations with the affluence to buy more energy, and rapid declines in the prices of technologies that use energy all have more to do with an overall growth in energy use than the Jevon's Paradox taken on its own.

A new era of energy supplies that decline and are not so easily replaced will likely usher in a different pattern. Conservation will become more important as prices rise rather than fall. As it now stands, efficiency and conservation efforts are generally more cost effective than investments in developing an equivalent quantity of new energy and at some point, if humans are half as rational as mainstream economists imagine them to be, that is likely to show up in quite a bit of conservation technology and lifestyle changes.

Bottom line: when tipping points are reached, it is not a safe bet that the future will unfold as the past once did. I think most people are aware of some significant tipping points coming into play. I am not sure how that got left out of the article. Nice bit of condensed history, though, for what it is worth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is there a point? As energy efficiency increases, so does consumption. Is that it? Ok, so? Is this supposed to somehow mean we shouildn't pursue energy efficiency? That's pretty silly.

What is the point? A person who drives a Prius is somehow encouraging increased oil consumption by the rest of society? That's pretty silly as well. So what is the point?

We use a god-awful lot of energy in our resource-wasteful society? Yeah, ok. But what's the point?

Maybe this article has no point! Pointless! Duh.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I was having this discussion with my Mentor and her husband around their dinner table just two weeks ago. The consensus was that electricity is wonderful, that if we all drove plug in vehicles our options on how that electricity is produced are so vast, compared to vehicles which operate on vegetable oil or petroleum products. Even if you still chose to plug into the grid, power could be generated in multiple ways, whether those options are excercised or not.

At home one could become independent, choosing solar or wind, and, there is also the possibility of augmenting the "plug in" with a tag along solar package. Possibilities grow. The plug in for the current Toyota vehicle is an after market addition which is... simply astounding.

What may be being forgotten is that, this, coupled with sky high fuel costs, could lead to a Huge Solar power boom. Could. Decentralized power. Strategically... this seems to make so much sense; diminished reliance on foreign Oil = diminished vulnerability to disruption of that Resource. With the rising cost of fuel, we are seeing just how vital Oil is to our economy. At this moment, without it... we are simply dead in the water.

At 16 M.P.G., it is costing me about $14 per hour to drive my truck, and, this is only for gas, it does not include maintenance or depreciation. That is with gas at $3.62 a gallon. At some point there will be a breaking point, at which a great many people will simply not be able to afford to drive their cars. Right now... yes... a great many people are suffering. Gas is now playing a significant role in many families personal budgets, but, how much higher? And, Winter is ending in the U.S. but another one grows near.

How will we, as a Nation, fare this coming Winter, if these prices are just the tip of the iceburg, and, budgets are eaten away by these rising costs this Sping and Summer -- at the pump, at the supermarket, everywhere we do business? Will we be ready for the staggering cost of heating our homes?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Make a better Car and The People will come.

I had a big laugh the other night.
‘Click and Clack’ from PBS were at the Car Show asking the Car Companies when they would?
Put out a good plug in Electric Car?
The Car Companies said the technology was still ten years off.

How about looking ten years in the past?

Did they ever hear of the EV1?

2234 were made from 1996-1999
It went 75 to 150 miles (120 to 240 km) per charge with Gen 2 nickel-metal hydride batteries. Recharging took as much as eight hours for a full charge (although one could get an 80% charge in two to three hours).

GM shredded the EV1 and made Hummers instead!

Toyota made the Prius
It is now a whole new Division.

Toyota is the number one Car Company in America and
G.M. is left sucking their exhaust.

Put the money in the Automobile instead of a CEO’s pocket and what do you get?
Return customers and a better product.

GM still refuses to build reliable, economical, comfortable, safe, beautiful cars.
Everyone else does while
GM is still making tanks.

Every time there is a gas crisis their company takes a beating.
G.M. builds is building dinosaurs so it can close all plants in the U.S.
It is an elaborate ruse to shut down factories and export jobs.
Their excuse is that they have to make more money instead of a better car.
Sound Familiar?

With that attitude soon there will be no bottom line to protect.

Bad engineering makes a crappy bed fellow.

G.M. shoots themselves in the Foot and
America in the Ass.

Job One well done!
Mr. Bad Wrench.
Destroy America by
Exporting good paying jobs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have read enough on this subject to come to the conclusion that hybrids do make a difference but in many cases the owners drive them more so the energy savings is nullified.

Also, with more and more people driving the hybrids are not helping because a year from now there are more cars which offset the savings from the hybrids.

I wonder too if people buy hybrid cars as an additional vehicle in their household? If that were the case then there is an additional vehicle that has to be produced to fulfill the needs of the masses. To produce a vehicle it does require alot of energy and raw material.

I just bought a new car which gets 32mpg vs 25mpg in my previous vehicle. I am concerned that I will drive more and lose the savings but I will make a conscience effort not to do so.

I do see more Prius's on the road and I think its a great thing. I wish they could get the price of them down and produce them faster.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yesterday, a bogus hit piece by Stan Cox that tries to blame the food crisis on ethanol and market supply and demand, when anyone with their eyes open knows that this is due to the subprime fraudsters dumping all their ill-gotten gains into commodities like corn and petroleum.

Today, we get an article that is full of vile and dishonest nonsense, such as this:

"In fact, Lovins has repeatedly been proven wrong when it comes to energy trends. In 1976, he predicted that renewable energy would be supplying 30 percent of the total energy demand in America by 2000. The reality was closer to 1 to 2 percent. And yet, "inexplicably" notes Vaclav Smil, of the University of Manitoba, "Lovins retains his guru aura no matter how wrong he is."

Well, Vaclev Smil is a guy who writes entires books on energy and doesn't include any mention of solar power (other than to smear it), so there you are.

When Reagan came in with the neocons and their Saudi buddies, he shut down the U.S. renewable energy program overnight, and began working hard to ensure that fossil fuels would continue to be the primary energy source in the U.S.

Alternet, I am afraid, is just as rotten as any of the other corporate media outlets, as is Democracy Now. The media crisis in this country is truly profound - it now seems very clear that many of these 501(c) nonprofit corporate news outlets are ruled by the very same interests who control the larger traditional corporate press.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is unmentioned, yet overrides the author's thesis, in the above excerpt is "the free market." The author, Robert Bryce, really believes "the free market" shall pull our butt out of this mess. Reportedly Bryce's politics are left-of-center, meaning Bill and Hillary Clinton, soft laissez-faire libertarian capitalist.

Reader review Amazon.com
A couple of his nuggets: oil imports are not a problem, they are a solution; even assuming that climate change is anthropogenic, many of the proposals are just silly money wasters; wind energy, solar, and ethanol are not going to solve any of our problems; let price play its legitimate role; and why lowering electric demand is folly.

His chapter 21 lays out a host of very common sense (based on the facts as they are not as we wish them to be) proposals: get government out of the energy business; accept interdependence of energy supplies, especially oil; accept increasing energy use and adapt to a changing global climate; develop technologies that use solar, nuclear, and encourage efficient consumption; increase domestic supplies and rely more heavily on natural gas.
Kenneth J. Malloy

Oh, yes, "the freeeeeeee market" will make us free! Not to mention rich(er). At least for certain segments of society--the upper one percent perhaps and its attendents in white-upper middle-class, suburban America?

The rest of us po' fo'k, in Bryce's world, will yet be chained to high utility bills, fuel guzzling old automobiles and inefficient public transportation. In other words little will have changed.

This is triangulation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OK, I don't really mean anyone here is stupid. But I wanted to reference Clinton I's successful campaign rhetoric. Yes, economics is important, but values and behaviors, as many here note, are more important. I can drive my ancient Mazda Protege in a way that gets me 23mpg in town, or I can kick it up to almost 30mpg by keeping the tires inflated and irritating drivers behind me with slower acceleration. Beyond even that, we need to think about changes in how we zone our cities so that we can avoid more or even undo sprawl. We certainly should stop subsidizing gas-guzzling vehicles and practices, and we should lower speed limits and encourage rail transport of goods.

But I'm reminded that I'm living in a dream world every time some Escalade or sports car blasts off from the green light like it's a drag race, even though gas is well over $3/gallon. Sadly, I'm in a minority, as are most of us here, and that's why, whatever you call it, this article has a useful and depressing point.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is one problem with his analysis. He says that the more efficient the thing, the more things will be made, using more energy; and sites fuel economy as an example.

Back in the 50's when there was 1 car for every 4 people, that would be true. But right now we have 1 car for every 1.2 people. There cannot be more cars than drivers. Efficiency in the transport sector WOULD signficantly alter the energy import of the country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I gave up my car for CTA (Chicago Transit Authority). They have some hybrid buses and I guarantee that I don't ride them more!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great, let's all NOT get a Prius because it might INCREASE consumption. What a stupid analogy. First of all there is the group that will NEVER drive a Prius, the "duh, I can afford to drive my big monster truck anyplace." THEY are the ones ultimately who will save us energy because THEY cannot afford the gas and won't admit it. And, it is not just the cars, it is ALL the vulgar consumption we do, from too much heat, too much air, too many leaf blowers, too many luxuries and too much overinflated egos that we deserve these things.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

look beyond the gas station and car dealership and we can see how we got into this transportation mess...

this is a huge country and does not have a one size fits all solution.... in many urban areas in the 1970's mass transportation disappeared.... in other areas, it never existed in the first place....

city taxes can not cover the initial costs of start up mass transportation....

the interstate system was originally built for civil defense not for an exit down to wal mart from the house....

decent business districts in cities were bulldozed for parking lots that raise more cash then business leases ever could....

railroad tracks are strewn all over this country unusable from decay and forgotten....

if your area does have mass transit, the fares are going up to keep pace with fuel costs that in many areas where it is actually cheaper to drive then take a bus (in our area, a monthly bus pass with 40 rides max is going up from $50.00 per month to $75.00 per month with less then a 30 day notice AND many routes are either being cut out all together or half the schedule is going to be gone).... not to mention busses taking 3 hours to transfer through 3 different lines to get 5 miles to work IF they run on time....

not getting into any other issues right now about carbon emissions or other hot button topics, just reality as it appears for now....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Right! This author ought to know! What oil company or car mfg does he work for?

I scrolled through the whole piece looking for substantive support for his claim that "efficiency won't reduce consumption" but couldn't find it.

Obviously efficiency alone won't reduce consumption unless the number of people consuming is reduced, or the number of gadgets requiring energy is reduced. Obviously efficiency alone won't solve the problem unless alternative energy sources are explored and developed -- a feat which, in my view, could and should have happened years ago, except for the lack of political will and greed of the sources that be. When was the last time there was any serious funding or emphasis placed on development of alternatives to oil? But there's money for an invasion into a country that has oil, and money to drill in the Arctic.

This country's values, for all the blathering done by the Repugs, are beyond corrupted and skewed. The people know it. When will the politicians catch on?

Tobi Dragert
Los Angeles

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks for the history. Good job. However, the title and arguments tend to push the idea that buying a Prius is not a good thing. One thing is to say that that alone will not solve the problem; another thing is to say that buying a Prius will make you drive more???!!! Are there any studies that come to that conclusion? Or is it just a "logical" assumption? I don't see how.
Of course, it would be ideal to give up the car altogether. However, that would need a cultural change, a reconstruction of cities and transportation systems, a restructuring of our whole way of living in the world. But in the meantime, why not try to be more efficient? What is wrong with that? All that effort to give us a context in history just to come to a conclusion based on an impression?
Culture is transformed through practice, based on a change in world view. Buying a Prius is a concrete action towards that change, within the limits of the alternatives that really exist. I praise the people who are taking the right action. Do not discourage that by using the "excuse" that it will not by itself save the planet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

that America HAD tons oF oil. Oil enough for all, for the distant future but that reality was destroyed. Not only did American oil companies export lots of this oil to make a buck but more importantly Americans pissed much of the rest away via abysmal waste. Anyone driving a vehicle today that gets less than 100 mpg is simply foolish.
Many Americans believe that governments should not dictate how the countries resources are controlled but they are happy to let the oil companies do the job. Go figure!
As long as the average American continues to elect greedy, millionaire bullies to rape and pillage this planet then America and the rest of us are toast.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'd suggest that it is not efficiency itself that leads to higher consumption of energy, but the falling costs of technologies and gadgets that lead to their increase in numbers and thereby, use of energy. Think about how much air conditioners and personal computers once cost; to many they were luxuries. Now, they are so affordable that they have become nearly "American rights". Let's call a spade a spade here: American consumers in large part are to blame for the position we are now in. You can argue that as for fuel efficiency, automakers have flooded the market with overweight dinosaurs with low MPG, but the people have the ability to choose to not buy them. As for the writer's claim that we are driving an older and therefore more "inefficient" fleet, I can only point out how wrong that assertion can be. I drive a 1991 VW GTI (built in 1990, that's 18 years old folks) that gets me 33.5 MPG on the nose as an average. Compare that to most cars of today.

The trouble is that too many people take into account their wants more than actual needs. My car does what I need it to do, and does it comfortably with good economy. It seems that lots of people rather buy based on the fact that "someday" they might have to carry 8 people and drive up 35% grades or through rivers. But come on, in reality the vast majority of the time I see these beastly SUV's with one solitary driver sitting in rush hour traffic.

In 1981 (that's 27 years ago) our family of four had a VW Rabbit diesel that got us where we needed to go, and did it between 50-55 MPG.
It was no frills transportation, but the technology was there. So ditch the televisions in the headrests, lose the power everything, and stop thinking 4WD is a necessity, or suck it up and pay what the rest of the world has been paying for gas for years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This Robert Bryce PR pushout is very large - see here for more:

The Impossible Dream of Energy Independence - Energy Analyst Robert Bryce Explains Why Trying to Make All Our Own Power is a Foolish Idea

Brian Doherty | February 20, 2008
In his forthcoming book Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of “Energy Independence” (PublicAffairs) Robert Bryce, managing editor of Energy Tribune and author of Pipe Dreams: Greed, Ego and the Death of Enron, grapples with what he detects as a growing belief, both among policy elites and the public, in “energy independence.”

- From "Reason Online: Free Minds and Free Markets"

Now from Mother Jones we have this ugly stinker:

The Seven Myths of Energy Independence
NEWS: Why forging a sustainable energy future is dependent on foreign oil.

By Paul Roberts May/June 2008 Issue
Myth #1: Energy Independence Is Good

Okay - this is exactly what Chevron and Exxon and the Saudi Royals and the Nigerian military dictators and the Chavez team and the Canadian tar sands people (who control the Guerilla News Network) would all have you believe - we need to continue importing foreign oil.

Yes, Alternet is working to further that agenda, as this article and their recent spate of B.S. articles on ethanol and the food crisis demonstrates.

See how incredibly ugly the culture has gotten over the past decade?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here are some Internet quotes about improving gas mileage.

The ideal speed for gas mileage varies from vehicle to vehicle, but it's generally somewhere in the 40-55 mph range. Mileage generally peaks around 40 mph and starts dropping again around 55 mph.

As speed increases, fuel economy decreases exponentially. If you are one of the "ten-over on the freeway" set, try driving the speed limit for a few days. You'll save a lot of fuel and your journey won't take much longer.

Stay within posted speed limits. Gas mileage decreases rapidly at speeds above 60 miles per hour.

Do 55-60 MPH instead of 65-70 MPH (or higher). The gas mileage improvement from doing this is well documented and very significant.

The sweet spot to get the best gas mileage for any vehicle varies by car -- generally between 50 MPH and 60 MPH.

Drive 55. Cars get the best gas mileage when they are driven around 55 miles per hour.

Always drive the speed limit, but when possible, drive 55.

Keeping your highway speed at 55 mph can improve you gas mileage by as much as 25%, compared to 75 mph.

Most vehicles are most efficient when cruising in their top gear at a relatively low speed. For example, a car with a five-speed transmission would be most efficient in 5th gear at 40 to 55 mph. Wind resistance increases exponentially with speed, so as your pace increases from this point, fuel economy drops dramatically.

Reduce your speed to save gas. Yes, this can be a tough one, but above 55 MPH small increases in speed mean big increases in wind resistance and corresponding drops in gas mileage.

At 65 mph you're burning 10% more fuel than at 55, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. At 70 you lose 17% of your fuel economy, and at 75 it’s 25%. The numbers get worse from there.

You can improve your gas mileage about 15 percent by driving at 55 mph rather than 65 mph

I could list many more quotes supporting a national 55-mph speed limit, but clearly it would be futile. Rather than slow down and save gas, Americans seem bent on driving off the peak-oil cliff at top speed.

What greedy stupid people we are!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Several posters offer interesting comments, but I would like consideration of the unholy (and secretive) alliance between the Oil industry, the Automobile industry and the Money people.

I suggest it exists, because what other explanation is there for the slow pace towards highly efficient and low energy consumption vehicles of all kinds. The gasoline-electric hybrid is considerably less efficient than, e.g. the diesel-electric hybrid. The straight gasoline engine is both less efficient and higher consumption than the diesel.

Why therefore are gas engined vehicles still marketed and promoted?

The Prius gives a consumption of, I suppose, ~48 mpg, averaged. (US gal) My perfectly standard Volkswagen group diesel gives 42 mpg in ordinary driving, or 50 mpg with gentle driving.

The promotion of gasoline has to be tied up to the fact that a varying amount, but approximating to 50% of crude oil will conveniently convert to gas. These powerful, because wealthy, interests do not want change until they have maximized their profits; a few seconds of consideration suggests the nexus between these interests.

Whatever happened to the Enginion company (Germany). They have what appears to be a fully functional, zero-emissions, heat engine. A modern steam engine with a shaft output of 110 HP. Why is it 'killed'?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great history.It has been documented that it takes about 17 years to change a fleet of cars. So by the time fuel efficient cars are all on the road 100% it could take many decades, the commercial transportation sector is still very wasteful.
Clearly life style change is in our futures, away from suburban living to a more centralized one.
and just what is the idea that more efficient vehicle's will make people use them more. That is both true and crazy at the same time.
Everybody must know the grave future we are headed to and change their habits.Dump those SUVs!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This author makes the assumption that people are motivated by nothing but greed, that they are incapable of acting for the greater good or even for the benefit of their children. Jevons' Paradox (actually it's an irony rather than a paradox) has been used by cynics for years to refuse to conserve because they say no one else will. It's a luxury we can no longer afford.

People are getting out of their cars. Gasoline consumption is decreasing. It's a slow process but it's happening and accellerating.

One more point: When Jevons did his analysis there was no reason to conserve coal. The negative effects of coal usage weren't recognized until years later. Jevons was just pointing out the counterintuitive effects of increased efficiency. He wasn't saying that it was a bad thing. With more and more people being killed every year in oil wars and the likelihood that this will only get worse with time, pretty much everybody today can see that oil consumption is a bad thing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Try converting your car to run on hydrogen and oxygen. It actually works. I'm surprised the big car companies haven't shot the guy who invented it. Google:run your car on water

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The funny thing here is that most of these postings and their writers would be painted as "un-American" or having a general hatred of America. What people seem to forget is that these folks are some of the biggest fans of the American experiment, and realize that criticism is part of a healthy populace. We may shake the tree, but only because we know our Nation could do so much better. Instead we see it continually slip toward second-class status in the global realm.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr Bryce is correct that historical trends of greater energy use occurs when the energy becomes affordable to more people. I am a Prius owner and I do not drive more because gasoline is STILL expensive at a 50% fuel saving. When he says "even if Congress mandated that the domestic auto fleet increase its average fuel economy to 44 miles per gallon -- a major increase over the 27.5 miles-per-gallon standard in effect in 2007 -- America's motor fuel consumption will still increase by 3.7 million barrels per day by 2025.", he fails to mention the projected comsumption which would occur without higher CAFE standards.
Automobile fuel efficiency is just a piece of the entire picture for energy efficiency, conservation, and independence. But it is a piece. Why the spin?
Mr Bryce is managing editor of Energy Tribune. I think that says it all. A combination of sucking up to corporations he works on behalf of and his self-consciousness with being part of the problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Priuses are not "zero emissions"...

But there's a lot of propaganda out there about how they're not what they're cracked up to be... that IS a load of crap. These American hybrid SUVs that get 25mpg are a crime! And these ignorant people buy them thinking they're being environmentally conscious!

Not everyone can afford a Prius, though there are used ones on the market now. The thing is, if you are going to spend $20,000 on a vehicle, don't buy what you'll look good driving around in, guzzling gas. Buy a Prius! Show the car companies we know they can do better and we won't settle for their oil company ass kissing anymore!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We continue to hear the classic religious view of the end of time among those who seem to have never heard of the Enlightenment.

Still we, enlightened, who realize that time goes on, even after civilizations crumble, do not yet agree on where to start in slowing down the race to what we can see will be wide-spread suffering. While we argue over where to begin, the inevitable crash keeps coming closer.

Citi Bank wants to operate on a larger global scale. I don't know anyone knows what the limits are for that. I don't know that what is good for Citi Bank is good for me.

Globalism, like the piracy of old, can be a parasite, flourishing in the absence of applicable laws. We can begin by rejecting the piracy of invading with intent to colonize other countries, even while that may seem good for profits.

The US has abandoned its committment to rule of law for the last 30 years. We might begin there to slow down the race to the wreck.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This book review is far too voluminous to attempt to respond to the excursions the author of the book wanders down in order to arrive at faulty conclusions. Let's just say that, except for the historical lecture which would require a reply by a historian, the rest of the author's theory is really a large mouthful of unconvincing blather. I gather that he assumes, nonsensically, that Americans will go out and buy five Priuses to replace their garage-full of gas guzzlers instead of having only one or maybe two hybrid vehicles, thence the increase in gas comsumption. Prius and Honda hybrid compact car owners generally are very conscious of the reason for owning a truly gas efficient vehicle [NO, NOTHING IRRATIONAL LIKE A HYBRID SUV, OR A HYBRID TRUCK, OR A HYBRID HUMVEE], they respect the effects on the coming shortage and high cost of fossil fuel, and are aware that a hybrid does a better job with respect to polluting emissions. THAT'S WHY THEY BUY A PRIUS ! The book author also seems blissfully unaware of the REALLY BIG gas guzzler in the picture, the US MILITARY. A suggestion: have the author read a piece by Michael Klare, posted on the Tom Dispatch Website (Tomdispatch.com) on 05/08/2008, entitled "Portrait of an Oil-Addicted Former Superpower". Klare's arguments are far more cogent than this author's flaccid, logic stretching exercise to construct an imaginary "scenario" < - - - - [and I hate that word !]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

fix it. Our author has done an excellent job of explaining how we got here. Predicting the future, like any other crystal ball activity, is a real toughy. I don't think any of us are going to be able to predict the future.

But, having said this I want to commend all of the Prius owners for having responded. Its a step in the right direction. All that our author was saying was that the step is too small. From what little I understand, he's probably right. Its a BIG problem.

He may be right. Energy independence may not be possible in the near future. But, it should be a goal. By the time we reach energy independence we will have pulled every trick in the book.

What do we do? We don't use fission until we are assured of the disposal of 25,000 year half life heavy metals. If we had Arthur C. Clark's elevator we might successfully drop them into the face of the sun. We don't. Forget fission for now. Sadly, we don't have fusion.

What do we do? We sequester carbon. We throw money into research. I keep hearing of lightweight high energy intensity batteries. They aren't happening.

The hydrogen economy hasn't appeared. The oil companies like it. They are planning on supplying the hydrogen. Thry might get fooled on that.

New technologies take 20 to 40 years to develope. Some never make it. The electric automobile was the darling of little old ladies prior to the first world war. The lead batteries were too heavy and their energy pockets were too shallow. They still are.

Our current metal-hydride batteries are slight modifications of Thomas Edisons nickel-cadmium battery of 100 years ago. They must have been waiting for the patent to run out. They have to be run in a quite narrow sweet spot for them to have a long life.

They say nanotech is going to give us workable solar cells and batteries. I think we are all ready and waiting. Maybe we are impatient. We could use it right now.

One gallon in every twenty of diesel sold in western Europe by Shell is made from natural gas. There is no operating refinery in the U. S. doing that. We have been told, on occasion, that the U. S. has enough natural gas to supply itself for 10,000 years. How about sacrificing a 1,000 of that for self sufficiency?

Short term, we have not solved our carbon footprint problem. We don't have a choice. We must.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hello,

I have posted a few responses in this Comments section in defense of the article, but some of the comments stimulated me to look a little bit more carefully at Bryce's book.

I have not read his book and I only looked at the reviews on Amazon, but it seems that Bryce's book has some pieces that progressives (such as myself) would agree with and many elements that are essentially reactionary, pro-corporate, pro-unsustainable development and anti-conservation, anti-alternative energy. I might be wrong. But his association with the "Institute for Energy Research", which is (according to one of the Amazon reviews) a climate-change denial organization, is reason for alarm. The other Amazon reviews paint a complicated and mixed picture, with some claiming he is "too far to the left".

In short, the excerpt that has been presented here by Alternet may not be representative of Bryce's true views. If that is the case, it will be discouraging that AlterNet chose a review that misrepresented the author. As the excerpt stands, I agree with it and believe it is an excellent analysis. I also continue to disagree with the responses to his article above, taking the article and those responses as they stand, without further context. The relationship between increased efficiency and increased energy use is a very important one to struggle with, and Rune had some very useful and insightful comments along these lines.

But if Bryce, or anyone else, feels that "energy conservation is unimportant" or that "alternative energy sources are irrelevant" than I strongly disagree and I do not want to be associated as a supporter of individuals espousing those views. I don't see those views in the article here, but I am now very skeptical about Bryce and need to learn more about his book and his standpoint, and I will consider it a disservice if AlterNet, in fact, posted an excerpt from a book by a climate change skeptic and anti-alternative energy maven without revealing that information by properly including a review that gave a representative picture of the book.

Dan Nissenbaum

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The prophet Jeremiah claimed, "Without vision, the people cast off all restraint." At the center of the phenomenon Mr. Bryce so accurately recounts is the myopia of the dominant US public policy for the last twenty-eight years. Thirty years ago, our nation was in the midst of an "energy crisis," too. It was no surprise. Intelligent people had been pointing for years to dwindling petroleum resources and the need for a long-term vision toward a sustainable future. Intelligent people in government, the Carter Administration, urged restraint and conservation; adjust the thermostat, light fewer Christmas lights, take the bus. In the long-run we'd all be happier, but others protested, "Why wait?" Leadership changed. We were encouraged to consume, consume, and then consume more. Ownership was good. They who had the gold made the rules. Conservation was for wimps. Even now, we are led to believe that it's patriotic to consume. Like a movie gangster making up with his moll after he's slapped her around, our current President says to us, "Here's $600, go buy yourself something nice." The fault for our current energy/economic crisis does not lie with we the consumer people, it lies with we the voter people. Until we begin to elect people who do not pander to the lowest common denominator, but lead with foresight, our red and blue politicians will only continue to bait us with oil-filled, energy independent candy into their dubious vehicles and then continue to abuse us once we climb back inside.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The main premise of this piece -- the insatiable oil greed of the US -- is a scam. Did you know that US oil consumption was about 15% lower in 1983 than in 1978? And that US oil consumption did not get back up to its 1978 level until 20 years later, in 1998? Check the "US oil consumption" chart at this UK site, or here at Earth Policy Institute.

After the oil shocks of the mid-70's, the US government put a slew of intelligent small programs into play, ranging from the President reminding people to lower their thermostats and wear a sweater indoors, to Federal grants for localities to set up ride-sharing programs, to Federal encouragement of energy research and conservation measures, to Federal subsidies for mass transit. There were solar panels on the White House -- which were torn out when Reagan moved in.

It is more than irresponsible to pretend that the American people have an unchangeable, unmanagable, insatiable power greed . Nationally, we significantly reduced our oil consumption in response to shortages, price hikes, and the big international shift in petro-dominance of the 1970's. And that was with a lot less alternative technology than we have now.

And remember, Carter was only a one-term President -- Reagan, who succeeded him, ran in part on a platform of "you don't have to worry about oil" -- and even at that, the programs put in place in the 70's kept on keeping on for years. This is just more neocon revisionist history.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why are all the hybrid vehicles so damned ugly?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The movie, "Who Killed the Electric Car" is a reasoned analysis of why a particular alternative technology failed.

Amory Lovins may have made a completely naive assumption that energy-efficient technologies would not be knifed in the back and its body left on the corner for the police to find, with a dripping trail of blood leading to the culprits' doors. In that respect, yes, Lovins is a wayward prophet, a real dum-dum in the ways of American economics. Bottom line, Lovins got it wrong. We're all quite sorrowful that Lovins missed his targets completely.

What shall I say to all of you who expect "technology" to clean up the twin messes of "peak oil" (the conservative way of fearing anything, on pure price only) and global warming / the big flood / the giant Arctic methane bomb / Mother Nature cuts the big smelly cheese and kills more in your yard than you can imagine?

I say, shelter your tiny R&Ds. See invention and product development as something that you shall do because God told you to be faithful, and so you must try to stop a huge sin. You are God's hands. You must make God's work manifest.

Translation for Buddhists: you are going to see an enormous amount of suffering soon enough, and out of compassion for so many people you can't take the do-nothing path, even if it brings just a bit of personal suffering on you.

Translation for Humanists: You shall have grandchildren or great-nephews and nieces. Taking care of them and loving them is something you were born to do -- evolution sculpted you to be loving to kids. The rest of us love kids too. Please, let's set up all our kids to have the pretty good life we had, not some horrible mess. Can we agree to do this?

- - -

In business, we must bite the bullet and somehow own our own Research and Development groups. We must try thousands of ordinary experiments. Then we must develop good products to the point that the inventions catch fire with 1% of the public. We do this because we have to, just as ordinary people sometimes nonviolently resist dictators because they have to. Nonviolent never ever meant noncourageous.

We need to develop good inventors. Do you think God drops them on you?

Now investigate business. Find out specifically why little guys can and can't succeed, like, no rent, no patent, no garage. Is it because inventors don't understand law? Because inventors don't get to meet good businesspeople? Do you have a garage? Ask why.

Now, let's examine the knife in the back of the electric car. Is the government too dry and technical for you? Is that why you need to turn on American Idol at this point? What can you do? Can you invest in good guys? Can you support laws that support good guys? Can you go to hearings? Can you help get a local or state legislator elected, even though the current electoral system is steeply tilted toward huge corps buying vast amounts of power?

Politically, many others of us must reach out to "ordinary people". I have dreamed of cheap billboards, blogs, and guerrilla advertising all over red and purple America. Let's view this world as not our own alone, but theirs too. If we need a million inventors, businesses and supporters, let's look for a few in the hinterlands. Are you, personally, willing to go to the crazy places? If you live in a rather crazy place, are you willing to put some volunteer up for a while?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yeah, yeah, nothing can ever change. From today's New York Times:

... Mass transit systems around the country are seeing standing-room-only crowds on bus lines where seats were once easy to come by. Parking lots at many bus and light rail stations are suddenly overflowing, with commuters in some towns risking a ticket or tow by parking on nearby grassy areas and in vacant lots.

“In almost every transit system I talk to, we’re seeing very high rates of growth the last few months,” said William W. Millar, president of the American Public Transportation Association.“It’s very clear that a significant portion of the increase in transit use is directly caused by people who are looking for alternatives to paying $3.50 a gallon for gas.”

Some cities with long-established public transit systems, like New York and Boston, have seen increases in ridership of 5 percent or more so far this year. But the biggest surges — of 10 to 15 percent or more over last year — are occurring in many metropolitan areas in the South and West where the driving culture is strongest and bus and rail lines are more limited.

Here in Denver, for example, ridership was up 8 percent in the first three months of the year compared with last year, despite a fare increase in January and a slowing economy, which usually means fewer commuters. Several routes on the system have reached capacity, particularly at rush hour, for the first time.

“We are at a tipping point,” said Clarence W. Marsella, chief executive of the Denver Regional Transportation District, referring to gasoline prices.

Transit systems in metropolitan areas like Minneapolis, Seattle, Dallas-Fort Worth and San Francisco reported similar jumps. In cities like Houston, Nashville, Salt Lake City, and Charlotte, N.C., commuters in growing numbers are taking advantage of new bus and train lines built or expanded in the last few years. The American Public Transportation Association reports that localities with fewer than 100,000 people have also experienced large increases in bus ridership.

In New York, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority reports that ridership was up the first three months of the year by more than 5 percent on the Long Island Rail Road and the Metro-North Railroad, while M.T.A. bus ridership was up 10.9 percent. New York City subway use was up 6.8 percent for January and February. Ridership on New Jersey Transit trains was up more than 5 percent for the first three months of the year.

The increase in transit use coincides with other signs that American motorists are beginning to change their driving habits, including buying smaller vehicles. The Energy Department recently predicted that Americans would consume slightly less gasoline this year than last — for the first yearly decline since 1991. ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what about the largest user of oil on the planet, the DoD. Wouldn't demand be dramatically impacted by real conservation measures by the worlds largest consumer?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am sure that over the last 30 years my consumption of energy across the board has gone down. The machines I use and the energy consuming appliances etc. that are part of my life have only become more efficient. So someone explain outside of population growth where all this energy the author talks about is actually being increased.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

These stats are telling. Note that we use about 21 million bbl/day out of the world's total consumption of about 81 million bbl/day! Aren't WE special! The "West" (U.S., Canada, E.U., U.K. and Japan) consists of about 850 million persons vs. 6.3 BILLION persons in the "rest" of the world, but we are sucking up the majority of the energy resources. Any wonder they see us as nasty piggies?

Up until now, there wasn't much they could do about it, and they did not have the need for a lot of energy. However, China, India and other developing countries are suddenly caught up in a frenzy of modernization and consumerism that now requires LOTS of energy. Therefore, there is a sudden, and somewhat desperate, competition for energy and commodity resources that will only intensify. Remember, WE brought on this whole mess with our "Globalization" and "Free Trade" mania. Now it is coming back to bite us in the butt, big time!

OK, the stats show that we consume 21 million bbl/day and produce only 8.3 million bbl/day, leaving us with a substantial crude oil deficit each day. Natural gas fares somewhat better with a net deficit of 113 billion cu/m per day.
Do the math and you'll see that we don't have much more than 25-30 years worth of reserves on U.S. soil.

Now if the "government" had a brain, they would institute an emergency crash program to CUT CONSUMPTION of fossil fuels and INVEST in other energy alternatives. You would not be able to buy an SUV because they would not be manufactured any more. In fact, they would be bought up and scrapped. In fact, the Prius would also be bought up and scrapped. Public transportation would mushroom -- bullet trains would sprout up all over the country.............WHOA! None of that will happen because we do not have the political will or intelligence to pull together and solve our problem.

No, what will happen is that the price of producing energy, whether it be for electricity generation or motor fuels or our nutty car culture and our bloated and insane military apparatus, will skyrocket to the point where we will be FORCED to reduce consumption and create alternatives. Instead of realistically assessing and solving the problem, we will plunge ourselves into chaos which will force the solution. With our market-based economy ruling the world, the price of all commodities will rise to meet demand which in turn will rise as hoarding and speculation spiral upwards. Just keep in mind that we are a minority in the world, and a small minority at that.

So while a Prius may make you feel good because it gets better mileage, it is still a car running on fossil fuel. We need to get past cars for our transportation needs -- in fact, we must get past the NEED for so much transportation. And we will, but it will be an ugly transition because we have neither the leadership nor the collective will to pull together without being subjected to a crisis; without being forced to adapt a new paradigm.

So buckle up folks -- it's gonna be a rough ride! Try to imagine what the future (and I mean the NEAR) future will look like when oil hits $400/bbl and gas peaks $20/gal. It's coming to a neighborhood near you!
Check out the stats and use your mind to figure out the solution:

Oil - production:
8.322 million bbl/day (2005 est.)
Oil - consumption:
20.8 million bbl/day (2005 est.)
Oil - imports:
13.15 million bbl/day (2004)
Oil - proved reserves:
21.76 billion bbl (1 January 2006 est.)
Natural gas - production:
490.8 billion cu m (2005 est.)
Natural gas - consumption:
604 billion cu m (2005 est.)
Natural gas - imports:
117.9 billion cu m (2005)
Natural gas - proved reserves:
5.551 trillion cu m (1 January 2006 est.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Americans (and Canadians) will never be able to achieve a sustainable economy until they realize that they have been HUGE beneficiaries of a historical land grab. We can call it immigration, colonization or whatever - but the fact remains that for a whole bunch of people, primarily from Europe, suddenly there was this bonanza of land and resources. Finishing off or subduing the 'natives' was pretty much a cakewalk. Having so much land, water and resources at their disposal, Americans and Canadians have developed a peculiar world view which is so different from more 'traditional' societies where people are more in touch with the availability of resources and the limitations of growth. True, some European powers sought to grab additional resources from their colonies to support their growing extravagance, but they never lost sight of the limited availability of resources.

Why is this historical fact important? Public transportation is almost non-existent in most parts of the US and Canada. The capacity is nowhere near supporting a significant population with their daily commuting needs. Unless we have transit services that can cater to a significant portion of the commuting public, we will NEVER be able achieve sustainability.

Anyone with a basic education in economics or engineering understands what efficiency means. It is simply defined as the amount of output produced for a given amount of input. So it is really no big discovery that a fuel efficient car cannot by itself solve America's problems. It's like someone going on a diet, but ends up eating a whole lot of 'low calorie' cakes! You don't really need to eat cakes everyday - just as you shouldn't have to drive for every single trip - PROVIDED there are alternative ways of getting around. It's true, transit development requires a certain level of population density. But we are reaping the effects of a car-based development, which itself was a result of a distorted world view brought about by an apparent sense of endless abundance.

Unless we recognize that our entire cities and suburbs have been built on a faulty and unsustainable world view, we will not be able to take any meaningful steps at resource optimization. We will continue to burn fuel for running a 3000+ lbs automobile that mostly carries a 200- lbs person. If you really want to talk about efficiency, we should start talking about the amount of fuel needed to move one person over one mile - and the logic of having more transit services wherever feasible will become obvious. Talking about gas mileage, instead, is a distraction. Even driving 100mpg cars will not solve our problem if everyone ends up driving for their daily commute. In that sense, I think this author is beating around the bush. I haven't read his book - so I don't know if he talks about the importance of transit and a different style of urban planning. We only have to compare several European cities with American and Canadian cities - the difference will be clear.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...and loudly so the idea of population increase and the idea of preoductivity increase. Also there is the idea related to the Bush/Repub party that everyone must consume as much as possible so as to drive our faltering economy to ever greater heights. This last is a fatally flawed idea in several obvious respects and everyone can come up with their own list of flaws.

The Article is just pointing out that increases in fuel efficiency does not directly lead to less energy consumption, taking in to account all forms of energy. After all even electric cars have to be plugged in and that uses electrical energy.

A previous poster further up the page rightly pointed out that there is a different mindset between SUV/Pickup owners who drive themonly for their egos as opposed to the Soccer Mom's who do yeoman service in driving a SUV full of kids to the soccer game all at one time and all in the same vehicle. A car full of kids is efficient while a pickup with a sixpackand chips is not.

The mindset difference between the SUV/Pickup people and the Prius/Electric vehicle folks is just that an awareness mindset of those of us who want to do different and better, not only for ourselves but for the planet.

The first two posters exemplify those of us who desire to do better for all. We will move, inexorably toward Prius' and electric vehicles. The others will do so but only if and when they are forced by energy shortages and high prices. But they will do it, kicking and screaming, nonetheless they will do it.

That the Rethug party and the energy companies will resist every step of the way just points out that they have a huge vested interest in keeping as many people as possible using copious amounts of their energy products as possible so as to keep their profits up until they can force higher prices down our throats which also keeps their profits up.

We are not becoming a Fascist country we ARE, ARE and did I say ARE a FASCIST country, controlled by the top tier of BIG BUSINESSES who can game the system for only their own best interests. They care not one damn for anyone else, nor does the Bush Crime Family nor does the Rethuglican party. They are totally selfish and would/will bankrupt the entire earth for their profits.

And their right wing religions support them. Before, during and after WWII my religion supported and endorsed Nazism and Fascism. So exactly what is new. NOT one damn thing. BIG religion is just as bad as BIG business. It preserves itself no matter who pays the high cost of doing so even unto death. So when the right wing religions lament the 'Culture of Death' just remind them they ARE the 'Culture of Death'. 60 million dead during WWII including 6 million dead Jews. 4100 dead soldiers now and maybe a million dead Iraqis/Afghanis now and more, possibly many more to come.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Right wing arrogance seems to come through in these words:
"Instead of dictating terms, American energy companies and other international energy companies must now court the national oil companies who sit atop the vast majority of the world's remaining oil and gas deposits. That means that state-controlled outfits like Saudi Aramco, Russia's Gazprom and Venezuela's Petrleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), are, in many cases, able to dictate the rules by which the major oil companies must play."

What was that again? When it is American-owned, they are oil companies, but when owned by Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela, they are "state-controlled outfits", huh?

Reminds me of a bumper sticker that said "How did our oil get under their sand?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why is this a problem?

because people seek ways to squander when they feel restricted from a presumed 'normative' behaviour.

gee... what is there about pre-Bush 'Amerika' that was NORMAL?

the problem rests in disseminating the recognition that the work-a-day American isn't ENTITLED to what they consumed...


& that those days are not a sustainable solution.

You're not seeking a RETURN to a standard of living... but a NEW SUSTAINABLE standard.

when THAT social standard is understood... then we'll see a sustainable solution that can be implemented.


stop feeling sorry for yourselves.
stop being mad that you can't 'have what we did before...'

get past it. the culture you propagandized is a sick, sick fantasy.

there was nothing either sustainable or normal about the level of waste, squandering & consumerism that characterized Amerikan Kulture.

Consumerism: "An American Self-Portrait"



~~~
Spread Love...

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian com
~~~
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
"do no harm"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm surprised at the diversity of opinion and often the impervious backlash against plain facts in these comments about an article that seems to be bereft of agenda. Well, I say surprised, what I mean is bemused. This is one of the more excellent articles I've seen on AlterNet in some time. I applaud the wide array of facts and level-headed, analytical dissemination of information that can heighten consciousness on a thoughtful level. The truth is that technology may be "sexy" but it's not because we feel it's going to reduce our impact, the "sexiness" derives from the fact that we can feel better about our impact. These basic distinctions so often cloud the debate, so I'm glad that the article stays away from addressing reactionary and distracting viewpoints.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I already posted this point as a reply above, but have noticed that nobody else has pointed out the very basic logical fallacy right in the title, so I'll just point it out again quick. This is a logical error that gets made all the time.

Correlation does not equal causation

The fact that fuel efficiency is going up at the same time that fuel demand is going up does not mean that one is causing the other.

The highest rate of lung disease is in Arizona. Does this mean that Arizona causes lung disease? No, it means that people with lung disease move there for the relatively clean dry air. A correlational relationship does not necessarily mean a causative relationship.

If you disagree with me, I will punch you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So let's get this straight, the Texas Railway Commission "worked" because it prevented corporations losing money by keeping prices high aka screwing the consumer. How is this a good thing if you are in fact a leftist? I mean I thought the whole point was to dispise the corporations and love the consumer?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

to dramatically reduce the human population. Everything else is like "putting a band-aide on an amputee". In EPA we called these "end of pipe solutions".

Since humans seem incapable to even discuss this reduction, all we can hope for is a good pandemic...and that you are spared.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's certainly true that where machines become more energy efficient and thus cheaper to use, more people will buy and use them. And with cars, the better the gas mileage, the more miles people will drive. But that's only part of the story and doesn't result in a conclusion that people switching from gas hogs to hybrids would cause more fuel consumption.

First and foremost, the vast majority of Americans already own cars, so they would not be adding new vehicles to the total by switching to a Prius or any other hybrid. Instead, they'd be significantly lowering their fuel consumption by using a vehicle that gets better mileage.

Second, while some people might be tempted to drive more because of the increased fuel mileage, the vast majority would not even consider this for two reasons: A) they already drive a lot, commuting to work, shopping, and other necessities, and therefore have no desire to significantly increase their driving, and B) people who switched from gas hogs to hybrids obviously didn't care much about paying for gas, so getting better mileage won't cause them to drive more.

That all said, the ultimate conclusion of this essay is correct: efficiency alone will do very little if anything to reduce or eliminate global warming and other ecological harms. The only thing that will have that positive effect will be a reduction in consumption, which in this case means a reduction in driving, and a rather large reduction at that for Americans and other well off people who drive a lot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

... is that our economies are dependent on growth. Even if we reduce energy consumption by, say, 50% at once, it doesn't matter. Because after this event the economy, although more efficient, will grow year after year and after a while we have the same levels of fuel consumption (and pollution). So after a while we're in the same predicament.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As an engineer I of course champion efficiency because it give us more options to solve our problems. But there are no easy answers to this problem.

Americans use about twice as much energy per person as Europeans who live longer, healthier lives than we do. But replacing our infrastructure takes a great deal of energy, and during the years that we are doing it we will increase, not decrease our energy consumption.

For example, it takes the energy equivalent of about 4300 gallons of gasoline to build a new car, like a Prius. So if you drive 12,000 miles per year and improve your milage from 20mpg to 40mpg, you will save 300 gallons per year and break even in a little over 14 years. Assuming that you keep the Prius that long.

Similar calculations apply to changing to wind, solar, geothermal or nuclear power. It takes a lot of oil to replace an infrastructure.

Our best bet right now is to change our behavior: car pool, combine trips, take public transportation, use less heat and air conditioning, and turn off everything that isn't actually in use. These things require no energy investment, cost you nothing, and provide an immediate payback.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This author is a conservative shill for the energy industry.

Consider the main thrust of his article, and whether it fits within liberal goals, or whether it's simply energy corps' disinformation.

The author suggests that the last few decades have seen an increase in energy consumption BECAUSE OF energy conservation policies. This is laughably unrealistic, especially since America has been lorded over by "Arbusto" Bush and his Halliburton/Enron buddies for most of the last decade.

If you remain unconvinced that this author is a shill for the oil industry, click on the ad for his book at Amazon.com, and read the user comments. They contain an endorsement from A WASHINGTON OIL INDUSTRY LOBBYIST. Further, they tell us that the book is anti-alternative energy, anti-science, pro-"laissez faire" in the energy market, and written from an economist's perspective.

Jeez! The guy is about as un-liberal and pro-big-American-oil-companies as one can get. He's a clacquer for Big Oil. Wouldn't be surprised if he drives an SUV with his rock collection in the back seat.

It's beyond me how AlterNet.org let this shill appear on their site. I thought AlterNet.org aims to be always liberal? O, when AlterNet.org says "the MIX is the message", do they mean a "mix" of real liberal reporting and shills for The Dark Side?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the oil companies is over production. That was the genius John D. Rockefeller. He reduced oil marketing to a monopoly. It was no longer boom and bust.

As Jay Leno so cleverly noted, we prosecuted Standard oil as a monopoly in 1911 and put a stop to big oil unilaterally raising prices and working as a monopoly. I'm sure glad we did that.

The oil companies, only, know where the oil is and how much there is. The gist of this guys article is that they do lie to us about it. The reason Senator Inhof baldly tells us that global warming is a hoax is that global warming implies the end to the oil industry. If he doesn't lie how is he going to keep the oil executives sending money to his campaign?

When an honest oil expert talks and trys to straddle the fence to keep from losing his job he will say that all of the cheap oil has been produced. He is right. The next batch is going to cost more. Remember Kuwati oil costs 89 cents a barrel to produce. Their idea of expensive means between 10 and 15 dollars a barrel.

I believe that the reason that they oil companies are willing to kill the goose that laid the golden egg is that they really do believe in global warming and know that this is their last hurrah. They are destroying the economy. They are gettin gready to join the harness makers. A hundred years from now Exxon-Mobil will be in the history books that a new generation will be ignoring.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]