Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

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

By Robert Bryce, Public Affairs Books. Posted May 10, 2008.


While energy efficiency is laudable, history shows that it leads to people consuming more energy.
Advertisement

The following is an excerpt from Robert Bryce's new book "Gusher of Lies" (Public Affairs Books, 2008). It first appeared in the Texas Observer.

From 1859, when Colonel Drake discovered oil in Pennsylvania, through 1973, the U.S. was the dominant player in the global energy business. For much of that time, America was both the dominant producer and dominant consumer of oil and gas on the planet.

That dominance extended into technology, finance, transportation, and refining. When it came to developing oil reserves and getting those reserves into the marketplace, the U.S. had no serious rivals. American drill bits, like those made by Hughes Tool Co., bored the holes. American companies, like Gulf Oil, or Standard Oil of New Jersey, did the seismic work, managed the production, built the pipelines, and did the refining. The drilling work was done by companies like Sedco. The drilling technology was developed by outfits like Halliburton. The bridges, or dams, or cities needed to support the cities that were created by the new oil wealth were built by Halliburton's subsidiary Brown & Root, or by American engineering giants like Bechtel. Texas-based law firms like Baker Botts or Vinson & Elkins handled much of the legal work. And all the while, the prolific oil fields in Texas, Oklahoma, and other states allowed the U.S. to effectively set the global price of crude.

Those days are gone.

A half century ago, American-based energy companies pumped about 45 percent of all the oil produced overseas. Today, that percentage is about 10 percent. Out of the top 20 oil-producing companies on the planet, 14 are national oil companies like Saudi Aramco or the National Iranian Oil Company. Furthermore, the national oil companies now control about 77 percent of the world's proven oil reserves. The international oil companies control less than 10 percent.

American energy companies are still big players in the global market, but they are no longer the dominant players. 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.

At the same time that the big oil companies are losing their negotiating strength, rising demand from China, India, and other developing countries is allowing the national oil companies to change their focus. Instead of looking first to export their products to Western consumers, they are looking east.

Long before the rise of OPEC, and years before Saudi Arabia became the key player in the global oil business, the world's most important oil cartel was based in downtown Austin, Texas.

Between the 1930s and the early 1970s, the three members of the Texas Railroad Commission were the most important people in the global oil business. They met once per month to set "allowables" -- the volume of oil that each operator in the state was allowed to produce from his wells that month. The allowables were set to meet current oil demand and not a barrel more. The Texas cartel operated in a straightforward manner. The three commissioners looked at oil inventories. If they were rising, they cut production. If inventories were falling, they allowed production to rise. And because the Railroad Commission controlled the flow of oil from the world's most prolific fields -- the ones in Texas -- the system worked. No other entity was able to control the supply of oil with the discipline and effectiveness of the commission. And by controlling the prices in the burgeoning American market, the Texas cartel effectively determined world prices, too.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: gusher of lies, robert bryce

Robert Bryce is the author of "Gusher of Lies" (Public Affairs Books, 2008). He's the managing editor of the Energy Tribune.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
What a crock of crap!
Posted by: paul_revere on May 10, 2008 2:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: "We, as a species"??? Posted by: fearn
» RE: What a crock of ego! Posted by: PaulD
There is a basic flaw with this analysis
Posted by: Rune on May 10, 2008 2:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

What is the Point?
Posted by: thornwolf on May 10, 2008 3:17 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: What is the Point? Posted by: dustdevil
» RE: What is the Point? Posted by: daniel347x
» RE: What is the Point? Posted by: cef
» RE: What is the Point? Posted by: dustdevil
» RE: What is the Point? Posted by: daniel347x
Solar is Sustainable. How Sustainable is Oil?
Posted by: Timberbee on May 10, 2008 4:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

G.M. shoots themselves in the Foot and America in the Ass!
Posted by: williameon on May 10, 2008 4:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» Norway to the rescue Posted by: westomoon
Common Sense
Posted by: Nature12345 on May 10, 2008 5:37 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: Common Sense Posted by: Thresher
» RE: Common Sense Posted by: Nature12345
» RE: Common Sense Posted by: zoraidas
» RE: Common Sense Posted by: NoKidding
» RE: Common Sense Posted by: Nature12345
Alternet's true colors are really coming through.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 10, 2008 5:53 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» WHoa there! Posted by: Thresher
» I see dumb people....... Posted by: Inlander
» The sky is falling! Posted by: DuChamp Fitz
The 800 pound gorilla
Posted by: sausage on May 10, 2008 6:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

It's the culture, stupid!
Posted by: supercrisp on May 10, 2008 6:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

Something missing
Posted by: Thresher on May 10, 2008 6:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

Hybrid Buses
Posted by: Gravitas on May 10, 2008 6:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

So, do nothing?
Posted by: demetria on May 10, 2008 7:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: So, do nothing? Posted by: liberalibrarian
» RE: So, do nothing? Posted by: obliu222
look at history and see where we're going....
Posted by: ellie on May 10, 2008 7:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

Gusher of Lies
Posted by: Teedee on May 10, 2008 7:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: Gusher of Lies Posted by: daniel347x
Simply a comment
Posted by: zoraidas on May 10, 2008 8:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: Simply a comment Posted by: daniel347x
» RE: Simply a comment Posted by: obliu222
FLAWED ARTICLE BUT IT IS GOOD TO REMEMBER
Posted by: fearn on May 10, 2008 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

Musings
Posted by: eperot on May 10, 2008 8:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: Musings and then some Posted by: DaBear
Are energy interests now controlling Alternet and Mother Jones?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 10, 2008 9:17 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» Glad you called this out, TC Posted by: westomoon
» Totally depressing Posted by: Joshua Holland
» really. Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: really. Posted by: Joshua Holland
» and for further examples: Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» and for yet more examples: Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: and for yet more examples: Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: and for yet more examples: Posted by: obliu222
» RE: and for yet more examples: Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: and for further examples: Posted by: Joshua Holland
We need a national 55-mph speed limit NOW!
Posted by: HughScott on May 10, 2008 9:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» True enough, but how practical? Posted by: truthteller
» I Can't Drive 55 Posted by: fanny666
Alliance between the Oil industry, the Automobile industry and the Money people.
Posted by: Squarehead on May 10, 2008 10:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

rn
Posted by: mnatra on May 10, 2008 11:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

If we all rode bicycles would we still consume more oil?
Posted by: tommy_slothrop on May 10, 2008 11:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

HHO
Posted by: Richard House on May 10, 2008 11:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» If you run... Posted by: Bbear41
» RE: If you run... Posted by: Richard House
mick3
Posted by: mick3 on May 10, 2008 11:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the 30's the Big Three car companies, GM in particular, began the destruction of the United States rail system in order to sell more vehicles. In L.A., for instance,the rails were ripped out of the ground, and the cheap and convenient local railroads made a thing of the past. Good for profits, but terrible for the nation's ordinary citizens and the environment.

Now, the government is still supporting the car companies' agenda, having bailed them out repeatedly over the years. We are the only major nation not to have a functioning and affordable public rail system. We are the only major nation not to have hi-speed rail. The US is the dinosaur of transportation thanks the the lobbyists of the auto and air travel industries....and their takers.

Capitalism is at the bottom of the whole mess. Its greed merchants have systematically destroyed our sense of community, indeed, our communities themselves via outsourcing, have destroyed our economy and the lives of millions here and abroad, have nearly destroyed the environment through its depredations. And still, the US media continue the propaganda that equates capitalism with democracy, despite their being at opposite ends of the spectrum. All of our wars but one have been fought on behalf of capitalist exploitation of other people's countries and lives. All have taken down a leader who tried to improve the lives of their citizens, nations that opt out of capitalistic exploitation--and put in place murderous dictators or military juntas to keep the people down while stripping them of the nation's resources, including water, by the way.

What a fine (foul) nation we have! Home of the quivering-with-fear brave and the land of the "legal" police state.

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

» RE: LA's new rails Posted by: DaBear
Oh Inverted World
Posted by: eperot on May 10, 2008 12:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

Half truth at best
Posted by: TRC on May 10, 2008 12:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

It's true...
Posted by: buffeliscious on May 10, 2008 12:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: It's true... Posted by: obliu222