How Should the US Reduce Petroleum Consumption?

[Provost Harrison]

Well I have outlined how I reckon it should be done, a system to discourage the use of larger cars so that people drive around in more sensible, efficient vehicles.

Originally posted by November Adam
Actually it would be nice to see the advent of alternative fuels based on ethanol, yet I'm not sure if this would really help pollution.

Well the thing is that ethanol has to be refined from sugar IIRC, which means it is effectively grown, and thus is part of the carbon cycle, so no net change in atmospheric carbon dioxide...the energy effectively comes from the sun!

[soma]

Child of Thor - Do you know anywhere that shows the mechanism for turning Coconut oil into a fuel? I'd be interested to give it a go!

Also, consider. According to recent estimates, the world has around 50 years of oil reserves left(may not be correct, but it illustrates a point). I think that neccessity will bear a solution when the time comes, i.e. why stop using petrol now? When it runs out, there WILL be an alternative because there will HAVE to be an alternative. Cutting oil consumption is just delaying the inevitable, and the inevitable is, oil supplies will run out eventually, and eventually is not going to be too far into the future...

[faded glory]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


Sounds like you watched the same documentary that I saw...

Banning SUV's would be a good start, as apart from seriously wasting fuel your average SUV driver appears to be a complete inconsiderate moron on the road!

Glad your back!


How was your trip?

[Adam Smith]

Best idea is to increase gas and other energy taxes to cover the externalities caused. Most numbers I have seen indicate that you need to about double gasoline taxes (ie., increase about 38 cents per gallon) to do this.

Increasing the gas tax allows producers and consumers to make a lot more responses than a narrow tax credit would. In the short run they can drive less and insulate houses better. In the long run they can buy more fuel efficient cars, furnaces, or air conditioners, use mass transit, or change where they live or work.

Imposing a tax on imported oil only solves part of the problem. The environment does not care whether the barrel of oil you burned comes from the US or abroad. Moreover, taxing only the imported oil will generate excess profits for domestic oil producers. A tax on all sources will split the benefits and costs more equally between producers and consumers.

PS:
Did you know shreaded coconut is formally classified as hazardous material? If you have a big enough pile of the stuff, and it is wet, it will spontaneously combust.

[Sava]

US won't reduce consumption because oil companies are making too much money. In 2000, when there was a supposed "shortage", prices went up 75%, and Exxon/Mobil's profits went up 51%.

In this day and age, gasoline has almost become a need. I say, let the federal government create a non-profit oil company. This way, prices aren't gouged and plans for better fuel economy don't get shot down by oil company lobbying.

Aside from federalizing oil, I believe that it is the government's responsibility to provide for the needs of the people. I support the idea of capitalism, but people and companies should not be allowed to profit from meeting people's needs. Energy trading should be banned. Phone service should be non-profit. Transportation should be non-profit. Many right wingers will disagree, but the current system sucks, and needs to be changed.

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by soma
Child of Thor - Do you know anywhere that shows the mechanism for turning Coconut oil into a fuel? I'd be interested to give it a go!

Also, consider. According to recent estimates, the world has around 50 years of oil reserves left(may not be correct, but it illustrates a point). I think that neccessity will bear a solution when the time comes, i.e. why stop using petrol now? When it runs out, there WILL be an alternative because there will HAVE to be an alternative. Cutting oil consumption is just delaying the inevitable, and the inevitable is, oil supplies will run out eventually, and eventually is not going to be too far into the future...

soma,
no i don't - i knew i should have paid more attention in my chemistry classes. And even if i did i'd deny it - don't wont to upset Bush and his buddies and suddenly find myself a 'Terrorist'.

I actually want less taxes on the oil magnates and more enviromental temp rises - i think its the only way i can get rid of living on a planet populated by corrupt governments and evil people - bah bring on the floods ( I live on a high mountain )

EDIT: oh i've got a boat to

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by soma
Also, consider. According to recent estimates, the world has around 50 years of oil reserves left(may not be correct, but it illustrates a point). I think that neccessity will bear a solution when the time comes, i.e. why stop using petrol now? When it runs out, there WILL be an alternative because there will HAVE to be an alternative. Cutting oil consumption is just delaying the inevitable, and the inevitable is, oil supplies will run out eventually, and eventually is not going to be too far into the future...

Based on current proven reserves (around 140 billion tonnes of oil equivalent) and current usage of oil (3.5 billion tonnes/year) we have 40yrs before we run out.

Compare this to 12 years ago when the proven reserve to consumption ratio was also 40 yrs, and 22yrs ago when it was <35 years.

Predicting when oil will run out is not easy and is a moving target.

[Jac de Molay]

The next ten yrs will see sweeping changes

Hybrids and high-mileage/low emission vehicles are the wave of the new energy future. Its more of a question (with the Big Three, anyway) of which type of engine will be the standard. Hybrids and hydro cells are receiving much of the hype, but there are others, such as clean-diesel, which deserve consideration.

For all of these types of engines, the companies have released prototypes. However the one which combines marketability, price, comfort, and performance will come out on top, and it may not necessarily be the hybrids.

Dave

[Kyle]

Just saw on MSNBC.com that Ford will be releasing a hybrid version of the Escape SUV. It will supposedly get around 40 MPG city. Due out before 2003 is over.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/720368.asp?0dm=C219B

SUV's apparently aren't the real problem. It's car companies unwillingness (up to now it seems) to release hybrid vehicles.

[Jac de Molay]

SUV's apparently aren't the real problem. It's car companies unwillingness (up to now

At this point, there's many factors. Car companies may be "unwilling" because demand for them is just starting to build. The US customer will not look twice at such a vehicle if it doesn't provide all the creature comforts of it's internal combustion predecessor at a comparable price. The Honda Insight and Toyota Prius are pioneers in that they brought the hybrid to mass market, but they are bare-bones and unappealing to most new car buyers- I test-drove the Insight at the local Honda dealer and, standing at over 6' 2", I barely fit into the drivers seat.

Dave

[MrFun]

You guys don't get it, do you?

There was one option left out -- require everyone to ride bicycles, but just leave me with the choice of automobile use.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Sava
US won't reduce consumption because oil companies are making too much money. In 2000, when there was a supposed "shortage", prices went up 75%, and Exxon/Mobil's profits went up 51%.

In the UK the profit margin on petrol is nil. I'm surprised if Exxon has made that much profit on increasing petrol prices.

Also I thought Mobil branch didn't sell petrol anymore and only sold lubricants and other oil based products -therefore a lot of the profits will be based on that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sava
US won't reduce consumption because oil companies are making
Aside from federalizing oil, I believe that it is the government's responsibility to provide for the needs of the people. I support the idea of capitalism, but people and companies should not be allowed to profit from meeting people's needs. Energy trading should be banned. Phone service should be non-profit. Transportation should be non-profit. Many right wingers will disagree, but the current system sucks, and needs to be changed.

and many of us leftwingers who have gotten burned with this sort of thing in the past.

Govt doesnt have to run the business to guarantee a need. Food is a need, and we provide food stamps, not govt run farms. Health insurance is a need, and in more progressively run countries like Canada and Germany the govt doesnt run the health care providers, just provides the insurance to pay for it. OTOH govt DOES run the metroliner, and poor folk still cant afford to take it (not that its a need)

LOTM

[Victor Galis]

Where's the option for all of the above?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Someone has to read the first post .