Saturday, April 30, 2005

Another Route to Energy Conservation

On Saturday, the New York Times editorial board discussed the Bush Administration's "energy plan," joining the RINO in suggesting that increase fuel efficiency standards would go further in reducing energy consumption than would drilling in ANWR. In Sunday's edition, the Times is set to cover yet another option that would go a long way. This article, by Jad Mouawad and Simon Romero, suggests that a return to a 55 miles-per-hour speed limit would be a simple way to reduce gasoline use and bring down gas prices in the near term.

"It has been done before," Mouawad and Simon write. "Along with record oil and gasoline prices, improvements in fuel efficiency and a lasting economic recession, speed limits helped curb fuel consumption for the first time in American postwar history between 1974 and 1984." Following the return of cheap gas during the mid-1980s, when "the economy expanded and Americans became complacent and unwilling to make more sacrifices," the speed limit was relaxed again and planned incremental increases in fuel economy were stalled.

Since 1973, the Times reports, oil use in the U.S. has jumped 38% - in most other industrialized nations demand has either decreased or stabilized since the energy crises of the 1970s. Rather than focusing on ways to bring demand back down, however, Bush & Co. have instead pushed to increase the supply of oil and gas (a vital part of which, they say, is drilling in ANWR). Mouawad and Simon quote Steven Nadel of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy as saying "We are in a boxing match, and the president keeps one hand tied to his back. We're punching with supplies and not using demand. We're at a disadvantage."

Aside from a gas tax (useful in many European countries to decrease fuel consumption, but which would be political suicide here - not a bad idea, but political suicide), decreases in demand could come through increased fuel efficiency standards, increased use of diesel fuel (offering more than 60% better fuel economy than standard gasoline), or dropping the speed limit back down to 55 miles per gallon, Mouawad and Simon note. Speed limits are an important piece in the energy puzzle: driving at ten miles above the current 65-mph limit increases your fuel consumption by 15%.

Any solution that would decrease demand is a good one, even if it does take drivers a few more minutes to get to the office.

3 Comments:

At 10:34 PM, Blogger Robert Rouse said...

Another suggestion, a sliding gas tax based on consumption of different vehicles. A lower federal and state tax for smaller economy cars and higher rates for the big gas guzzlers. This too would be political suicide, but in the '70s, we had to give up our muscle cars. Sometimes politicos have to make sacrifices like the rest of us. And if that means their career for the greater good, so be it. This of course is a fairy tale, some folk loves their SUVs and big trucks as much as politicians love their jobs.

 
At 1:46 AM, Blogger John Hedtke said...

I agree with all of this. I'd also like to add that cutting the tax credit on hybrid vehicles but continuing to support the $25,000 credit for people who buy Hummers (does *ANYONE* who's not actively doing an urban assault with ground troops and tanks need to drive a Hummer in this country?) is the opposite of the kind of behavior we need and demonstrates once again that the Administration couldn't find a clue in a clue forest covered with clue pheromones in clue mating season.

 
At 9:45 PM, Blogger JBD said...

All great ideas! Now we just have to get them done!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home