Uncategorized

Cali researchers say fuel economy boosts are better route

To reduce oil consumption, some say we should raise fuel-economy standards. Others say, no, let's impose a gas tax -- jacking up prices is the best way to reduce consumption.

The folks at the University of California Energy Institute have a new paper (PDF) that investigates the sensitivity of gasoline demand to changes in price, and concludes:

One implication of these findings is that gasoline taxes would need to be significantly larger today in order to achieve an equivalent reduction in gasoline consumption. This, coupled with the political difficulties in adopting gasoline taxes, suggests that policies and technologies designed to improve fuel economy are likely becoming relatively more attractive as a means to reduce fuel consumption.

Which is not to say it can't be done -- just that short-term demand response is relatively inelastic, and if you want to use so-called market forces, you have to serve a significant jolt to the system and wait a while for consumers to dig themselves out of their current purchase decisions in order to see results.

UCEI has a fine series of working papers on energy issues. You might consider signing up for their listserv.

An odd perspective on food — mine

From an interesting article in Slate:

... we're getting fat. Not just the United States or Europe, but the whole world. Egyptian, Mexican, and South African women are now as fat as Americans. Far more Filipino adults are now overweight than underweight. In China, one in five adults is too heavy, and the rate of overweight in children is 28 times higher than it was two decades ago. In Thailand, Kuwait, and Tunisia, obesity, diabetes, and heart disease are soaring.

My oldest daughter spent last summer in Paraguay and was fed beef all day long. She could hardly find a green vegetable. She also learned that there are a lot of overweight Paraguayans.

Not so lionhearted, eh BP?

More out on the climate of fear and intimidation that prevented BP employees from reporting environmental safety concerns in the North Slope oil fields of Alaska.

As reported last week, a subcommittee of the House Energy & Commerce Committee has been interrogating BP executives on their failure to maintain pipelines, leading to several oil leaks in the past year.

At least one worker was summoned for firing because his bosses suspected he had filed a formal complaint that his inspection crew had been cut by 25 percent despite maintaining the same workload. The worker kept his job after denying any role in the complaint, but clearly this sort of threat sends a message to other employees.

Still cool

I love the idea of product service systems. (Upon reflection, that may be the geekiest single sentence I've ever written.) Sadly, I never get around to writing about them. Alex, however, does. This bit is particularly relevant to the question I asked the other day:

But he still understates the case

Al Gore's denials about a possible presidential run are getting more and more equivocal. Today, paleocon Pat Buchanan argues that Gore could beat Hillary to secure the Dem nomination and possibly the presidency.

If anything, I think he understates the case, particularly in two places. Here's the first, most relevant for our purposes:

A public service announcement

Today is my birthday, so feel free to use this thread to tell me just how empty your life was until you met me and/or encountered Gristmill.

It means less than you might think

Chevron's discovery of massive new oil deposits beneath the Gulf of Mexico has prompted a predictable flood of stupidity from the media. The theory of peak oil is being called into question. Our need to get off of oil is being called into question. The quality of our national dialogue is being called into question.

For one-stop shopping on what the new oil find means -- and doesn't mean -- see this definitive post over on Oil Drum.

Some tasty debunking

I was pleased and surprised to see that Consumer Reports devoted the cover story of its recent issue to a lengthy report debunking the alleged benefits of E85. This is part of a welcome new focus on green issues by the magazine.

Enviros should adopt some animal welfare concerns

Many environmentalists strongly advocate sticking with a platform that focuses exclusively on the large global challenges of biodiversity preservation and natural-resource sustainability, and stays clear of animal welfare. They correctly point out that environmentalism has traditionally concerned itself not with the treatment of individual animals, but with protecting whole populations. At a time when we face mass species extinctions, it is certainly a risky strategy to contemplate the expansion of environmentalism into a realm fraught with both ideological and political difficulties.

But I believe this is what environmentalism should do.

CEO of nation’s largest auto dealer gets behind the latter

"Who Killed the Electric Car?" conspiracies aside, why do I think plug-in hybrids will make it where strict plug-ins didn't?

Because, at a gut level, I think more people would buy them. Americans are congenital dreamers. No matter that most trips are under 25 miles. If the car purchase in question does not let you indulge in the fantasy that one day you might just take that road-trip to Jazzfest, wheels hissing on the wet moon-lit roads through the bayou, air heavy with frangipangi and Spanish moss; or a surfari to Baja, camping in the dunes and eating nothing but the fish you spear -- well, what's the point?

An electric car with a 200-mile range may get your groceries, but at the cost of cherished self-image. Practicality and reality have never been much of a driving force in purchasing decisions.

Just my opinion, which doesn't matter much in the scheme of things. But here's an opinion that matters a bit more: check out this op-ed from from the CEO of AutoNation, the nation's largest car dealer: