Uncle said:
enough, it can be solved the way Brazil solved it: require all cars
sold in the US to be flex-fuel. It goes against my libertarian
principles, but solves the nucleation problem -- how to get a user
base large enough to repay the massive installation of ethanol pumps.
Hi,
It would be nice to have a "simple" answer, but we all know what they
say about simple answers to complex problems...
Anyway, I, too, don't generally look at government as the first line of
defense against all the ills that face us in our daily lives, but there
will have to be some kind of government intervention to make any of this
"change" work.
The first thing to look at is supply and demand. It's estimated approx
84 mil bbls of oil are produced daily, worldwide, and the US uses 21 mil
of them, or 25% of the world's total. (If the "peak oil" folks are to be
believed, that production figure's not likely to increase, but likely
will decrease, in the next couple of decades or so.) That's a lot of oil
for 5% of the world's population to use. And I suppose it wasn't so
problematic when the other 75% supplied the needs and wants of the rest
of the world.
But in the last 25 yrs or so, we've added roughly 25% of the world's
total population to the list of those demanding oil. While we were
complaining of gutless econobox cars in the '70s due to the oil
shortages of the time, the Chinese were riding bicycles. Today, you see
pictures from China and you won't see any more bicycles evident in their
cities than in pictures from the US. But you WILL see thousands,
millions, soon 10s of millions of cars that didn't even exist "back
then!" They've all gotta be fed from that one big pot of oil the world
shares. And the next few decades will see ANOTHER 25% of the world's
population demanding much of that oil as India becomes a prime player.
So we've gotta look at ~3 billion potential new consumers in the next
few years over what we had just a couple of decades ago. That's 10
people looking at the same bbl of oil for every single person in the US,
who used to think he was the only person in the world looking at it, and
may well have been, at the time. Prices are NOT going to go down nor are
supplies going to increase enough to fill that demand w/o serious change
in our usage habits.
So... while we're driving around like there's no tomorrow, let's stop at
Wally World and drop $3 on a Chinese calculator (made and shipped w/
some of that oil that used to be "ours" if we think selfishly) and start
crunching some numbers. Let's look at the average person's consumption
in the US. Or at least California where I live, since I've seen some
numbers for here.
The average Californian supposedly drives 15k mi/yr, and uses 1200 US
gal of fuel doing it. That's an average of 12.5 mpg. Which means,
despite CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy law) and other moves to
increase economy, we're virtually EXACTLY where we were roughly 35 yrs
ago when CAFE came to be. We have an estimated 30 mil cars registered in
this state, approx 3/4 of a car per person! Let's say half of those
cars, 15 mil, are actually being driven on a regular basis, as that
number roughly reflects the number of licensed drivers. Let's fire up
the calculator, then, and see what it tells us (if I slipped a decimal
place somewhere, please correct me):
It looks like we drive on average well over 600 mil miles PER DAY just
in this one State. At an avg of 12.5 mpg, that's ~49 mil gallons of
fuel. PER DAY. Since the best we can get out of a bbl of oil is about
50% gas/diesel, we're talking ~98 mil gals of oil. PER DAY. Divided by
42 gal/bbl, it's about 2.3 mil bbls. That's about 2.75% of the ENTIRE
world's production. For 1/4 of a percent of its population!
Now, let's change that average fuel economy just a little bit, to 13.5
mpg. That's less than 10% better. What does our cheap calculator tell us
now? Well, it looks like we cut our fuel consumption to about 46 mil
gal/day, or 91 mil gals of oil (2.175 mil bbls.) That's a cut of about
5% or so per day.
Doesn't seem like much, but it's easy enough to do, IF someone will
stand up and make it happen. The auto makers will try to tell us they
can't do it, or the market "demands" the gas hogs, or some other excuse
for maintaining the status quo (which not so strangely corresponds w/
their highest profit points.) The "market" generally isn't well enough
educated to figure out this "supply-demand" thing and how it applies to
THEM. Or they just don't care, thinking their part in the big picture is
insignificant. This leaves government intervention.
So we first saw CAFE in the '70s. Good idea. Bad application. Why? Too
many loopholes. The mandatory fleet average of ~27 mpg for cars was a
good idea. But it let trucks pretty much out of the picture. For working
trucks, yes, we need exemption or dispensation of some sort. But when
all someone has to do is raise their car an inch or so (recent Outback
change comes to mind!) to qualify it as a "truck" to gain an exemption
from fuel economy rules, it all becomes a big hoax.
The new "fuel economy standards" law passed by Congress recently made
virtually everyone in the auto industry upset. "Oh, we just can't meet
those standards!" Bull-oney. The standards are based on sales of
vehicles. Sell more hi-mileage vehicles than lo-mileage gas hogs, and
it's no problem, but how do we change the sales figures? The auto
industry wants us to believe the public wants "bigger" and "more
horsepower." Witness ads for the recent Forester: "bigger, bigger,
bigger" keeps coming up. And why does the public "want" such vehicles?
Well, advertising plays a huge role, as we're "told" we "need" such
things. And then, there's no penalty for waste. This is where,
unfortunately, government will have to step in. Let's look at a radical
approach to tax laws as one way. Post-war Britain provided an early
example, w/ their "taxable horsepower" ratings. Ok, it wasn't a perfect
system, but it was a step in the direction of conservation.
So we look at the "average" fuel economy requirement, give it a
tolerance range, and let people buy cars within that range w/ no strings
attached, other than the market's price of fuel. That will have just a
minor impact. We've given tax incentives for purchasing economical
vehicles in the past, but that hasn't changed things much, so let's go
the OTHER way, and as soon as one drops below a certain point, we start
taxing the bejeebers out of the vehicles if they can't be proven to be
"work" vehicles. We already have a "gas guzzler" tax on certain
cars--but it's essentially a one time tax at purchase. Extend that to be
added to the annual registration fees, and I'm certain people are smart
enough to adapt their wants to more closely match their needs. How long
do you think the kid next door w/ that 6-8 mpg "monster truck" is going
to keep that thing if, in addition to costing him $150 to fill it, he
ALSO has to pay, let's say for example, $2500/yr additional on his
registration? How long do you think Mrs. Soccer Mom's gonna think she
just HAS to have that 8 mpg Excursion to haul a couple of brats three
blocks to the soccer field?
We're no longer in a "free for all" economy WRT to fuel, nor can we
continue to base our entire economy on cheap oil that no longer exists.
Some of the ideas I've suggested ARE draconian, as well as being full of
potential holes and loopholes. And I HATE to think we'd actually have to
have the government institute such things, but until we first CUT our
consumption, we're sunk. We can't grow corn or make batteries for
hybrids fast enough to offset the increases in demand. Our $3 calculator
should give us some ideas of the economies (or costs) of scale involved.
Who's got some better ideas?
Rick
