US Energy Policy - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 10-28-2007, 03:26 PM   #1
Registered Member
 
bowtieguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,873
Country: United States
Location: orlando, florida
Unhappy US Energy Policy

put this article on this thread to give courtesy to clencher and his recent "articles" thread starter. anyway here it is:

You, Your Car
US Energy Policy
Things You Need To Know

...Improving current on-road vehicle mpg efficiency by one additional mile per gal per vehicle would save close to 600k barrels a day in American oil imports. Additional efficiency gains per gal would save even more oil, but the savings diminish as better mileage performance tends to PROMOTE INCREASES IN DRIVING DISTANCE...

by Amy Myers Jaffe and Kenneth Medlock III
AAA
Going Places
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

wonder how many Americans have this mentality?--trade down and then excuse themselves to drive more. extra taxation based on miles driven, like the proposed per gallon increase(affecting everyone), wouldn't be fair for those that MUST drive more miles. so it seems it is up to the individual consumer's driving choices/habits.

maybe there is no hope until mass production of non-petroleum based fuel vehicles is achieved. not in my lifetime i suspect.
__________________

bowtieguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2007, 04:12 PM   #2
Registered Member
 
trebuchet03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 812
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to trebuchet03
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowtieguy View Post
wonder how many Americans have this mentality?
Probably most -- but the question is, is it a 1:1 relationship. I'm curious to know what the average miles per year per car number trend is...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bowtieguy View Post
maybe there is no hope until mass production of non-petroleum based fuel vehicles is achieved. not in my lifetime i suspect.
Bicycle Even today it's still the number 1 choice of transportation for the world

from that same article:
Quote:
A Role for Conservation
Can conservation make a contribution to reducing U.S. oil imports? President Bush mentioned a goal to reduce the increase in U.S. gasoline use by the year 2017. To hold U.S. gasoline use at 2005 levels by 2017 through conservation, each of us would have to drive 45 miles less per vehicle per week. For many Americans, that could be one day a week commuting in a car pool or by public transportation or telecommuting. Based on statistics showing annual miles driven per vehicle each year, most Americans are probably not traveling more than 35 miles a day.
Things like the SF ride share and free tolls for HOV (2 or 3+) are excellent incentives... But they don't work very well in the suburban scenario...
__________________

__________________
Time is the best teacher. Unfortunately it kills all its students.


Bike Miles (Begin Aug. 20 - '07): ~433.2 miles

11/12
trebuchet03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2007, 07:10 PM   #3
Registered Member
 
omgwtfbyobbq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,516
Country: United States
O rly? I was under the impression that it was fairly consistent, with a gradual rise each year. Besides, we're near the limit of what people will tolerate already. If sum1 puts out a car that gets ~100-300mpg, there's no way average joe schmoe is gonna find time to make up for the difference by driving more. they would need to be behind the wheel 4-12 times as much as they are now!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormulaTwo
I think if i could get that type of FE i would have no problem driving a dildo shaped car.
omgwtfbyobbq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2007, 07:20 PM   #4
Registered Member
 
theclencher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 542
Country: United States
ys rly

Panel looks to put climate change in rear-view mirror
A group assembled by Gov. Tim Pawlenty is strategizing how to cut greenhouse emissions by getting Minnesotans to drive less.

By Bill McAuliffe, Star Tribune

Last update: October 14, 2007 – 8:30 PM

For the sake of the planet, kids born this year could be the first generation of Minnesotans since the invention of the automobile to drive less than their parents.
In fact, they would drive a lot less, and so would everybody else, as part of a broad transformation of behaviors, policies and economies that a governor's panel is weighing in an effort to blunt Minnesota's contribution to climate change.

"The question is, 'Can we get there and what's it going to take?'" said Jan Callison, mayor of Minnetonka and a member of the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group. A reduction in driving is "one piece of a really big and complicated puzzle," Callison added, "but one conclusion is probably that we're going to need to change our driving habits."

The advisory group is a panel of more than 50 business, environmental and community leaders assembled by Gov. Tim Pawlenty to design strategies to reduce the state's greenhouse gas emissions -- primarily carbon dioxide -- by 80 percent by 2050. The group is more than halfway through nine months of brainstorming intended to produce a package of proposals for the 2008 Legislature to consider.

Because transportation contributes about 27 percent of the carbon dioxide poured into Minnesota's atmosphere, one of the panel's goals -- a rollback in miles driven in Minnesota to 1990 levels by 2025 -- could significantly reduce or even help reverse pollution trends.

Minnesotans are expected to drive 60 billion miles this year and 82 billion in 2025 if generations-long trends continue. They drove 38.9 billion in 1990 -- 35 percent less than they'll drive this year and less than half what they would otherwise be expected to drive in 2025.

'Incredibly aggressive' goal

The mileage-reduction goal is for a period when the metro area alone is expected to gain nearly 1 million residents. It mirrors a standard already adopted by a similar governor's panel in Vermont but exceeds those in several other states. Callison called it "incredibly aggressive."

But Callison and Barb Thoman, project director for the group Transit for Livable Communities and, like Callison, a member of a transportation subgroup of the governor's panel, both noted that the goal depends on much more than just setting the parking brake. It would build on broad strategies designed in part to get people to drive less: locating jobs and people close to one another, redeveloping core cities and expanding mass transit.

Rising gas prices might also help Minnesotans cut back on their driving, Thoman said, noting that Minnesota's vehicle miles traveled in 2005 nearly matched those from 2004 after decades of sharp increases.

"It promises substantial change in the way we develop our communities," Callison said. "It's going to take a lot of thought and attention to implications beyond greenhouse gas reductions."

Paying to drive?

The transportation panel is also recommending having people pay directly for road use, parking and other transportation features whose costs are now concealed by public subsidies.

That, along with land-use changes and transit options, is critical, said University of Minnesota geography Prof. John Adams, who is involved in a parallel study on transportation and greenhouse gases. But will Minnesotans stomach driving less or paying more for the privilege?

"That's where leadership comes in," Adams said.

Some suggestions from the advisory panel may not require legislation and could be enacted by state agencies, said David Thornton, assistant commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

Almost certain to emerge from the process is a "cap and trade" policy that, in tandem with limits on greenhouse gas pollution, would allow big producers of carbon dioxide, such as utilities, to buy and sell carbon credits.

But that's only one of more than 50 emissions-reductions proposals involving energy, waste management, agriculture, construction and other activities the panel is considering. Consultants are determining both the cost and the emissions reductions each idea represents.

Bill McAuliffe • 612-673-7646

For more details on the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Panel, go to mnclimatechange.us.



http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1484316.html
__________________
Tempo/Topaz:
Old EPA 23/33/27
New EPA 21/30/24

F150:
New EPA12/14/17

theclencher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2007, 07:49 PM   #5
*shrug*
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,195
Country: United States
That's if trends continue though...people will eventually hit a breaking point with commutes and it will either snap back or the growth rate will just diminish a bunch, *shrugzors*

A lower speed limit would also contribute to this.
SVOboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2007, 08:01 PM   #6
Registered Member
 
trebuchet03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 812
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to trebuchet03
Quote:
Originally Posted by theclencher View Post
miles driven/person is skyrocketing!
I'm not trying to pick a fight (just making that clear before I share what I found) - I'm just looking for a nice graph to compare I'm more interested in miles per vehicle as it seems to be an easy statistic to find data to compare with... It should also control population a little better (rather than total miles driven over a period of time in a region)...


From a study published in 2005:
Quote:
In fact, miles driven per
registration have been
relatively flat or
decreasing since 1999,
according to data from
the Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.


http://www.pinnacleactuaries.com/pag...sShortages.pdf

Quote:
Since increases in gasoline prices [from hurricane Katrina] contributed to a
long-term decline in claims frequency as drivers opted
to put fewer miles on the road, it is reasonable to
assume the same could have happened after this crisis
if the increase in gas prices was significant and
remained at the higher level.
It's interesting to look at the situation from an insurance company's perspective. Everything based on risk assessment. Here's what crash claims versus gas prices look like

Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	milespervehicle.JPG
Views:	114
Size:	43.4 KB
ID:	858   Click image for larger version

Name:	claimsversusgasprice.JPG
Views:	117
Size:	48.4 KB
ID:	859  
__________________
Time is the best teacher. Unfortunately it kills all its students.


Bike Miles (Begin Aug. 20 - '07): ~433.2 miles

11/12
trebuchet03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2007, 08:06 PM   #7
Registered Member
 
theclencher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 542
Country: United States
mebbe it is just vmt not miles/person?

mebbe mn is worse than the rest of the u.s.?

at any rate therez much much more traf f***

"Yet, auto ownership and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) continue to grow. U.S. VMT grew at rates well over 3 percent per year during the 1980s, and is forecast to increase 25 percent per capita between 1990 and 2010.(2,3) Hidden subsidies to motor vehicle use are estimated to range from $3 to $7 per gallon of gas..."

http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/articles/designing.asp
__________________
Tempo/Topaz:
Old EPA 23/33/27
New EPA 21/30/24

F150:
New EPA12/14/17

theclencher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2007, 08:14 PM   #8
Registered Member
 
trebuchet03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 812
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to trebuchet03
Quote:
Originally Posted by theclencher View Post
mebbe it is just vmt not miles/person?

mebbe mn is worse than the rest of the u.s.?

at any rate therez much much more traf f***
Not sure if it's better or worse, but remember that it doesn't take into consideration the fact that there are more people and more cars on the road Inefficient living conditions spawning inefficient travel solutions :/
__________________
Time is the best teacher. Unfortunately it kills all its students.


Bike Miles (Begin Aug. 20 - '07): ~433.2 miles

11/12
trebuchet03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2007, 08:21 PM   #9
Registered Member
 
omgwtfbyobbq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,516
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by trebuchet03 View Post
Inefficient living conditions spawning inefficient travel solutions :/
I don't think they're related like that. Just that inefficiency tends to improve revenue, so it's pretty widespread.
__________________

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormulaTwo
I think if i could get that type of FE i would have no problem driving a dildo shaped car.
omgwtfbyobbq is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Looks like the price you entered for a litre of gas is unrealistic. winstona Fuelly Web Support and Community News 6 05-12-2013 11:26 AM
Need help - my trip odometer was reset Keen4Green Fuelly Web Support and Community News 7 09-27-2010 07:27 AM
Fuelly Android App - eehokie Fuelly Web Support and Community News 2 07-14-2010 09:59 PM
Civic VX - $2000 tomauto For Sale 4 09-10-2006 10:57 AM
Gaslog suggestion SVOboy General Discussion (Off-Topic) 1 04-29-2006 09:35 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.