Comments on: Dealing With Record Gas Prices Provides View of How To Stop Global Warming

By: Dennis Mark

Dennis Mark — Tue, 22 May 2007 15:48:33 +0000

Thanks for all the great comments, y’all!
Congrats, Cheap! on putting together a plug-in hybrid that gets 100 mpg – now the challenge there is making sure that the electricity source isn’t coal. I hope plug-ins will be available on the mass market within a couple of years so that those people that don’t have time and the skills that you put to work to make yours plug-in can partake as well. Here’s to those who Do-It-Yourself and make a difference!
Also, Carlos – thanks for sharing that Toyota is bringing the costs of their hybrids down. I hope we get to see results in price reductions within a year or so to help address Chani’s good points on the challenges of making efficient choices on a tight budget.
Chani, thank you for sharing your concerns. I didn’t mean to make it seem like I thought everyone can buy a hybrid since they do carry a cost-premium. But there are also good efficient cars that aren’t hybrids that can bring the gas bill down. Based on a quick search, I found a few cars that get an average of 31-33 mpg and are some of the least expensive on the market at less than $15,000 new. They include the Ford Focus, Hyundai Elantra, Kia Spectra, Mazda3, and Saturn Ion. If you are like me and have never bought a new car, there are some good options in the used market, including those cars ancestors of the last few years. And the need to change zoning laws that encourage better integration of residential neighborhoods close to grocery stores and other shops to run errands via a walk or bike is an important point that you bring up. These shifts are occurring in some towns like my old stomping ground of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, North Carolina, but not everywhere: which brings up the point again that we need to build political power from the local level up so that we can encourage the construction of sidewalks, bike lanes, accessible public transit, and other ways to help keep our energy consumption (and thus energy bills) down.
And Jesse, keep up the thinking on these crucial issues.
Together we can revolutionize the way we travel and use electricity. Good luck in all of your initiatives for a low-carbon future,
Dennis

By: Carlos Rymer

Carlos Rymer — Tue, 22 May 2007 12:55:13 +0000

Great post. Toyota recently announced that by 2010 the cost of producing its hybrids would be the same as producing non-hybrids today. So, it will make its entire fleet hybrid by 2020, according to their recent announcement: http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=41842&newsdate=11-May-2007. If gas prices continue going up, we can say goodbye to Ford and GM.

By: Cheap!

Cheap! — Tue, 22 May 2007 01:41:14 +0000

If we can keep technology moving forward to 100 mpg vehicles??? Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles PHEV’s get above 100 MPG for most commuters. How do I know? I own one. Leather seats, airbags, navigation system, and I get to stay out of the rain. It is the next step that can be done right now with today‚Äôs technology. I have been building mine since November, but I am done now.
http://priuschat.com/My-official-Prius-Plus-mods-thread-t26951.html

By: chani

chani — Mon, 21 May 2007 23:22:58 +0000

I would to see how people can save on gas. Telling someone to purchase a hybrid to get more fuel mileage doesn’t always equal the price of car versus the price of gas. Telling people to live near their work so can bike or walk to work or even use public transportation is not a reality if your job is in an expensive city like D.C, San Francisco, or Dallas. People live away and commute because it is cheaper to purchase a home in the middle of no where and pay gas prices than buy a home in a big city. Walking or biking to shopping centers is not an option because, they are not close to residental neighborhoods due to zoning laws (unless you shop at 7-Eleven). I don’t even have sidewalks in my city and I live in the desire city in the county. So I would love to see how I can lower my demand in gas. The price to change to move, purchase a hybrid, or change jobs would not equally $10 a gallon gas!

By: Nina Rizzo

Nina Rizzo — Mon, 21 May 2007 20:09:42 +0000

Dennis, I like how you mentioned that we can convince our elected officials to “act to help domestic industries flourish through developing efficient vehicles supported by higher fuel efficiency standards.”

Check out Freedom from Oil:
http://freedomfromoil.org/

It’s a coalition campaign that Global Exchange is a part of that’s convincing the entire US auto industry to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. Automakers can become leaders in addressing climate change, reducing our dependence on oil and creating jobs if they do this.

By: Jesse Jenkins

Jesse Jenkins — Mon, 21 May 2007 18:57:47 +0000

Great post Dennis. You make an excellent point, and one that I have been exploring the implications of for the past several weeks. As you very astutely point out, the price of gas is not what we really care about, it’s the price of travel. As with every fuel, be it natural gas, electricity or gasoline, we’re not interested in using the fuel for the sake of using the fuel; we’re interested in the utility we gain from that fuel, and that’s what we’re paying for.

If we increase the efficiency at which we utilize the fuel, we decrease the cost of the utility we gain from that fuel – be it travel, heating or powering the laptop I’m writing this comment on. We often talk about ‘cost effective’ efficiency opportunities, usually in the context of limiting the various efficiency opportunities out there to ones that pay themselves back in a short period of time at current energy costs. However, if we were willing to artificially increase fuel costs – say through a carbon or energy tax – at the same time as we invest in harnessing efficiency in our cars, homes and businesses, we can effectively decrease fuel consumption (and therefore greenhouse gas emissions) while keeping the same cost of utility.

And the carbon/energy tax would provide a new source of revenue to fund programs that help defray the up front costs of efficiency measures. Hybrid cars, compact fluorescent lights, new efficient refrigerators, etc. all have higher up front, or capital costs than their less efficient counterparts. Most will pay this higher up front cost back over the lifetime of the vehicle, light, appliance, etc. through energy cost savings, but many people are reluctant to pay more up front for savings down the road. This is a major barrier to the adoption of efficiency measures. The compact fluorescent is the perfect example: it says right on the box that you’ll save money buying this light bulb – about ~$20 over the life of the bulb – but people are reluctant to buy a bulb for $1.50 when the can get an incandescent bulb that costs $0.25. Is it because people like wasting money? Of course not. They’re simply suffering from sticker shock.

However, with an increased carbon/energy tax, we can generate billions of dollars in new revenue. Some of this should be directed to research and development of new clean energy and energy efficiency technologies, but much of it should be directed to lowering the up front cost of efficiency measures, eliminating the sticker shock and speeding the deployment of cost and energy saving technologies. Rebates could be granted to manufacturers, resellers or purchasers of efficient products to reduce the up front costs. Energy users would repay the rebate over time with the tax on the remaining energy use.

This kind of revenue neutral carbon tax could rapidly accelerate the use of efficient technologies, decrease our energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, and do all of that without putting extra strain on consumers’ pocketbooks. We’ve got to start thinking about ways to maximize the cost effective means of reducing carbon emissions and do so as quickly as possible. This is just one idea, and I’m sure there are plenty more.

By: R Margolis

R Margolis — Mon, 21 May 2007 18:01:01 +0000

While this particular price spike is due to refinery issues, it does highlight a challenging convergence. In the next few decades, the world will be facing global warming, high energy demand from the developing world, and a minimum (if CERA is correct) of a “plateau” of oil production. Dealing with this trio of challenges will certainly tax our imaginations and require us to rethink. Maybe we can integrate what had previously been separate discussions of fuel type vs demand vs energy technologies, etc.