Why not 55 mph speed limit?

How much would that cost to implement ?

While you're thinking of ways to cut your oil consumption take a moment to look at this photo essay, it might give you some added incentive...

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/oil_reaches_louisiana_shores.html

Whenever efficiency is mentioned as a solution, someone always brings up Jevon's Paradox, which is the effect sometimes observed in economies where increases in efficiency actually increase consumption.

But I'm not sure if I buy this objection. Jevon's Paradox has been observed, but it's mainly been observed in cases where efficiency improves but supply is not significantly constrained. In that case, there is nothing preventing demand from increasing and efficiency improvements may simply serve to make consumption more convenient. But that's not the situation with oil. With oil, supply is constrained and falling. It seems to me that Jevon's Paradox should not occur if supply is declining, especially if efficiency improvements are being driven by supply constraints.

Pretty much none of the above. All ten are govt, govt. govt. programs and commissions. Most would have little impact and the best would have marginal (but maybe marginally worthwhile) impact.

55 miles an hour as suggested above would be a much better suggestion than any of the 10.

Perhaps impose an increasing gas tax to move the supply-demand curve over time. That could be rationalized, even by free market thinkers, as needed to protect Adam Smiths "social goods" that could be overused by the public(oil) if it is not protected.

(Use any revenues to make a small dent in the out of control deficit.)

Gail,

Although I think each of these suggestions is worthy of further attention, I am surprised there is no mention of the single, simplest approach that is guaranteed to have the desired outcome:

Increase the cost of oil products by levying taxes on them.

Historically, oil shocks and recessions have had the effect of reducing consumption and promoting efficiency even before government programs are put in place to deal with the problem. One of my axioms of societal behavior is that money is the prime mover for most people and most organizations. It is only when money is on the line that a critical mass in society are willing to change their entrenched behavior.

Additionally, I am always leery of top-down solutions as they so often either add a layer of complexity in the form of regulations or produce unintended side effects or both. Strict adherence to Occam's Razor says that the simplest solution is probably the best and nothing could be simpler than taxing consumption of oil products to raise their price. We currently tax liquor and cigarettes, two other addictive substances, because we wish to discourage their use. It's a tried and true solution.

The only problem, of course, is that such a solution would be political suicide for any politician that would support it. That's why I think it is important that we try to convince the American people (and others) that over-consumption of fossil fuels, oil in particular, is our #1 enemy. Terrorists will generate headlines and bring grief to thousands but they will not bring down the USA. Stumbling into Peak Oil with no preparation, on the other hand, may never generate the same headlines but is already grinding us down with no end in sight.

Here's hoping for some more vision and serious explanation from some of our so called 'leaders'.

-- Jon

PS__ I bet you all thought I was going to forget to mention that the Energy Export Databrowser is a great tool for putting the facts of our oil situation in front of people. ;-) No advertising and no spin means that users can come to their own conclusions about what the data say. And the story the data tell is both compelling and pretty unambiguous -- imported oil will soon be in short supply.

"Though local and state politicians are railing against BP and what they consider lax industry regulation and enforcement, it is nearly impossible to find any of them calling for offshore drilling to cease, or even slow down. Louisiana’s senators — Mary L. Landrieu, a Democrat, and David Vitter, a Republican — have both scrambled to be the most prominent voice to argue that the country should not retreat from offshore drilling just because of the spill. Many of their constituents seem to agree."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/us/23drill.html

This is an incredibly lame effort on Grist's part, which I normally have a lot of respect for. A resolution from congress? Please. People have zero respect for anything congress does or says. Cash for clunkers? Please. How about fees for all cars less than 40mpg and rebates for all cars more than 40 mpg. In short, a feebate program ala Amory Lovins.

Immediately announce emergency priority legislation to raise the gas tax to at least ten dollars a gallon. This will be done by a certain percentage increase per month for three years until the ten dollars a gallon is reached. Increase the tax by the CPI in years hence. Right now the gas tax is so low it doesn't even pay what it is intended for,the building and maintenance of highways. We are subsidizing our demise out of general tax funds.

The people who visit this site could come up with at least a hundred, not ten ways, to decrease oil use. Establish a thread to do this, publish it and distribute it to all major media and political leader.s

We are in a crisis and we were in a crisis even before this oil gusher; it is just that the gusher is making this obvious.

The billions that are spent on the military and environmental consequences to maintain our oil economy is criminal.

In all the media accounts I have seen, including interviews with the suffering locals, I have not seen one person call for an effort to cut our dependency. What were the locals driving before this gusher and what will they be driving afterwards?

BP is the proximate cause of this disaster but everyone needs to step up to avoid spills like this in the future.

Obama could start by speaking straight to the American people if he is capable of doing so. The gulf is screwed and will be so for years, if not for decades. It is time for another sweater speech ala Carter without the sweater.

Where is the outrage? If this gusher is not a wake up call, a whack on the side of the head, what the hell is.

Ineffective and disappointing set of ideas. Basically worthless.

More later.

Alan

Gail,Jason,
Since 55% of US oil use is for cars and light trucks, this has to be the target. Accelerating the adoption of PHEV and EV's as rapidly as car manufactures can re-tool and ramp up production should be the first priority.

The second should be raising gassoline and diesel taxes by at least $1/gallon(probably $4/gallon would be better) to ensure that existing vehicles are phased out as soon as possible.

Longer term (10-50years) mass transit expansion.

In addition to taxes, we will have to reduce the crash test requirements at least to European standards. High mileage eventually requires less weight, and less weight equals less safety. If the long term carrying capacity of this planet is closer to two billion than seven billion, a few hundred crash deaths would unfortunately be inconsequential. I'm looking for a Honda CRX, which could never be built now. A 55 mile speed limit would have little immediate impact but would encourage the sale of underpowered, lighter weight, more economical cars.

I think if this were a serious effort to reduce oil usage then
several categories can be targeted.
Commercial shipping can be converted to nuclear power. China's CEO of COSCO shipping is looking at this. Nuclear power is used for several hundred military ships.
It would work and be cost effective and enable faster shipping of goods. It would be cost effective even with higher insurance costs and paying for two to four armed squads of security. 9% of the worlds oil is used for shipping.

research on substitutes for oil for plastics.

Oil is still used for electricity.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec5_33.pdf

Oil is still used for heat
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec5_35.pdf

Oil is still used for industry (heat and other uses)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec5_36.pdf

Recreational vehicles using oil could be more easily targeted politically.

Cities could create larger zones than current open air walking blocks.
Free bikes like Amsterdam. Park at the periphery.
Use EZ Pass to target tolls and fees and larger vehicles.
Give away electric bikes or 2-4 person 3-4 wheel light electric vehicles.
Take away one lane and turn them into two lanes for the the light vehicles that
are 3 feet wide. Expand out from electric bike or regular bike or segway only or walking only zones. Downtowns, campuses, large warehouses, etc...
The light electric vehicles can be sub-$1000 and would be cheaper than hybrid car subsidies.
25-30 million electric bikes per year mostly in China. They have shown that the volume can be done and will be far more feasible than suitable electric cars. There 60+ mph electric motor bikes. Light vehicles could use ten times less batteries than a full electric car.

Easier to pass city by city zoning and other rules than pass statewide or national.
If you can't convince Berkeley or some other green friendly cities then you have no hope.

9. Prizes for tech breakthroughs. A prize is now awarded for 100 mph vehicle. Similar prizes could be offered for other breakthroughs.

Was that supposed to be 100 mpg? It's only one key off on the keyboard.

Higher gasoline taxes would certainly be an incentive, but I see a couple of problems. The first is that it would have to be carefully crafted to avoid being regressive, and the second, much bigger issue is that it's politically next to impossible until people realize how much trouble we're in, and then it will likely be too late.

Sheesh the authors really dropped the ball on this one. I think they limited their choices to those that allow BAU; which we all know is no longer possible. I can just see them...writers and editors sitting around a table trying not to scare the public, instead coming up with feel-good solutions full of truthiness. Did they forget that it all goes back to seemingly unrelated, personal choices? What about personal sacrifice? Whatever happened to that? Why do all of the "solutions" from these mouth-breathers involve further consumption? SO many questions!

How about personal solutions like no babies(and humanely lowering the population), vegetarianism or limiting meat consumption, promoting bicycles, discouraging obesity, higher taxes on oil where the $$ is directed to specific purposes, guerilla gardens and other carbon offset techniques...

Like someone already said, we could all think of hundreds of strategies given the time...

God I love this place... TOD

mr.fixie

Yes, Pretty dissapointing weak tea. All watered down legislative wish list stuff. The shame is even something this toothless has virtually zero change of getting passed. I thought the teaching people to drive better was particularly lame. And not because they don't need to learn how, but "don't accellerate hard" is pretty lame, and the typical translation is counterproductive:
(1) Conservation isn't fun, only sissies do it.
or
(2) They take it to heart, but accelerate like turtles, wasting both time and fuel (as they are stuck in lower gears longer).

I would concentrate on only two major behavioral changes here.
(1) Turn the engine off stupid! How many drivers park for an extended period of time leaving the engine running. There seems to be an irrational fear that if they turn the vehicle off they won't be able to restart it. Or perhaps they don't know a car battery can run the radio for several hours without running the battery down significantly.
(and)
(2) Avoid, hurry up and wait. Otherwise know as looking/thinking ahead, so you can avoid wasting the vehicles kinetic energy with unneccesary braking. In terms of stopping for red lights, this might be called just in time arrival (i.e. arrive at the light just after it turns green).

I suspect the factors that will reduce crude oil consumption the most in the U.S. are: high prices, high unemployment, shortages and rationing.

People don't respond well to punishment (higher taxes, slower speeds, etc.) Find better ways to reward efficiency. A fuel accountability chip for vehicles or tracking unneccesary consumption somehow. Use less, pay less. Give folks with higher mileage cars a fuel subsidy. Those that drive low mileage vehicles by choice pay a large penalty (to subsidize the frugal).

I am open to correction but I believe that Norwegian law discourages building houses on prime farmland.
Lack of food was the motive for the Viking expansion.

What is the ratio of oil for transport/oil for other uses?
This fact will skew our emphasis.

I am wondering if the mining of Trash Mountain on the east coast for long chain carbons might significantly lower oil abuse.

It might pay to re-visit The Report to the Club of Rome (2000).
All these mitigation endeavors work out well if we implement them in 1982.

1 - Get rid of the cars.

2 - Get rid of the cars.

3 - Get rid of the cars.

4 - Get rid of the cars.

...

12 - Get rid of the cars.

2,8m - Get rid of the cars.

This is the last war, the final war, the war between humans and the machines. The humans are stupid and the machines will win. The humans will starve and the few survivors will be slaves ...

Does not pass the smell test for me.

Any proposal that does not increase the cost of the thing that you are trying to reduce is a waste of time. We must put a steadily increasing tax in place that drives consumption down faster than the depletion rate. The new tax revenue may not be spent on anything until the government deficit and debt is zero (because deficits will destroy the value of money in a post peak oil no growth economy).

Also, we must make better use of what we've already got. We cannot afford to scrap perfectly good cars for new efficient ones. In case you haven't noticed, the Greatest Depression is just around the corner. Therefore, a 35 mph maximum speed limit is a no brainer. You get much better fuel economy at 35 mph than 55 mph. Anyone caught exceeding 35 mph loses their car which will be sold to pay down the government debt.

Everything else is greenwash fluff.

Note that the above two simple and effective measures can be implemented with a one page law, and will naturally drive demand for all the other good stuff like mass transit, telecommuting etc. with no additional effort or expense by the government.

Funny, they did title it 10 ways to kick the offshore-oil habit. Using that ambition as the gauge, we might have notches on the dial for silver BBs, bronze BBs, and, I suppose ... these ten styrofoam BBs. I'm thinking here that depletion never sleeps, so "kicking the offshore habit" would begin to approach kicking the entire "habit" as onshore depletes with little more being found. And since they position themselves as an environmental group, I'm also thinking they'd want to be equitable about kicking the overseas offshore "habit" as well as the Gulf "habit". So:

1. A better "cash for clunkers" program. Sure, let's "kick the habit" by massively subsidizing the very sector of the economy that guzzles large helpings of the stuff. That seems to be how government likes to do things, subsidize lavishly to please a special interest and then moan and groan about increased usage. These guys must have been smoking Beltway exhaust fumes for way too long.

2. Emergency funding for endangered mass transit. Sure, let's put the transit lines that offer the least benefit (and are thus most endangered) onto the Federal never-never. The credit line is infinite. With good luck that might cover a week of depletion. With bad luck it might increase oil consumption by running even more empty diesel buses.

3. A national telecommuting and videoconferencing initiative. Fine and dandy for jobs already enroute to India. Might help a little bit someday in a BAU or BAU-lite world.

4. Smarter freight movement. Probably a little bit in there someday. But few trucking companies move empty trucks around for the sheer joy of it.

5. Smarter land use. Lots of potential in the far future, not so much for "kicking the habit" any time soon. Politically problematical unless forced by circumstances - those who want to live in the city and can afford it are already free to do it.

6. Smarter travel through IT. Sigh. See (4). Also no perspective on how insignificant 3 million gallons might be percentagewise.

7. Educating drivers. A little bit in this, on a non-compounding basis. Nothing new about the tire pressure.

8. A resolution saying...[who cares?] Yup, for sure, if there's one thing Congress knows how to do, it's to resolute up a storm. (While they're at it they can resolute the oil back down the blown-out well.)

9. Prizes for tech breakthroughs. Theater. How about real money or real markets? Or modifying the patent system to penalize games that stifle innovation, including sitting on stuff.

10. Efficiency "visibility." More "studies", i.e. more Beltway exhaust fumes unconnected to the real world. Little potential for help "kicking the habit" any time soon.

So maybe all this together might save a low single digit percentage any time soon, balancing as much as a year or two of depletion. It does seems like a very good guess about the range of actions that might actually sociopolitically feasible for the time being.

On the other hand it seems marginal even if offshore were merely frozen, much less "kicked". Against the stated ambition of "kicking it", i.e. shutting it down, it's mere piffle. (Now, whether it's worth "kicking it" artificially is something we've beaten to death elsewhere, so I leave that aside.)

Obviously, it's impossible to "kick the offshore habit".

But...
"1. A better "cash for clunkers" program." I like the efficiency market idea that Morgan Downey wrote about. It's dynamic, cost-neutral (to the taxpayer), technology-neutral, and fast. A fixed-threshold fee-bate scheme already seems to work in France. Now that the U.S. is the majority shareholder of GM and a creditor of Chrysler, this is a good opening to push that idea through. You have to kick them while they're down.

2. Emergency funding for endangered mass transit. The article notes that 59% of public transit networks have cut service, raised fares, or both since January 2009. More federal funding could help this situation.

It must be remembered that bus transit systems in the U.S. average about 32 passenger miles per gallon, and resource utilization theory says that in an optimized system each new bus added to the system will reduce that average fuel economy.

I agree that these suggestions are pretty lightweight. I actually support mandatory driver education, as it reduces car crashes

I know this has been mentioned previously on TOD, but how about "place of origin" labelling for oil? you don't actually track the physical oil of course, you allow retailers to buy the rights to sell different sources, same was as you can buy "green" electricity.

Right now, if your local gas station had one pump labelled onshore, and the other offshore (or Saudi Arabia, or iraq, etc) which would you buy?

Other ideas;

* Mandatory requirement for instantaneous fuel consumption readout in all new vehicles, and retrofit kits to be put onto existing vehicles when re-registered. When you floor it and see it go to 5mpg, you don't floor it very often.

* Relax the NOx emissions requirements so that European diesel vehicles can be driven here. We can save a lot of oil if we are prepared to wear a few more ppm of NOx

*Phase out all use of oil for heating and electricity generation

*Carbon tax on fuels, increasing to $5/gal equiv.

*offer free conversions (paid for by carbon tax) of any fleet vehicles doing more than 50k miles/year, to CNG/LNG, incl heavy trucks and city buses

* same again for trains (faster and cheaper to implement than electrification)

*Sales tax on vehicles based on mileage ratings

and, if we really want to kick the offshore habit, simply don;t issue any new permits for doing any new drilling. That is the most direct, effective and cheapest approach and would probably grab the most attention in the shortest time.

But the chances of that are about the same as the Deepwater Horizon seeing the light of day again...

I'd like to see a tax credit/other incentive for folks who buy cheap used mid-'90s Honda Civics, instead of sending those cars to the scrapyard and replacing them with stupid new cars bloated with luxury features everybody says they need but never end up using. 12-way power adjustable heated outside mirrors? Really?? A 'fridge in the center console to keep your Twinkies from melting? Seriously?

Oh, and make the used-Civic-incentive retroactive. I got mine about 5 years ago. If you want one too, better get to it, prices are going up and they're getting harder to find in un-Ricerized form.

An absolute and total push for bicycles, electric bicycles and low power scooters.

1) More bike paths + maps showing how to get to places through suburbs and paths. Safe, roofed places to actually leave your bike.
2) Relax any biking laws that cause more hassle than realistic use. Bikes get right of way on the road by law. Like pedestrians have right of way in England.
3) Bike safety courses for children as part of standard education. Free courses for adults.
4) Bike exercise programs. Americans are fat, they need them. Doctors should push bikes as the perfect low impact cardiac exercise.
5) Government studies showing how cars make you fat, stupid, infertile, whatever... Glamorization of bikes, unglamorization of cars. Advertising of bikes in major newspapers. The bike needs to be the new car.
6) Government needs to stop helping needy car manufacturers. ALL subsidies end. Including any fuel subsidies, hidden payments. EVERYTHING.
7) Drop the speed limit. Ignore the inevitable wingeing, it will save lives and make slower vehicles more popular. Espcecially in built up areas.
8) The government should grow a f'cking spine.
9) Mass transport overhaul. Spine needed.
10) Incentives for people that ride to work. Loose enough to cover all small vehicles including low power scooters. This can be dropped further down later if necessary to only include human powered vehicles.

Number 9 has a typo--it should read "mpg", I think.

Regardless of anything else, I'll just point out that the problem with tele/video-conferencing isn't making it socially acceptable. For those participants who think the meeting is a waste of time, there's no difference. For those who are trying to acheive things at the meeting, it's that there are a host of effects at meetings that are more important than just the words being said, eg, because you can look around very, very easily you can read body-language of people who have unspoken reservations about what's being said, very often important things get said in passing between individuals in the pre/post meeting melee (that doesn't really happen with videoconferencing), etc. Likewise telecommuting runs the risk of missing seeing the wood for the trees if there's no informal interaction.

That's not to say they're bad ideas, but that there needs to be a better understanding of what they're replacing in order to see how to make them suitable beyond just technological advances.

Regarding the poster's questions:

If you take the oil out of the ground, you will use it. Pricing will adjust so that it will be used. If production is 80mbd, then use will be 80mbd, no matter what programs are in place. Even if the U.S. doesn't use it, someone will, perhaps India.

Thus, the only real solution to reducing oil use (beyond the limits of production in an unconstrained scenario), is to reduce production "artificially."

A hydrocarbon tax, for example, increases the purchase price of fuels. This reduces the demand. Reduced demand leads to lower prices for fuel (wholesale prices, not prices+taxes). The lower selling prices for fuel producers makes expansion of production unprofitable, and thus production declines. Thus, ironically, a hydrocarbon tax would reduce overall fuel use (on a global basis) by making it too cheap to sell profitably.

Banning certain activities, such as offshore drilling, increases the price of production (fewer opportunities). This increases the selling price of fuels, leading to reduced demand and a lower level of production which can be done profitably.

Given the U.S.'s history of cheap fuel and easy motoring, I doubt that the high-tax solution would be pursued to an extent that significantly reduces demand. An offshore ban is possible, but really only effective on a global basis if applied on a global basis, including offshore drilling in Angola, Brazil etc.

Thus, the most likely course of events is reduced production due to geologic constraints, i.e. "Peak Oil.", leading to higher prices.

Direct quotas.

Give everyone an equal amount of coupons they use alongside cash to buy oil based products. Producers need to get a hold of these coupons for permission to take oil out of the ground. Implement a system allowing people to sell the coupons they don't use. Reduce the total number of coupons over time, at least 80% by 2050.

A combination of pricing adjustments, taxes and the ideas above all need to be used. However the problem will be political. One party is blinded by their opposition to anything related to tax hikes and any of the above ideas would be marketed as socialism or big government. In other words we are dealing with an irrational political group against a rational group that knows they will get killed at the polls if they support what really needs to be done. I would think that a type of cap and trade program is what we need but this has been demonized by a certain political party already.

Set a minimum mpg of 5mpg for personal transport. Raise it 1mpg every 6 months. When the limit hits the stated mpg of your vehicle, you can no longer drive it on the roads. Specifically include light trucks in personal transport.

All heavy transport is licensed and regulated - you've got to justify it.

----

Straight pricing or taxation doesn't work because those that need transport are not necessarily those that can afford it. The market is a poor mechanism. However by cutting off the low mpg vehicles, you hit the expensive first - which is just where it needs to hit.

This approach can have a faster and bigger effect than raising the average mpg of new vehicles, and can be tuned to larger targets (1Mbpd reduction in US usage every year).

This list is a joke. The difference that implementing all ten items would be only very marginal at best. Let's try a re-work:

1. "A better "cash for clunkers" program." Not an altogether bad idea, but it doesn't go nearly far enough. Trading in a vehicle that gets 18mpg for one that gets 22mpg just isn't going to make that much difference. Trading it in for something that gets 35 or 40 mpg will. The design of the program needs to be focused on the differential in fuel mileage between the old and new vehicle, and only those trades that achieve the highest possible differentials should be subsidized. Furthermore, the program does nothing to incentivize what is possibly the biggest differential and savings potential of all: just getting rid of the clunker and not replacing it at all. A cash incentive could be designed to reward such decisions; tricky, but it could be done.

2. "Emergency funding for endangered mass transit." Doesn't go nearly far enough. We need far more than just "emergency funding" for endangered systems, we need a massive, long-term investment program. This needs to be a national priority of the same scale as the Manhattan Project, the Interstate Highway system, or the Apollo program.

3. "A national telecommuting and videoconferencing initiative." That might help a little bit. However, the real nut that needs to be cracked is providing people with jobs that are close to their homes. People are still going to have to travel to workplaces, so what we really need to be thinking about is how to co-locate those workplaces and residential areas closer to each other. We are about to see a huge glut in vacant commercial properties as the banks pull the plug on CRE finance. Federal incentives, subsidies, and grants to fund the conversion and repurposing of vacant commercial properties into residential so that workers are provided with places to live closer to their workplaces would have several big benefits.

4. "Smarter freight movement." We don't need a study, we already know what needs to be done; we just need to do it. Most long-distance freight needs to be moved by rail or barge rather than by truck. This can effectively done by increasing the motor fuel tax substantially, and turning all of the interstate highways into toll roads (prohibiting truck traffic on other roads to local deliveries only). Increased motor fuel taxes will also help reduce passenger vehicle traffic, encouraging people to stay home, carpool, or use public transportation.

5. "Smarter land use." See number 3 above. Again, we don't need studies, we just need to get on it. There may need to be some sort of federal mandate - federal dollars only go to states that over-ride their local zoning laws.

6. "Smarter travel through IT." Doesn't go nearly far enough. The real savings is in preventing people from having to get in their cars for shopping trips in the first place. We need to encourage a return of the milkman and a whole host of other home delivery services. These in turn need to be encouraged to work together to minimize wasteful duplication of effort.

7. "Educating drivers." They know what to do. Ignorance isn't the reason why everyone is speeding along. We need to lower speed limits, not just on the major highways but across the board; lower city street speed limits will make them safer for pedestrians and bicyclists and NEVs, too. These speed limits are worthless unless enforced vigorously. That can be partially self-funding through increased fines. Maybe requiring that transponders be installed in all cars and installing systems on all streets and highways to record violators would be more efficient and effective.

8. "A resolution saying efficiency is a new national priority." BS! The last thing we need is another d@mned "resolution" that sounds good and sits on the shelf gathering dust. In place of this, my list would mention carpooling here - something conspicuous by its absence in the Grist list. We need more of it - a LOT more carpooling. Now that we have things like websites and search engines and smart phones and text messaging, it should be possible to develop technologies that make it much easier and quicker to match up people wanting to carpool. A very little bit of federal money can go a very long way here. Carpooling needs to be strongly preferenced and incentivized, with reduced or no tolls, dedicated HOV lanes, dedicated cheap or free parking, etc.

9. "Prizes for tech breakthroughs." Yeah, and also more federal research dollars. A big incentive, though, could be the FedGov teaming up with state and local govs and with NFPs like the Red Cross to do some massive joint procurements with energy efficiency specifications. For example, if you want CNG or E85 or B20/B100 to be fuel options at service stations (thus encouraging manufacturers to make and buyers to buy such vehicles), you have the governments all get together and specify that they will only contract for fuel cards with oilcos that install these and make them available at all of their retail outlets. People have been worrying about that "chicken vs. egg" problem - that's how you eliminate it.

10. "Congress should fund the development of a National Energy Efficiency Data Center (NEEDC), which would study efficiency technologies." Well, yes, but more important that this point than the studying is the doing. It is time that we really got on with it. Simply mandate max efficiency retrofits for all existing gov't facilities, and max efficiency for any new construction, and make the design and results freely available.

And some other things:

11. Carter mandated that the thermostats be lowered in all federal buildings in the wintertime, and raised in the summer. No reason not to go back to that. Various federal carrots and sticks can be implemented to provide incentives for others to do the same.

12. We need a new Civilian Conservation Corps. This time, one of their mandates will be to provide the manpower to weatherize and insulate low-income housing, as well as federal, state and local gov't facilities. They can also install solar water and space heating systems. This new CCC will also help with unemployment, especially among young workers.

Replace our addiction to oil with something better... like....OPIUM! Yea, thats it.

Actually what we are addicted to is MONEY. Without it you die. Oil use is the best and easiest way to acquire MONEY. I could maybe live without oil right now but would be toast without money.

Why wasn't vegetarianism listed as a solution? With all the talk on this site in recent months about the sustainability of agriculture in a post-peak-world, it would seem that someone would notice that it takes less energy (oil) to produce and transport food for a human than to produce and transport food for the many animals it takes to provide meat for the same human.

Do you know that BART station agents make damn near 6 figure incomes? http://tinyurl.com/ygwsykn

It is a freakin outrage that people put up with this. As I find myself saying many times, what the hell is wrong with... aww skip it. The point is you cannot put money into public transportation because the bloodsucking leeches will suck every penny out of you to the point where it is not any more efficient than a line of SUVs in a traffic jam.

Cash for clunkers was fail. No need for more fail.

#3 makes sense. Give businesses a big tax credit for telecommuting.

#9 is good too. My plan is: Have the government work with professors around the country to compose a 1000 question test covering 10 topics. Sociology, history, science, math, computer literacy, psychology, economics, etc. Then allow everyone to take the test and compete for prize money. Award $50,000 to the top million scores. This will effectively transfer a large portion of wealth to the most educated people, which would theoretically strengthen the economy.

My Top Ten Thriteen List of Ways to Reduce Oil Use

Not in order of importance

1) Raise gas & diesel taxes (and aviation fuel taxes) by 3 cents/gallon each and every month (with quarterly inflation adjustments) for 20 years. Plenty of time to prepare for expensive gas. Couple this with lower tax increases on other oil uses (5 year delay and then raise home heating fuel taxes a dime/gallon every July 4th).

2) Subsidize to high efficiency heat pumps (or wood) or natural gas for those burning oil and propane. Say 50% tax credit except low income. Require rental property to convert off oil before it can be sold.

3) Subsidize everyone to use natural gas & electricity more efficiently (electric utilities must use more combined cycle NG, less old boiler & straight turbine NG; tankless gas water heaters, solar water heaters w/NG back-up, better insulation, windows, doors, etc.). Start taxing (modest) NG and electrical use in 5 years (again time to prepare).

4) Tax plastics made from oil. $1/lb for starts. Special taxes for truly wasteful uses (grocery store & WalMart bags).

5) Electrify all 35,000 miles of railroad main lines in 7 years (OK, 8 years if there are snafus). Continue on with branch lines after that.

6) Add back double track removed decades ago, build rail over rail bridges, remove grade crossings, straighten curves, improve signals. Increase rail capacity by 400% and reduce trip times by half for the cost of two AIG bailouts.

7) Build 9,000 to 14,000 miles of upgraded track (mainly on existing ROW) that can handle express freight at 90 to 100 mph and passenger trains at 110 to 125 mph.

8) Subsidize either building new rail spurs to factories and warehouses or move same to rail sidings.

9) Sell interstate highways to private toll roads, that are not regulated in how much they charge, but are told that they will pay an excise tax on tolls collected that can increase to 150% in 20 years. (Collect $2.50, $1.50 excise tax, $1 to toll road owner).

Above should help transfer bulk of inter-city freight traffic to electrified rail.

10) In next seven to ten years, build Los Angeles "Subway to the Sea", NYC 2nd Avenue subway, Boston North-South Station link, 500 miles of new Metro (subway type), 5,000 miles of light rail and 3,000 miles of streetcar lines.

11) Subsidize TOD with 1/4% special tax credit on first 7 years of mortgage (must be within 1/3rd mile of a station). Add 1/2% "risk premium" for all homes more than 4 miles from Urban Rail stop, 1/4% for more than 2 miles.

12) $100/parking space/year tax on all commercial parking (first 3 spaces/business free). Increase by $50/year for 20 years. Tax can be reduced with $20/year credit ($10/year increase) for each bicycle parking spot. Special taxes on "big box' stores.

13) Redesign "enough" roads to make bicycles the preferred mode on that road. 4 lanes > 2 auto lanes + 2 wide bike lanes. Add LOTS of bicycle parking, trails, showers, lower urban speed limits, 3' minimum passing law, and billboards touting bicyclists as "True Patriots" and SUV drivers as supporters of evil.

Need more time to complete list, but these WOULD make a difference.

Alan

1) Almost universally a good idea.

2) Bad idea. Public transit fails because it's not profitable, and it's largely not profitable because gas is cheap, space is cheap, and city government is inefficient.

As the price of oil increases over time, cities will become more densely populated, which should help make cars less attractive and make the budget case for public transport stronger. Until then, dumping federal money into a sinkhole caused by inefficiency will yield only greater inefficiency.

3) Good idea.

4) Mostly a bad idea. Rail and air freight transport right now are near optimum efficiency; government intervention is almost certain to damage that efficiency.

The only exceptions to this that I see at the moment is in the area of "public resource" constraints. The placement of rail lines, and the ability to construct new rail lines, is dependent on the ability to procure right of way and land from governmental authorities. Similarly for air tranport, airport access is dependent on the government.

Leave the remainder alone.

5) I honestly don't know how I feel about this one.

6) Improving things like traffic lights and road layout/organization could be pretty effective, if other cities are anything like the city I live in. However improvements like the 'left hand turn of UPS trucks' are unlikely to be realized due to government intervention and no attempt should be made to mandate them.

7) Most of the people I know already know this. They just don't care. I pretty much don't care, even though I know the numbers on it; I'm willing to pay that extra five cents to stomp on the gas and get around the retarded slow person driving in front of me. Quite frankly, the extra cost is worth it to me. If it cost five times as much, I would still do it.

8) Probably a good idea. Government agencies of any sort typically require an act of god to do something new or change existing processes.

9) Great idea.

10) Bad idea. Private industry already does this vastly more efficiently, quickly, and on a much broader scope than a government agency could do so. If you want governmental incentives to go faster, simply tax the offending energy source.

And taxing the offending energy source is in fact what the authors should propose if they really wanted to make a dent in the offshore oil habit. Why not simply an additional tax on all fuel expected to be used on a public motorway? The biggest energy efficiency/oil problem we face is that of transportation, cars and trucks in particular.

Rail fuel should be exempt; rail is stunningly efficient in terms of oil/energy usage, so long as it's left in private hands. The spread of private rail should be encouraged. It's also one of the easiest to upgrade to alternate energy sources, so if there is a hard oil shock/crash rail is least likely to be affected in the long term.

I suspect there should also be an exemption for jet fuel. There's simply no viable replacement for hydrocarbon fuels in aircraft; if they didn't use hydrocarbons made from crude, they'd have to use hydrocarbons made from something else, and efficiency of aircraft is already near theoretical maximum. Raising the cost of fuel for aircraft won't really result in efficiency gains other than changing flight plans (to reduce airspeed) and cargo composition.

One argument in favor of an exemption for jet fuel is that there would be more human transport due to the increased cost of road fuels. This would result in a small bias in favor of moving closer to major airports, as well as building smaller airports and flying less common routes. Increasing population density around transportation hubs will improve overall transportation efficiency.

Cars and trucks on the other hand should be hit hard. The incredibly low cost of individual transport is the reason we have sprawl that requires individual transport and that precludes effective public transportation. Raising road fuel rates would serve to concentrate communities and would drive tremendous amounts of research into fuel efficiency, alternate fuels, and alternate energy sources. This would also eliminate the 'need' for an ethanol subsidy, hopefully allowing biofuel research money to be diverted to more effective biofuel sources.

1. A better "cash for clunkers" program. Give people money for retiring their old clunkers, but no money at all if they buy a new one. Cash for clunkers was just a subsidy program for the car industry, not a real way to reduce fuel consumption. The U.S. doesn't need as many cars as it has. Just because a family has 4 drivers doesn't mean it should have 4 cars. They could travel together, just like in the old days. Kids could walk to school again.

2. Emergency funding for endangered mass transit. Emergency funding for new transit systems, to compensate for the last 60 years of neglect of transit and subsidies for automobiles. Big cities mostly have rail systems, which need to be expanded. Every medium-sized city should have a light rail system. Small cities just need new buses. All paid for by higher fuel taxes.

3. A national telecommuting and videoconferencing initiative. A nice thought and one worth pursuing. However, putting in better public transit to connect people to their jobs would be more effective. Putting housing on the second and higher floor of businesses is even more effective. Just like in the old days. Not everybody should live in the far-flung suburbs.

4. Smarter freight movement. Electrify the railroads. The Europeans did it, the Japanese did it, the Chinese are in the process of doing it. Tax heavy trucks in proportion to the damage they do to roads, which is substantial. There's no point is subsidizing them any more, so they should pay full maintenance costs like railroads do. If shippers had to pay the true cost of road repairs, they would most likely prefer rail.

5. Smarter land use. Insist on a minimum density of 8 units per acre, which is about the minimum for a viable transit system. Ban local governments from setting ridiculously large minimum lot sizes and ridiculously large minimum house sizes. Allow people to build dwelling units over their businesses to house the owners and workers. Insist schools be located so that all students can walk there. Governments which do not comply get no federal money.

6. Smarter travel through IT. Smarter travel through discouraging people from driving. Stop building freeways. Make it hard to drive and easy to walk or bicycle. Insist all streets be pedestrian-friendly - i.e. narrow streets with wide sidewalks and lots of obstacles to slow cars down. Forget the traffic lights and put in roundabouts. Eliminate free parking and put a tax on parking spaces - if you park, you pay.

7. Educating drivers. Educating drivers through high taxes. Many people ignore what you say, but if you hit them in the pocket book they pay attention. High fuel taxes, high taxes on gas-guzzling vehicles, and congestion tolls on roads are good educational tools.

8. A resolution saying efficiency is a new national priority. Resolutions are mostly a waste of paper. Taxes and spending commitments are more effective.

9. Prizes for tech breakthroughs. The prize should be that you continue to do business. Companies that don't innovate should go bankrupt. They really should have let GM and Chrysler go under because their products were just not adequate for the 21st century.

10. Efficiency "visibility." The most visible efficiency indicator is the number on the fuel pump when you are done filling up. If you want high efficiency, the number should be really, really big. High taxes can make it big, and pay for the other steps above, just like in Europe.

To the list of ten ways to feel good about doing nothing about the problem I suggest the authors should add "Visualize Whirled Peas"

On the other hand if we really wanted to start down the path toward sustainability that is rapidly receding from the realm of the possible we need to put a price on imported oil and carbon emissions that changes behavior.

The only way this could conceivably happen in a nation of self centered children is if they see immediate personal benefits that accompany the perceived pain at the pump.

1- A carbon tax and accompanying gasoline tax that starts out high enough to address the problem and progressively increases to a level that forces change.
2- Complete revenue neutrality. Distribute the entire proceeds of the Carbon Tax (Packaged as the American Independence Act of 2010) equally to every holder of a Social Security # regardless of their income or fuel use, therefore cutting administrative overhead to the minimum.

A $200 dollar check arriving in the mail every month starting on the day the Independence Act was approved would soon have people in Tea Party meetings demanding that big bad government not mess with their monthly Independence checks.

1. A better "cash for clunkers" program.
No one has money for a new car even with "cash for clunkers", and most of the 35mpg+ vehicles are in very short supply anyway.

2. Emergency funding for endangered mass transit.
If mass transit is so energy efficient, why does it always have to be so heavily subsidized? For commuting, mass transit always involves running empty vehicles half the time, which greatly reduces fuel savings.

3. A national telecommuting and videoconferencing initiative.
This would help, but only marginally.

4. Smarter freight movement.
It isn't smart because the costs of being not smart are very low. A substantial fuel tax would make it smarter.

5. Smarter land use.
Zoning to manipulate land use was largely responsible for the subprime mortgage fiasco. Do we want more of that?

6. Smarter travel through IT.
Worth doing, but the savings will be trivial.

7. Educating drivers.
The best education involves the wallet. We need a fuel tax.

8. A resolution saying efficiency is a new national priority.
Has a Congressional Resolution ever achieved anything?

9. Prizes for tech breakthroughs.
The major breakthrough needed is repealing the laws of thermodynamics. I don't think it can be done.

10. Efficiency "visibility."
Another meaningless government program.

My answers:
1. None of these will give significant savings.
2. All except 1, 2 and 5 could be low cost, but the government does not have a good record at doing things at low cost.
3. To ensure continuing reduction in oil use, we need to have continually increasing price to the end user, and this can only be achieved with increasing taxes.
4. These ten measures can only nibble at the edges of oil consumption.

The largest oil-consuming sector in the U.S. is cars. Manufacturers have made great strides in improving the efficiency of internal combustion engines, but because fuel usage is such a small part of the cost of car ownership, the improvements in efficiency have almost entirely been absorbed in making cars and trucks which are more powerful and heavier, but at the same time cannot carry a heavier load. For example, the 1962 Ford Fairlane weighed 2900 pounds, carried six passengers, and went 16-19 miles on a gallon with a 145hp V8 engine. The 2011 Ford Taurus weighs over 4000 pounds, carries five passengers, and gets 22 miles on a gallon with a 263hp V6. While it is quite an accomplishment to get nearly 15% better fuel economy with a vehicle which weighs 35% more, the carrying capacity has dropped by 17%.

The low carrying capacity and high unloaded weight of modern cars is quite remarkable. The Acura MDX (the Consumer Reports top-rated 3-row luxury SUV) weighs approximately 4600 pounds, but only has a load capacity of 1160 pounds even though it has seating for seven. The old standard for passenger weight of 150 pounds would add up to 1050 pounds for seven passengers alone, and a full fuel tank in addition would overload the vehicle. With the average American adult now weighing over 200 pounds, advertising this vehicles as "7 passenger" seems a bit deceptive. Forty-five years ago I owned a 1960 Citroen ID19 station wagon which weighed less than 2800 pounds, had seating for eight, and a placarded load capacity of 1100kg (2420 pounds). It went an average of 25 miles on a U.S. gallon, and while acceleration was leisurely by modern standards it had no problem maintaining highway average speeds over 70mph and had a top speed of about 100mph. If a vehicle like this could be made half a century ago, why can't something similar be produced today? It would probably get 35 miles per gallon, or better, with a modern engine of similar power.

The best way to reduce oil consumption in the U.S. is to enact a substantial and steadily increasing fuel tax. This would encourage the purchase of efficient vehicles, and efficiency in the use of vehicles. As someone else has suggested, easing nitrogen oxide exhaust limits slightly would allow the sale of European-style diesel engines on a large scale, which would make efficient vehicles immediately available in large numbers.

I read this and just sighed with despair. Its all just BAU, with a little green tinkering around the edges.

For what its worth, I spent the last 6 years living in an off-grid community. We grew much (80%) of our own food, generated our own electricity, heated the houses with coppice firewood. We all had jobs in the wider world, trying to do useful things.

My background was renewable energy system design. But my degree is in Plant Sciences (plants are a great photon-capture device!) I spent a lot of time thinking and learning about energy flows and footprinting. Helped a friend who studied our way of life for a year for his PhD thesis. It was a thorough examination of our way of life. Hell, I even calculated that we could get 4 apples from Argentina or 3 from France for the same C02 . .

But while it looked good on all the stuff you could see, the real problem is the system it is embedded in. We consumed about 40% of the resources of the UK average.

But it is nowhere near enough to get by with a zero-FF scenario. We basically just ship too much stuff too far, including ourselves

I look at this list, and think, this guy simply doesn't get it. Modern humans have been running a complex agricultural society for 11,000 years now. People back in the Bronze Age were no different from us. They had tax-collectors, useless government officials etc.

So, 11,000 years of human/animal powered agricultural society. The FF-based model has been running for about 150 yrs. How much longer? Another 100 at most.

So I say, OK, this list , when you've done all that, how long will that new 'tweaked' system work? 20yrs? 80? 100?

No,no, no. The real question is, how can you see things working in another 1000 years time? Lets design a system for that. It is going to be like that anyways So lets plan for it rather than just let it happen.

For me, the fundamental one is land distribution. I am now a farmer. In 1940, 40% of the population worked on the land. Now it is 3%, with FF substituting for the people. (Thus freeing millions up to make iPods, Credit Derivatives, and even drill oil wells to free even more people up in an ever accelerating spiral of consumption. )

Over the next few (how many? 20-30-50?) years, we will have to move back to 40% actually doing real work to create food from sunlight. That's 24 million new farmers needed in my lifetime in the UK alone.

How the hell are we going to achieve that?

Ben

I can't see what all the drama is about.
In another ten years we're all going to be flying around in electric powered helicopter-cars with carbon fiber bodies and anti-gravity skyhook capability.

Sheesh, what a bunch of worrywarts.

I have an idea, why not do all these things (well some of them at any rate because a few are truly retarded), keep drilling for oil and simply import less from the Saudi's and Venezuelans.

What a novel idea!

The American way of life is the eleventh commandment given by God. The way to cut oil use, materialism, and consumerism is education, education, and education, bordering on brain washing.

How about changing zoning laws? Let people have small (non-polluting) businesses in their homes.

There are a lot of good ideas and I want to propose another one.

Add a surcharge to the price of gasoline and diesel fuel so that the floor is $5/gallon at the pump. Take the proceeds from that surcharge and use it to fund another "cash for clunkers" program where there needs to be a minimum of 20MPG difference between the vehicle being junked and the vehicle being purchased.

This will encourage a tremendous amount of work to make things more efficient.

All ten suggestions are far short of what is needed to change the way we approach living on earth.
Cars in cities go an average speed of 19 miles an hour. One hundred years ago when there weren't any cars the idea had promise but today we are in a fine kettle of fish.
Perfected one hundred years ago the bicycle is the pinnacle of the industrial revolution.
Most healthy adults can ride bicycles at 15 miles an hour while using energy at a caloric equivalent of 1000 miles to the gallon. If you eat locally grown organic food then your bicycle runs local organic food. Of course cars haul more stuff than bikes and some of us can't use a bicycle for practical reasons. But most of you sit in enraging traffic as single occupants of these alienating steel boxes on trips of less than five miles.

I say these things in an effort to point out the incredible disconnect we find our selves with. That disconnect is found in inhuman out of scale use of energy we all have very little chance of holding in a balanced perspective. The 1000 mile to the gallon caloric equivalent has began to bring this into focus for me. A thousand miles of bike riding is nothing to sneeze at. But these goes to show the incredible energy content of a gallon of gasoline.

good rollin

1) NO : new cars take energy to be built. You would need to have this building process to be much more "clean energy intensive" for a cash-for clunkers scheme to make sense. This is not the case today, and by far. Remember : one of the Mantra of the Oil Drum is that we should optimize the use of the scarce remaining fossils that we have left to switch towards a fossil free economy

2) YES : but the important question is how it is funded. For me, the best is to fund it using locally levied road taxes (such as the urban toll that one has in London or Singapore)

3) YES, YES, YES : but one has to recognize that very high quality is needed for it to work effectively. People prefer meeting in person because non-verbal communications are essential. Think HD, Think automatic reprocessing of eye position so that participants really have the impression of looking at each other, etc..

4 and 6) MAYBE : but be careful of over-optimizing the transport system. What you gain in optimality, you can loose in robustness.

5) YES BUT VERY DIFFICULT IN PRACTICE : Zoning laws create scarcity rents. If these scarcity rents are distributed to incumbents (such as the lucky, or politically connected, person who manages to own the piece of land that will be declared fit for a multi-story building) you have two unwelcome side effects :
- the emergence of a landed rentier class, that is therefore incentivized to be unproductive, something bad in an energy scarce economy,
- property bubbles, as the rising prices from scarce offer due to zoning are interpreted wrongly as rising prices from stronger demand because the place became "more efficient" from a productivity standpoint.
The only solution is to consider that the scarcity rent is a tax, that should be collected by the public authorities only. In practice, it means that the government must be and stay the landlord I.e. it should sell only relatively short term leases (30 to 70 years). Changes of destination of the land during any lease that modify its value should be very heavily taxed. Singapore is the best example that I know, but, lately, the government still has succumbed to the temptation of distributing the scarcity rent to existing leaseholders. It is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT for a democratically elected government to enforce that because the "rentier class" quoted above is made of a majority of voters (old or middle aged, high and middle class).

7) YES

8) YES, Words. words, words...

9) YES Prizes are a great way to stimulate entrepreneurship

10) YES

Having just read the OP, and none of the comments upthread, I just have to say the perspective is more of the same BAU crap that won't work. I don't know how many times you can explain exactly why greater efficiency and more complexity are just two more ways to distract the herd as you drive it over the edge of the cliff...

God forbid that anyone should be advised to change their behavior.

(on edit) and the why, at least of my perspective, is that I've watched every efficiency increase in my lifetime turned to the purpose of growing the economic impact of a given resource. In other words, its a trick to fuel economic growth and add a little more whiz-bang to the American lifestyle, because that's all the PTB can imagine as a goal.

I'd like to draw attention to this article from Stars and Stripes:

U.S. military’s civilian overseas employees use more energy than locals
...
Figures show that Americans can pay up to 200 percent more for utilities than the average German family.
...

http://www.stripes.com/news/u-s-military-s-civilian-overseas-employees-u...

This seems to suggest it's lifestyle, more than geography, which determines energy use.

Hi! Once all you folk in the old colonies have got over the diversion of your mineral energy supply into the Gulf of Mexico, could we have a few thoughts on why the price of oil is so low, while demand is probably increasing as your summer driving season approaches? N

Denial: Simple, literal disbelief that the tragedy, whatever it is, is real. Denial is disbelief even in the face of hard evidence. Nobody wants to have a tragedy happen to them or to a loved one, so the immediate emotional response is simply to deny it. This isn’t rational, but it’s what normal human beings do.

Anger: After getting past denial, once a person confronts the ugly fact that the tragedy is real, comes anger. Simple ire and rage that this tragedy should have happened at all, or often, that it has happened to them personally.

Bargaining: Once the anger passes, bargaining is the natural inclination to try to strike a deal with whatever authority figure is relevant to the tragedy, be it God, a physician, a policeman, an insurance adjuster, whoever. After anger, people will try to negotiate their way out of the tragedy in one way or another. This, I must add, should almost always prove to be a futile exercise.

Depression: Denial didn’t work; the tragedy didn’t go away by ignoring it. Anger didn’t work; the tragedy can’t be scared off. Bargaining was a flop; what’s done is done. With all strategies for un-doing the tragedy exhausted, the natural response is to be sad about it. This can range from being mildly bummed out to full-blown clinical depression, but this is what comes next.

Acceptance: Finally, when all is said and done, a person moves to acceptance. The person comes to a place where they may not be happy about the tragedy, but they’ve accepted the immutable reality of it and have decided to move on with their lives. This is when the person starts to act again, to really live again, by making the best of their situation

http://www.plottopunctuation.com/blog/show/15

Where are you on this spectrum?
It seems some need to move into depression.

Hello All,

Oil price shocks and price manipulation by OPEC have cost our American economy dearly—about $1.9 trillion from 2004 to 2008—and each major shock was followed by a recession.

Are electric cars the American 'transportation' of the future?

Who is http://www.byplug.com/ ?

Cheers,

Neal

The lack of a national Mass Transit system other than the federal/state/local highway system was one of my oldest son's first comments after studying in Germany last year. We were discussing the different methods of travel available in Europe vs USA at the time. He thinks cheap oil led to decline in the railway system plus it left no desire in DC to invest in the future with a state of the art system such as parts of Germany benefits from. I think it is still viable, but we will just have to delay that manned trip to Mars. I don't like to admit it, but my family wastes a lot of energy. But we do try to conserve and I'm sure we going to get better at it.

55 MPH Speed Limit would cost very little to do. The only problem is how many people would obey that speed limit? I mean, seriously.