What beats better mileage?
Let me put it this way. Before your kid starves, before you lose your job because you can’t afford the gas to get to work – relocate near work.
I see articles picking the ‘greenest’ vehicles. It seems that driving a fuel-efficient hybrid makes the most sense if you commute in heavy traffic, a diesel or something else if you commute at highway speeds.
What if we just commute less? If we choose to live near work, make the local schools work as well as possible, support local merchants and services, use mail order and online resources responsibly?
I understand my suggestion – don’t improve mileage by 4%, reduce MILES by 80% – will petrify the fuel-hogging ‘planned community’ developer. When did it start making sense to clump houses together to suit builder’s plans, rather than get close to work, shopping, etc.?
I like my Employee Commute Tax plan even better today. That is, each employer would pay 1 penny per mile that each employee reporting that day based on how far the employee lives from the place of work. With no averaging. One group of engineers I worked with just west of Phoenix, AZ, lived on the east side of Phoenix. They commuted 45 to 60 miles from home to work, then back, through the heart of Phoenix. Each day. One lady got a ticket, driving her Jeep 25 miles over the posted speed limit – for wasting fuel. I don’t expect this tax to pose a serious burden on any employer. In aggregate, the amount of money generated probably won’t rebuild any highways, build many desalination plants, nor retire the national debt this year. But it will generate awareness in employers, and provide statistics for communities, states, and the nation, about city planning, about commute habits, and why we spend so much money on fuel moving people from home to work.
Wired.com in a recent article noted that a Toyota Corolla with a Hybrid upgrade saves $525 a year in fuel. The hybrid part adds $4000 to the cost of the car. That means that an owner driving 15,000 miles a year will ‘earn’ the upgrade, and start gaining for the improved mileage, in about eight (8) years. Many owners trade cars (or wreck them) before they get that old.
For the tree huggers and those thinking improved gas mileage will save the environment – ask someone that has done the research how much greenhouse gas is produced to make that new car, and how many years you would have to drive that gas-guzzler your neighbor has that appalls you so before he generates that much greenhouse gas. Somewhere around 10-12 years, I think.
So part two of my suggestion, is to retrofit existing cars. Oops! That gets into the auto industry still geared toward the ‘buy new every year/two years’ market. Check out the Xado engine revitalization oil treatment system, to keep your engine running and even ‘rebuild’ it without a mechanic. The Xado claim is to extend engine life 50,000 miles.
And that brings me to my third thought on conservation. Recycling makes sense. Sometimes. Re-using, though, usually makes sense.
How many cars, refrigerators, or power tools would take as many resources to repair as to replace? Two intangibles do apply – security (how dependable is the repaired item?) and fashion (will the neighbors/customers respect us if we still use the old style?). These can be managed. For instance, we can find out the reliability rating of repair facilities, just as we compare warranties on cars and appliances today. And we can learn to value function over appearance, especially when we encounter conspicuous consumption.
The problem with recycling is government subsidies. The only recycling that actually pays for itself economically is glass. Paper, aluminum, etc. is economical because of government incentives. Oh, and scrap steel pays. At least, it did before China shut down their steel industry so the smog would settle until the Olympics. It is astounding the number of thousands of tons of steel China has ‘mined’ from the US. Copper pays well enough that thieves are dismantling functioning power lines to sell the wire. That makes sense to me! Not!
I haven’t seen anyone turn plastic back into oil or gasoline. Or an appreciable change in the proportion of plastic products made from recycled sources. The problem I see is that efficient manufacturing processes depend on consistent materials and reliable processing. Recycling seldom produces truly consistent material for processing. Except for copper. Recycled steel is close, being mostly iron, but the various combinations of alloyed minerals and carbon can make the product variable – requiring adaptive smelting or limiting the uses.
I grew up in the 1950’s and 1960’s. My understanding of reuse has an image. Dad bought seed corn from Pioneer Seeds most years. The grain dealers usually had some promotional gimmick like today’s ball caps. One year, or maybe several, the giveaway was a plastic bag. About half the size of a pillow case, about the same shape, just a simple bag. Yet it was a household treasure for years. I think I last saw it half full of sewing patterns. That bag was used to organize vegetables, protect needlework, and other uses. Quite heavy plastic by today’s standards, clear but maybe the thickness of a modern pool liner. Another year Dad got a plastic coffee cup for a feed additive for his hog feed, maybe late 1970’s. I use that white polystyrene cup with the red plastic handle for my tea today. I know what the feed additive was, the printing isn’t really readable anymore. And, yes, Geigy still makes hog feed additives.
I started reading Sharon Astyk at Casaubon’s Book. Sharon devotes much of her attention and concern to Peak Oil, the aftermath of an economy collapsing around a spike in oil prices or drop in availability, and the strategies to survive such a collapse. If you accept her premise, that there is a risk that oil availability or price could change, then her thinking and concerns make a lot of sense.
Interesting Post. Thanks!