Re: us motorists are gas sucking whining energy pigs

[Matt O'Toole]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

> Hee hee. I don't mean to suggest there's no gain. But I am curious
> about the fact that a car like the Prius is very popular, but Toyota
> has not brought out an "intermediate" car: think about a Toyota Echo
> running aluminum bodywork, their smallest engine,
> low-rolling-resistance tires, and an idle-shutoff. I suspect such a
> car would be very close in fuel economy to the Prius, but without the
> expense and weight of a substantial battery pack (it would need a
> slightly larger battery for the fast-start setup). The only really
> pricey feature would be converting from steel to aluminum, and the
> savings on that would be marginal.

Again, you're simply mistaken. Most people are. The (old) Prius looks like an
Echo, but has absolutely nothing in common. It's an entirely different
platform, engineered from the ground up. It *is* an intermediate car, in terms
of interior space. It actually does have more room inside than a Taurus or
Camry. An Echo definately does not.

> The emissions regulations in the US, whatever else they may be, are
> not anti-diesel. First, there are quite a few diesels for sale in the
> US right now.

> I can't think of a time from the OPEC crisis onwards
> during which at least one maker didn't have a diesel option for sale
> in the US. Now, these ranged from the slightly stinky early
> Mercedes-Benz diesels and the astoundingly wretched Oldsmobile
> diesels, through countless smelly Rabbits, and finally to a range of
> TDI cars today, mostly offered by Volkswagen (two of my co-workers
> own Jetta TDIs, and Canadian emissions standards essentially parallel
> the US standard, at least for states not following the California
> spec).

There are very few diesel *passenger cars* for sale in the US right now. Plenty
of trucks, but no cars. Cars and trucks have different emissions
requirements -- remember the SUV loophole? VW and Mercedes are the only ones
selling diesel passenger cars, and that's only after a several year hiatus by
Mercedes. For awhile it was just VW.

And for a long time, diesel VWs were not available in CA, or states which share
CA emissions standards. You could bring them in as used cars, but not buy them
new. CA is full of *old* Mercedes diesels. They haven't been sold there for
several years.

The California Air Resources Board is *definately* anti-diesel, and the main
obstacle to diesels being sold in the US. Anyone in the car biz will tell you
that. CA is the biggest single market, and proportionally an even bigger market
for Mercedes. Since MA and NY generally share CA emissions standards, there go
the two biggest markets, CA and the Northeast.

CARB politics in Sacramento are definately the special interest tail wagging the
dog. There are some smart scientists working at the CARB and the AQMD (air
quality management district, for southern CA). The science behind limiting
sales of diesel passenger cars is definately not there. With so many old-tech
trucks on the road, industrial equipment, oil refineries, jets flying into LAX,
diesel locomotives, etc. -- modern, clean-burning diesel cars are lost in the
noise. So the only explanation is special interests wanting to keep them out.
These scientists and engineers are constantly being overruled by legislators
loyal to other interests.

> Second, there are market reasons why diesels aren't as attractive in
> the US. Diesels are very efficient: they get better mpg on an
> absolute basis than gas engines, and diesel fuel is usually a bit
> cheaper. But in the US, gas taxes are so low that the cost of fuel is
> a smaller portion of the operating costs of a car than in any other
> "developed" nation. This means that opting for the diesel takes
> longer to pay itself off than it would in Europe. In some cases, you
> would not make up the cost difference ever, if you didn't drive very
> far and sold your car relatively early.

This is true, and has been throughout the history of diesel cars in America.

VW is breaking new ground, though. Resale prices for the TDIs are so high that
the higher initial cost *is* paying for itself. The Golf TDI vies with the
Honda Civic for lowest TCO of any new car sold in the US. And it's mostly
because of low depreciation.

> And more than Europe, diesels have had to fight a long battle against
> their reputation as smelly hard-starting vehicles. I realize that is
> no longer the reality of diesel ownership, but it's a major reason
> (along with performance) why diesels don't sell well in the US.

Well, there's definately that bias, but it's more among overly conservative
marketing people. Who knows how diesel cars would be received, since no one
(but VW) has brought out a new one in 20 years? The main resistance these days
is definately from the regulatory side.

Once we get our low-sulfur diesel, starting in 2006, there will probably be more
European diesels brought over. If these are popular, we'll probably see the
American and Japanese companies following with diesels of their own. But that's
a few years off, plenty of time for them to get ready.

Matt O.

 

[Matt O'Toole]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

> I was willing to go along with this one for a moment, and will accept
> the assertion this has more to do with pollution than economy, but
> noise requirements? What does the Swiss noise test protocol look like
> that it can be fooled by turning off a car at idle? As far as I know,
> these tests usually involve a limit set by a drive-by reading at a
> given speed, and maybe another test at idle. The Swiss noise limits
> are notoriously low (motorcycles lose a ton of horsepower in Swiss
> spec, mainly because of noise reduction measures), but are they
> really fooled by turning the car off? I did a search on the Swiss
> government's website; my German is too rusty to decipher which, if
> any, link went to the noise regulations.

In some places in Switzerland, you're required to turn your car off at traffic
lights. A car which does this and restarts automatically is a selling point.
It probably also plays to consumer misconceptions about saving fuel.

Matt O.

 

[Tom Nakashima]

I'll have to agree with the subject line.
I've spoke with drivers who own the Honda Insight Hybrid, (65 mpg auto).
Most of the drivers who own these cars are conscience on saving fuel. Some
of the owners have pushed past 70 mpg., depending how they are on the
accelerator. One owner tells me he drives at 62 mph on the freeway and if
you really want to save on fuel, he says, cut-out the small errand driving,
to the grocery store, post office, etc.

I don't have a Honda Insight, but for a test, I drove at 62 mph instead of
75-77 mph on the freeway between my fill-ups, and saved about $4.00. So
with the price of fuel in CA, I've been sticking with 62-65mph.for
commuting, leaving my house 5 min. eariler, and with riding my bike to run
errands, I'm saving about $20.00 a month.

I'm wondering what would happen if the speed-limit was lowered to 55 mph.
Of course the majority of drivers won't go for this, they're too much in a
hurry to get from point A to point B, but if they did, I wouldn't be
surprised if gas dipped below $1.00 a gallon, not to mention fewer
accidents, lower insurance rates.
food for thought,
-tom

 

[W K]

"gwhite" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Qui si parla Campagnolo ) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > gwhite-<< What is your point? >><BR><BR>
> >
> > Enjoy your ineffiecient SUV mom.
>
> Again, what is your point?

Large road vehicles for personal transport serve no real purpose, and the
rest of the world does fine without them.

> > Instead of genuine conservation starting
> > with NOT buying large, inefficient vehicles.
>
> Please explain how a joule of energy saved in the
> gas tank results in a joule of energy saved in the
> aggregate economy, all other things equal.

I don't know what the precise definition of "aggregate economy" is, and
don't see why it would make a difference.
Whatever the definitions you are playing with, its getting used wastefully.
Add to that - smaller cars use less energy and materials in their
construction.

> You made an assertion. Answer the question. Why do you believe
> driving more fuel efficient vehicles would conserve energy in the
> aggregate economy?

In brief please, what is the "aggregate economy", and why is it particularly
important as to whether the fuel is burnt within it or without it?

If its not in the "aggregate economy" is it not still coming out of the
ground and ending up in the air?

 

[carlfogel]

Tom Nakashima wrote:
> I'll have to agree with the subject line. I've spoke with drivers who
> own the Honda Insight Hybrid, (65 mpg auto). Most of the drivers who own
> these cars are conscience on saving fuel. Some of the owners have pushed
> past 70 mpg., depending how they are on the accelerator. One owner tells
> me he drives at 62 mph on the freeway and if you really want to save on
> fuel, he says, cut-out the small errand driving, to the grocery store,
> post office, etc.
> I don't have a Honda Insight, but for a test, I drove at 62 mph instead
> of 75-77 mph on the freeway between my fill-ups, and saved about $4.00.
> So with the price of fuel in CA, I've been sticking with 62-65mph.for
> commuting, leaving my house 5 min. eariler, and with riding my bike to
> run errands, I'm saving about $20.00 a month.
> I'm wondering what would happen if the speed-limit was lowered to 55
> mph. Of course the majority of drivers won't go for this, they're too
> much in a hurry to get from point A to point B, but if they did, I
> wouldn't be surprised if gas dipped below $1.00 a gallon, not to
> mention fewer accidents, lower insurance rates. food for thought, -tom



Dear Tom,

If drivers could indeed be forced to drop from 75 mph to 55 mph on
highways, then it would take them about 33% longer to drive the same distance--
a 60 minute highway drive of 75 miles would take 81 minutes.

So someone commuting a total of 75 miles per day 20 days per month would
spend an extra 420 minutes per month sitting in the car--seven hours. If
this saved $21, to use your figure (which might easily vary), then he'd
be saving money at $3 per hour, $252 per year.

Traffic would also increase--the same number of drivers would be on the
road 33% longer.

The delivery of goods and the arrival of service personnel would also
take longer and become more expensive, since most people charge more per
hour than would be saved in fuel costs.

Time, unfortunately, is also money.

But since most driving is not on highways but around town at far lower
speeds that no one proposes to reduce even further, the idea is likely
symbolic--and like many symbolic gestures not terribly effective.

My stroked and bored Honda trials machine averaged around 100 mpg back
in the early 1980's at about 50-55 mph when I was silly enough to ride
it to Denver and back on a 220 mile round trip. Even when I was doing
it, I realized that I was being foolish. Luckily, the only disaster was
a broken gearbox spring that left me stuck in 5th gear at a gas station
in Colorado Springs, not really that big a problem with a trials bike.

Carl Fogel



--

 

[Tom Sherman]

W K wrote:
> ...
> A small car can cruise at 80mph with 40 bhp, but it really won't accellerate
> well, give it a 10-20bhp boost occaisionally and its much better.

A Varna Diablo [1] will reach 80-mph with about 1-hp, but takes several
miles to do so.

[1] < http://www.varnahandcycles.com/gallery/varna_diablo_01.jpg >

--
Tom Sherman - Quad Cities (Illinois Side)

 

[gwhite]

"W K" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "gwhite" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > [email protected] (Qui si parla Campagnolo ) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...

> > > gwhite-<< What is your point? >><BR><BR>
> > >
> > > Enjoy your ineffiecient SUV mom.
> >
> > Again, what is your point?
>
> Large road vehicles for personal transport serve no
> real purpose,...

You mean toting around oneself, friends, family, associates, and all
our "stuff" is not a "purpose?" You have a different idea of purpose
than I do.

> ...and the rest of the world does fine
> without them.

My neighbor gets along fine without riding a bike. Should I stop
riding a bike?

I get along fine without sushi. Should the Japanese stop eating
sushi?

> > > Instead of genuine conservation starting
> > > with NOT buying large, inefficient vehicles.
> >
> > Please explain how a joule of energy saved in the
> > gas tank results in a joule of energy saved in the
> > aggregate economy, all other things equal.
>
> I don't know what the precise definition of "aggregate
> economy" is, and don't see why it would make a difference.
> Whatever the definitions you are playing with, its getting
> used wastefully. Add to that - smaller cars use less
> energy and materials in their construction.
>
> > You made an assertion. Answer the question. Why do
> > you believe driving more fuel efficient vehicles would
> > conserve energy in the aggregate economy?
>
> In brief please, what is the "aggregate economy", and why
> is it particularly important as to whether the fuel is burnt
> within it or without it?
>
> If its not in the "aggregate economy" is it not still coming
> out of the ground and ending up in the air?

One definition of _aggregate_ is "the whole." This is the meaning
intended. For this context it simply means the global economy, and
everything is therefore included. With regard to energy
"conservation," most folks care about it for two reasons:

1. To lower the burn rate of nonrenewable resources
2. To lower the pollution implicit in the burning of energy.

Nice goals, right? I think we can all agree they are very admirable
goals, and we care about it on a global scale, after all that's what
the Kyoto Protocols are all about.

I should note that I was once a diehard energy conservationist.
Unfortunately I had made the same mistake as others in assumming that
some local energy conservation (for example my own efforts in
commuting by bicycle) would *obviously* result in energy conservation
for the aggregate (global) economy. It is as hard for me to admit it
when I'm wrong as it is for anyone else. But I was wrong. My mistake
was that my "obvious" conclusion about local benefits extending to the
whole was a *fallacy of composition*, as the philosophers put it.
Local conservation does not lead to conservation in the whole. This
too is one of those "obvious truths," kind of like the "wheel _hangs_
from the spokes" and "the earth is the center of the solar system."

*Fallacy of composition* has its root in ignoring interactions which
take place beyond the defined system. It would be like solving a
problem in thermodynamics and because we drew a mistaken line around
"the system" we all of the sudden conclude we've bypassed the Second
Law. We can't.

So why is it that local energy conservation does not conserve energy
in the whole? It is because of the interaction of money between
people, and what money "does" that is ignored; this is where the
fallacy of composition lies.

If I save $100 by driving less, or driving a more fuel efficient car,
what happens to my $100? Now if I take that money and eat it, or bury
it in the back yard for eternity, then I can truly say I saved the
aggregate economy $100 worth of energy. But only a fool does those
things with their money. People do two things with their money:

1. Invest it
2. Spend it on goods ("stuff").

With regard to the purchase of goods, we are constrained by a physical
law: conservation of mass. We can't change the amount of mass in our
world. We do change the ownership title when we purchase mass, but
that is not the crux, since the mass existed anyway. What we really
spend our money on when we buy some good is the _energy expended in
reforming (processing) it and transporting it_. That is, %100 of my
$100 simply buys more energy. We did not save one bit of energy in
the aggregate economy, although we may have altered where the energy
was consumed.

If we did not purchase the mass, it would have lain fallow and no
energy would have been consumed in processing and transporting it.
The $100 I saved by driving less *caused* the expenditure of energy of
processing and transporting my new goodie. No energy was conserved.
I did get richer because: I got my important transportation needs met
*and* I got an extra goodie. But I didn't save any energy in the
aggregate. :-(

So what happens if I invest instead of buy more goods. The same thing
really, or maybe even "worse." Say I put it in my bank. Suppose my
bank lends my $100 (- required balance) out to builders. What do the
builders do with it? They do the same thing I did when I bought my
goodie. They buy some stuff to build with. What that "stuff"
represents is all energy; the "stuff" was always
there, it was merely reformed and transported along with the title
change.

What's "worse" is that building is a creative effort. That is, it
increases the aggregate wealth, since wealth is not a zero sum game.
If the money printers increase the money supply commensurate with the
increase in wealth, guess what? You got it: people buy more energy
with that fresh dough. So in the "worst of the worst," energy
conservation as a very cruel irony leads to *more* energy consumed,
not less. In an ironic twist, the fool driving the gas guzzler at
least stalls the rate of energy usage. The fool driving the modern
clean burning gas guzzler SUV does less damage to the environment than
I did when I bought my goodie made in China and powered by a dirty
Chinese coal power plant. Three cheers for the American gas guzzlers!

Indeed all projections are for increasing energy usage. This is
because wealth is anticipated to increase. It is inevitable and
cannot be stopped. We should conserve energy locally not because it
conserves in the whole, but because it makes us richer.

People may think they can escape this. Well if all things are not
equal, then maybe so. For example, recession and depression would
likely slow, stall, or temporarily reverse the *rate* of energy
consumption. These are pretty much universally viewed as negative.
Who would have thought the conservationists were also pro-depression?
Of course, "tight money" is what brings on recessions. If I simply
hold that $100 I saved on fuel costs (kind of like burying it in the
back yard, but only for a while), then I certainly do delay the
burning of the energy that $100 represents. Temporary stalls are
possible, but as we know, recessions and depressions aren't so fun.
Damn the gas guzzlers for hurting your economy, not for burning
energy.

Again, people may think they can escape this. Consider a natural good
(unprocessed/unreformed) that is delivered by a supplier by that
natural goods own force (no transport energy needed). For example,
say you buy water from your local municipality and the water just
flows downhill to your house. You just turn on the spigot, your meter
turns, and the city bills you. We can say the installation of the
water system costed energy, but let's ignore that since the marginal
cost of that energy would indeed approach zero as more and more
gallons of water are purchased. So this water (this particular mass)
really just buys mass and not energy, right? No. What happens to the
money you sent to your city in paying for your water? You got it --
they spend it buying energy in the same way the rest of us do.

Local energy conservation does not conserve energy in the whole. If
anything it does the opposite. It is sort of like the Second Law in a
way: You can't win, you can't break even, but you *must* play the
game. Save energy because it makes you richer, not because it saves
energy.

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

gwhite-<< You mean toting around oneself, friends, family, associates, and all
our "stuff" is not a "purpose?" You have a different idea of purpose
than I do. >><BR><BR>

I guess the point is American's propensity to NOT getting what is adequate, but
instead of getting something they don't need. Need to move people? Try a
smaller minivan that will work most of the time instead of something big and
inefficient that you 'may' need once or twice a year.

But of course ya gotta keep up with that other dude down the street that just
got an Expedition....

I nneded a truck for hauling and going to work once per week...I got a Ranger
with a 4 cylinder, small cab, 2 wheel drive instead of a big cab, 6 or 8
cylinder, 4 WD monster...



Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[gwhite]

[email protected] (Qui si parla Campagnolo ) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> gwhite-<< You mean toting around oneself, friends, family, associates, and all
> our "stuff" is not a "purpose?" You have a different idea of purpose
> than I do. >><BR><BR>
>
> I guess the point is American's propensity to NOT getting what is adequate,
> but instead of getting something they don't need.

Let me guess, you're the arbiter of "adequate" and "need." I've
decided that any bike beyond $200 is beyond need or basic adequacy.
Sorry chump, you're out of a job. Would it be that hard for you to
make a cursory attempt at understanding the concepts of so-called
"need" and "adequacy," and realize they only end up as excuses for
dictators and tyrants? Do you realize that *anyone* could make up an
ad infinitum ad nauseum list of what is really "needed" or "adequate."
Preposterous!

> Need to move people? Try a
> smaller minivan that will work most of the time instead of something big and
> inefficient that you 'may' need once or twice a year.

What business is it of yours if it is inefficient? You aren't paying
for the gas.

Over one century ago William Stanley Jevons (economist noted for the
concept of marginal utility) pointed out that increased energy
efficiency led not to lower energy consumption, but MORE! This isn't
news. This was always true and is still true, and will be true for
any forseeable future. I spent a lot of time already explaining that,
and in denial to save face, you act as if it never happened.

KNOW IT!:

"Energy conservation" leads to the opposite effect than intended; it
leads to more energy use, not less. "Saving energy locally leads to
global energy savings" is a _fallacy of composition_.

Perhaps unfortunate, but no less true. You intend to invoke
recession/depression such that energy consumption is curtailed. Sorry
chump, you *and* your neighbors are out of a job.

> But of course ya gotta keep up with that other dude down the street that just
> got an Expedition....

Who gives a **** about that? Why are you running around and
hypothesizing about the inner motivations and behavior of folks you
have no important reason to care about? That is just plain weird.

If some dumbass wants to waste their money on a Hummer, what do you
care?

> I nneded a truck for hauling and going to work once per week...I got a Ranger
> with a 4 cylinder, small cab, 2 wheel drive instead of a big cab, 6 or 8
> cylinder, 4 WD monster...

Oh, well that's just so big of you. My car gets 50 mpg. So what?

People concerned with the environment and nonrenewable energy sources
would spend their efforts more productively if they focused on making
renewable energy more affordable and understanding that life is about
tradeoffs, not solutions, especially when it comes to the
nonrenewables and pollution. Solutions are like a long ballon, you
push down one section and it pops up elsewhere. That's life.

_TRADEOFFS, NOT SOLUTIONS_

 

[Java Man (Espressopithecus)]

In article <[email protected]>, vecchio51
@aol.com says...
~ gwhite-<< What business is it of yours if it is inefficient? You aren't paying
~ for the gas. >><BR><BR>
~
~ I gotta go outside and breathe. As much as you would like to ignore it, the air
~ gets dirtier from a big SUV that uses gas at 10mpg than somehting that uses gas
~ at 20mpg. I hope gas does go to $4-$5 per gallon. The only way to get the
~ redneck's attention is thru their wallet.
~
~ The US uses 26% of the world's oil production. Sometime, perhaps in your
~ lifetime, oil demand is going to be greater than oil production, and then the
~ US' economy is gonna go down the toilet and your SUV is going to become a
~ planter. Conservation is NOT a four letter word, except apparently to you.
~
Peter, you gotta ditch this "common sense" approach. It's too
simple. ;-)

Rick

 

[gwhite]

With misfortune, [email protected] (Qui si parla Campagnolo ) wrote:

> gwhite-<< What business is it of yours if it is inefficient? You aren't paying
> for the gas. >><BR><BR>
>
> I gotta go outside and breathe.

You're blaming "fumes in the shop" on your ideology?

> As much as you would like to ignore it, the air
> gets dirtier from a big SUV that uses gas at 10mpg than somehting that uses gas
> at 20mpg.

Locally, sure. But your more efficient vehicle just moves the
pollution somewhere else. It doesn't eliminate it.

> I hope gas does go to $4-$5 per gallon.

That reminds me of something I wrote recently: "Who would have thought
the conservationists were also pro-depression?" So folks will have
less disposable income to spend on bikes that are well beyond basic
"need." Sorry dude, you're out of business.

David Ricardo once said "businessmen are notoriously ignorant of the
most obvious principles." That's a little harsh, and I certainly
don't see that in all businessmen, but don't you think it's time to
get your head out of the clouds?

> The only way to get the
> redneck's attention is thru their wallet.

That would pretty much get everyone's attention, redneck or not. It
is politically untenable. Even if you want to continue to ignore the
physical realities of the conservation fallacy, you should at least
acknowledge the political realities associated with the T-word. It
isn't going to happen.

> The US uses 26% of the world's oil production. Sometime, perhaps in your
> lifetime, oil demand is going to be greater than oil production,...

If demand is "strong," then the price will go up. It's like any
supply-demand relationship. That will simply cause a hunt for more
reserves and also strengthen the search for (and use of) substitutes.
Supply will meet demand, so at the face, "greater than" makes no
sense. The only question to be answered is what the price is. At
some given price, some potential buyers won't buy because it is too
high. You don't need to worry about that. And after all, that is
what you said you _wanted_ to happen.

> ...and then the
> US' economy is gonna go down the toilet...

So the solution is to make it happen as soon as possible by raising
the cost of energy?

> ...and your SUV is going to become a
> planter.

"My" SUV?

> Conservation is NOT a four letter word, except apparently to you.

Do you feel that willful ignorance and denial is cutesy endearing? As
I already put in no uncertain terms, I'm all for conservation at the
local level. AND I gave a much better reason to do it than you could
have possibly dreamt of before Saturday. My car gets up to 50 mpg.
My house has most fixtures fitted w/ compact fluorescents. I conserve
in many ways.


Let's give you another example. Let's say Joe Smith trades in his old
work truck for a newer and more fuel efficient one. After it's
shortly paid off, Joe is netting about $1000 a year in reduced fuel
costs. His wife has been *****ing about the house being so hot in the
summer, and... well, Joe doesn't like how hot his shop gets either.
So Joe buys a couple of air conditioners with the money he saves on
truck fuel, and he also pays for the electricity to power the air
conditioner with that money.

The air conditioner is made of a bunch of physical material (which
always existed) that was reformed by energy alone, and transported to
his shop and house by energy alone. Joe effectively paid for that
energy when he bought the air conditioner. The electricity Joe uses
comes from a coal plant, which is no surprise because after all, coal
plants power 50% of the nation. The air conditioner is run by nothing
but energy from the coal plant. As in all cases, energy is the
"mover." Every thing just sits still without it. The coal energy
plant puts out nasty stuff like mercury and radioactive thorium. Joe
didn't save the aggregate economy any energy, because *all* his truck
fuel savings went back into buying pure energy, and all he did was
move the pollution from one place to another. But he and his wife are
more comfortable in the summer. Joe got richer as defined by his
quality of life going up. Sounds like a good reason to "conserve" to
me.

As another aside, did you know that people tend to use more of
something when the cost of that something goes down (and vice versa)?
After all, that is the root of your motivation to raise gas prices.
Guess what that means. If transportation costs less, folks will tend
to use more of it. If it costs you less to drive, you will likely
drive more in some amount. So at least some of your conservation
achieved by using a more efficient auto will undoubtably lead to a
countering of it in the very same realm (transportation) in which the
conservation was invoked.

Energy use is going to keep rising. That is the reality we are faced
with even if our economy is stagnant because increased population by
itself will cause it. We could outsource some of our energy
consumption to other shores (we already do, of course), but people cry
about that too (anyone who has two brain cells to rub against each
other knows what that means).

> Enjoy your ineffiecient SUV mom.

Thanks for reminding me. I'm off to http://www.milf.com/

 

[gwhite]

In an effort to emulate Pete Chisolm, [email protected] (Chalo)
wrote:
> [email protected] (gwhite) wrote:
>
> > "Energy conservation" leads to the opposite effect than intended; it
> > leads to more energy use, not less. "Saving energy locally leads to
> > global energy savings" is a _fallacy of composition_.
>
> You are on crack, friend!

Keen argument.

> Do you suppose it is merely coincidental that Western Europeans, who
> share a similar standard of living to Americans but who drive fewer
> and not-so-gluttonous cars, also consume much less energy per capita?

If they can't afford as much energy, they are hardly "equal."

> Do you suggest that a population driving 4-seat vehicles that average
> 35mpg will somehow burn as much gas as an equvalent population driving
> 4-seat vehicles that average 15mpg?

Um, no. If you'd bother to read what I wrote, you know in about 2
seconds that I made no such claim. But you have an ideology to
protect, so I won't foolishly expect you to ever read it. What does
"global" mean to you?

I'm all for local energy conservation -- I practice it myself.
However, I don't delude myself about what it does and does not do. On
the other hand, I can see myself persistantly rejecting the socialist
bent of your favor. I have no intention of handing to future
generations the abysmal world of serfdom that socialists like you
promote. Don't you care about the kids? Shame on you.

 

[gwhite]

Undaunted, [email protected] (Qui si parla Campagnolo ) wrote:

> I guess you have a copy of GWB's playbook.

Then you shouldn't have any problem pointing out where I "copied" GWB.
Frankly, I don't think George has the perspicacity to understand the
argument -- sort of like you.

> Conservation, whether mandated or
> not, will hurt the economy, ...

Sheesh. How dense could you possibly be? I wrote that local
conservation was a net economic benefit. What more do you want?

> ...so the hell with pollution and killing the
> environment, just consume, consume, consume.

Dude, I never wrote any such thing.

> Someday, perhaps in your lifetime,
> it will hurt us all.

Pollution "hurts" already. That said, the only reasonable question is
about trade offs. The systematic view includes cost/benefit. Until
you admit it, you are lost.

> Gotta start someplace. Not buying a SUV is a great place to start.

For what now seems like the billionth time: By all means, drive a
fuel efficient car. I do. I walk to work too. Why not? Especially
since you'll be better off if you do.

> Detroit will
> survive, I assure you.

Non sequitur nonsense. As far a specific industries are concerned, I
could not care less if Detroit goes into the shitter or not. If they
can't supply something that is demanded, then too bad: they can go
belly up like every other hapless or out-moded business.

> Adios MF-

MF'er? Ouch. Hey, you are the one who told me to enjoy the SUV mom.

 

[Jay Beattie]

"gwhite" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In an effort to emulate Pete Chisolm, [email protected]
(Chalo)
> wrote:
> > [email protected] (gwhite) wrote:
> >
> > > "Energy conservation" leads to the opposite effect than
intended; it
> > > leads to more energy use, not less. "Saving energy locally
leads to
> > > global energy savings" is a _fallacy of composition_.
> >
> > You are on crack, friend!
>
> Keen argument.
>
> > Do you suppose it is merely coincidental that Western
Europeans, who
> > share a similar standard of living to Americans but who drive
fewer
> > and not-so-gluttonous cars, also consume much less energy per
capita?
>
> If they can't afford as much energy, they are hardly "equal."
>
> > Do you suggest that a population driving 4-seat vehicles that
average
> > 35mpg will somehow burn as much gas as an equvalent
population driving
> > 4-seat vehicles that average 15mpg?
>
> Um, no. If you'd bother to read what I wrote, you know in
about 2
> seconds that I made no such claim. But you have an ideology to
> protect, so I won't foolishly expect you to ever read it. What
does
> "global" mean to you?
>
> I'm all for local energy conservation -- I practice it myself.
> However, I don't delude myself about what it does and does not
do. On
> the other hand, I can see myself persistantly rejecting the
socialist
> bent of your favor. I have no intention of handing to future
> generations the abysmal world of serfdom that socialists like
you
> promote. Don't you care about the kids? Shame on you.

Oh not socialism! I got the willies just thinking about it. I
had to re-read Atlas Shrugged just to make myself feel better
about myself. Imagine all those froggy little foreign people
with small cars telling ME what to do. The horror! -- Jay
Beattie.

 

[Chalo]

[email protected] (gwhite) wrote:
>
> Let's say Joe Smith trades in his old
> work truck for a newer and more fuel efficient one. After it's
> shortly paid off, Joe is netting about $1000 a year in reduced fuel
> costs. His wife has been *****ing about the house being so hot in the
> summer, and... well, Joe doesn't like how hot his shop gets either.
> So Joe buys a couple of air conditioners with the money he saves on
> truck fuel, and he also pays for the electricity to power the air
> conditioner with that money.

Your premise falls down if the guy uses his savings to buy better
gourmet coffee, or piano lessons, or dues at the Fraternal Order of
Muskrats lodge, or emerald earrings for his lady, or tuition at a more
expensive school for his kid. Those things don't require much (if
any) coal to provide or continue to consume energy as they are used.

To put it in a way you might better relate to, many if not most of the
ways in which his net savings can be diverted result in a Pareto
benefit, because Joe gets something he wants and the sum demand for
energy is diminished, making for cheaper juice overall.

Now if Joe opts to buy A/C units or trade in his wife's Fiat for a
civilianized half-track, then total energy consumption rises and there
is a net cost to society. But he doesn't have to do that.

Chalo Colina

 

[Chalo]

[email protected] (gwhite) wrote:

> (Chalo) wrote:
>
> > Do you suppose it is merely coincidental that Western Europeans, who
> > share a similar standard of living to Americans but who drive fewer
> > and not-so-gluttonous cars, also consume much less energy per capita?
>
> If they can't afford as much energy, they are hardly "equal."

That's a perfect example of the flaws in your assessment of the
situation: the assumption that whomever burns up the most BTUs of
fossil fuels wins the standard-of-living race. It just ain't so!
Anyone who would suggest that Americans live better than French, for
instance, would have to be wildly delusional. The fact that we
consume a lot more useless **** is one of the reasons we _don't_ live
as well as the French, in fact. Most anyone who has lived both places
will tell you so.

Any economics, let alone philosophy, that chooses some arbitrary unit
by which to quantify a way of life, and then flatly assumes more is
better, is operating under a fallacy of its own. Poverty sucks, to be
sure, but rampant overconsumption in American society has cultivated a
kind of cultural poverty all its own. The rest of the world knows
what I'm talking about, even if you don't.

Chalo Colina

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

gwite-<< MF'er? Ouch. Hey, you are the one who told me to enjoy the SUV mom
>><BR><BR>

Adios MF-adios my friend, you can add a 'er' to it if ya like but I didn't.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[gwhite]

"Jay Beattie" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On
> > the other hand, I can see myself persistantly rejecting the
> socialist
> > bent of your favor. I have no intention of handing to future
> > generations the abysmal world of serfdom that socialists like
> you
> > promote. Don't you care about the kids? Shame on you.
>
> Oh not socialism! I got the willies just thinking about it.

OHHHH yesssss, and so do IIIIIIII.

> I had to re-read Atlas Shrugged
> just to make myself feel better
> about myself.

You poor *******. You see, I feel okay, and I guess that means I
didn't need to read it (ever). So I didn't.

> Imagine all those froggy little foreign people
> with small cars telling ME what to do.

CHALO IS NOT LITTLE!!!!! (Even if he is froggy and foreign.) When I
drive my little car -- and it is very little -- I'll yell: "OUT OF MY
WAY MF'ER..... I'M CRUISING!"

> The horror!

Well,... yeah.

 

[gwhite]

Not caring to think before he writes, [email protected] (Chalo) wrote:

> [email protected] (gwhite) wrote:
> > (Chalo) wrote:
> >
> > > Do you suppose it is merely coincidental that Western Europeans, who
> > > share a similar standard of living to Americans but who drive fewer
> > > and not-so-gluttonous cars, also consume much less energy per capita?
> >
> > If they can't afford as much energy, they are hardly "equal."
>
> That's a perfect example of the flaws in your assessment of the
> situation: the assumption that whomever burns up the most BTUs of
> fossil fuels wins the standard-of-living race. It just ain't so!

I don't define it as a "race." The US has a higher GDP/W
than France or Germany. IOW, the US is more efficient.
Using certain "Western Europeans" as examples may not be
such a good idea.

Whenever you spend or invest money, that transfer will
represent an energy expenditure. So the idea is simply
that an ability to purchase more means "better off."
My purpose was not to ascribe value judgements, as it is
for you. Since you do have value judgements, you really
need "the answer" to come out in a way that reinforces
your beliefs.

If you need to go to the hospital, or just like eating out,
it is nice to be able to afford more. It is that simple.

> Anyone who would suggest that Americans live better than French, for
> instance, would have to be wildly delusional. The fact that we
> consume a lot more useless **** is one of the reasons we _don't_ live
> as well as the French, in fact.

Again, we have another arbiter of what is "useless" and
what is not. I don't really care about your value judgements
because I don't value them, hah hah.

> Most anyone who has lived both places
> will tell you so.

Um, no.

> Any economics, let alone philosophy, that chooses some
> arbitrary unitby which to quantify a way of life, and more is
> then flatly assumes better, is operating under a fallacy of
> its own.

Holy ****! Even dieoff.org, for which you must hold
great love, says you're off:

"There is NO substitute for energy. Although the economy
treats energy just like any other resource, it is NOT
like any other resource. Energy is the precondition for
ALL other resources..." (http://dieoff.org/page65.htm)

Energy is not an "arbitrary unit" in the context of my
discussion. It is not like anything else. It's the
only thing that makes things move. Sure, when you buy
your pretty new coffee cup you don't buy it because of
it the energy content it represents, but that *is* what
it represents for the context of this discussion. Nothing
happens without energy -- no matter how much you wish
it isn't true, it is. Not a McDonalds hamburger and not
brain surgery can happen without energy. Not even
barrister Beattie can post to rbt without energy.

> Poverty sucks, to be
> sure, but rampant overconsumption in American society has cultivated a
> kind of cultural poverty all its own. The rest of the world knows
> what I'm talking about, even if you don't.

What a load: "cultural poverty." In any case, what you want
to be is dictator: to judge for all what is "right" and dictate
that your will be done. Dictators don't care about poor
people, so I see a familiar pattern in you, even in your
casual comments. How do you live with yourself?


Read this:

5. Conclusions

Many economists of all persuasions, whether pro
environmentalist or otherwise, seem united in
their conviction that improving energy efficiency
through technological means, will by lowering the
implicit price, result in increased, not decreased,
energy use. This conviction is the result of over
a century - since Jevons in the 1860s - of theoretical
discussion on resource use, and empirical evidence
from historic analysis of energy use in economies.

At the microlevel energy efficiency improvements
do result in reduced energy consumption, though
there is a 'rebound effect'. However simply aggregating
identifiable savings at the microlevel - even after
taking account of the rebound - fails to take into
account many macroeconomic factors. For example
there is the effect of new consumers previously
priced out of particular energy services before
they were made cheaper by higher energy efficiency.
The aggregate effect of the economic savings from
all individual consumers is to stimulate economic
growth (the income effect) and hence increase energy
use. Overall, macroeconomic analysis leads to the
conclusion that even if the economy is made more
energy efficient the eventual outcome is for it
to use more energy.

There are number of ways to reduce consumption of
fuels likely to cause long term environmental damage,
if that is our goal. We could ban or regulate use
of forms of energy we find objectionable, like high
sulphur coal or orimulsion. We could ration some
types of fuel either directly or through the use of
tradeable permits - as is proposed for achieving
greenhouse gas reduction targets between nations.
Or we could impose fuel or carbon taxes.

[Or if you love the French so much, you could copy
them and build nukes.]

However most governments are reluctant to introduce
such taxes, for fear of political unpopularity and
damaging national competitiveness. Instead there
are plans in many countries to deregulate national
fuel industries and bring about more competitive
markets, which are likely to result in lower energy
prices, and greater energy consumption.

The reluctance of governments, including our own,
to introduce politically unpopular measures to
reduce national energy consumption has led them
to emphasize a policy of energy efficiency achieved
through technological means - such as labelling,
standards and best practice schemes. However this
paper argues that the result of such a policy would
instead be an increase in energy consumption but
also higher economic growth.

http://technology.open.ac.uk/eeru/staff/horace/kbpotl.htm

Read that last one again:
"However this paper argues that the result of such
a policy would instead be an increase in energy
consumption but also higher economic growth."

Now where have you heard that one before? ;-)

 

[John Henderson]

"gwhite" wrote:

> Whenever you spend or invest money, that transfer will
> represent an energy expenditure.

This looks like the corresponding fallacy at the opposite extreme
of your "fallacy of composition", if you're claiming that all and
any expenditures of a certain $ value are equally environmentally
destructive (or even equally energy-intensive) in the final
analysis.

John