The  New York Times today has an op/ed piece on the lessons of Prudhoe Bay – in it is a very well-stated paragraph:

Until we have marketable alternatives to oil, the only thing that will truly reduce Americans’ vulnerability to oil shocks is reduced demand. According to the nonprofit National Environmental Trust, if Americans had started a 10-year phase-in of 40-mile-a-gallon driving standards in 2001, they would already be saving 267 million barrels of oil a year. That’s nearly twice the amount produced annually at the Prudhoe Bay field. [ed.: emphasis added]

— “Lessons from Prudhoe Bay”, New York Times, August 9, 2006

Despite this, another New York Times article reports:

Yet Americans’ overall gasoline appetite has barely budged. Total use this year is up about one-half percent to 1 percent compared with 2005, according to federal figures — a slower rate of growth than in the past, but hardly the mark of a nation with its foot fully on the brake.

— “Gas Prices Alter Habits of Many, but Far From All”, New York Times, August 9, 2006

Will it take prices rising to $4/gallon or more in order to make us wake up and see the problem?  If it does, it does – I can only hope that prices rise sooner rather than later.

With the shutdown of Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay oil fields, the nation, particularly the West Coast, could be faced with sharply increasing oil prices:

The average U.S. retail price of a gallon of unleaded, regular gasoline was $3.036 on today — near its all-time high of $3.057, reached Sept. 5 after Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast.

“I suspect that record will fall in the next 48 hours,” said Tom Kloza, an analyst at Oil Price Information Service in Wall, N.J., noting that pump prices around the country are likely to rise 5 to 10 cents a gallon.

— “Oil prices spike on news of Alaskan field shutdown”, Associated Press, August 7, 2006

My only reaction to this is positive. With oil prices pushing higher, the nature of our oil addiction will become more and more painfully obvious to those who would deny it. This is the perfect opportunity to inform people of and adopt alternative energy technologies, and as gas prices climb higher, awareness must inevitably increase. Part of the problem is due to politicians who turn a blind eye towards a sound energy policy, but part of it is also due to our own blindness. But let’s not take this time to point fingers. The best time to act is now:

• Encourage legislators to adopt a coherent alternative energy policy on a state-by-state and nationwide basis. Movements such as the Apollo Alliance have started this, but it takes a grassroots campaign to truly do this well.
• Whenever possible, decrease your energy footprint by turning off lights and unneeded appliances. Those lights you see on your appliances when they’re off indicate that they still draw energy – turn appliances off at the surge protector or unplug them entirely.
• Demand the adoption of better mass transit systems that decrease or eliminate the need for cars in city cores.
• Work with friends and neighbors to help them better understand what they can do to help decrease their energy bills.

Energy independence begins with individual actions at home and grows from there. This oil field shutdown offers another clear reason why we cannot continue to depend on oil – foreign or otherwise – to support our lifestyles.

I recently had to take my 2004 Prius in for emergency maintenance because of a soft squealing that had been happening for the last few days when the car was at speed (pretty much anything over 10mph).  I decided, since my maintenance required warning light was on, that I might as well also get an oil change.  After paying for the maintenance (some rocks got stuck in my brake pads), I noticed an odd little line on my invoice.

Continue reading →

For the college-aged crowd (and those who really don’t want to purchase a house), it’s inevitable that the only other alternative available is renting. Renting certainly has many benefits – someone else is primarily responsible for maintenance, the landlord may pay some utilities – but in some ways, it’s also a drawback, especially if you’re eco-conscious.

Sean’s written recently on discovering an inefficient refrigerator and replacing it, showing some rare initiative in asking his complex to replace his refrigerator. There is certainly an obligation on the part of the landlord to replace appliances that are dead or close to dying, but Sean was particularly lucky in his ability to discover the problem before the unit actually died. But what about other, less obvious savings? For instance, my rent includes water, sewage, and garbage charges, as well as lawn maintenance charges for my townhouse. What’s obscured because I don’t see those bills?

Continue reading →

In my original post, I briefly outlined the need for a national speed limit:

Reestablish a national speed limit. In 1973, the National Maximum Speed Limit (public law 93-239) briefly penalized states that refused to set their maximum speed limits to 55mph (88 km/h) by withholding funds for transportation projects. The law was fully repealed in 1995, allowing states to set their own speed limits. Something like the National Maximum Speed Limit must be reestablished, either at 55mph (88km/h) or 60mph (96km/h).

Many would likely say that such a measure is impractical (in fact, the National Motorists Association made just that argument in fighting to repeal the National Maximum Speed Limit).  But the fact is, there is no real reason to have it above 60mph from a purely economic standpoint.  For every 5mph (8km/h) over 60mph (96km/h) you drive, it is the equivalent of paying an extra 20 cents for gasoline, according to fueleconomy.gov.  Furthermore, such a measure, while increasing slightly the amount of time required to travel places, would encourage more relaxed driving – I find myself much calmer driving at the speed limit than I would speeding at even 5mph over the posted limit.  I routinely drive at or close to 60mph when I drive on the highways, and very rarely does this get me someplace significantly later than it would have otherwise.

Continue reading →

As it stands right now, I believe that there are five things that can be implemented by 2010 that will significantly impact the nation’s dependence on oil (and not just foreign oil). None of these are easy by any means. I do not claim that these will make us oil independent or that they are, by themselves, enough. They merely start us down a long path.

1. Reestablish a national speed limit. In 1973, the National Maximum Speed Limit (public law 93-239) briefly penalized states that refused to set their maximum speed limits to 55mph (88 km/h) by withholding funds for transportation projects. The law was fully repealed in 1995, allowing states to set their own speed limits. Something like the National Maximum Speed Limit must be reestablished, either at 55mph (88km/h) or 60mph (96km/h).
2. Prohibit the sale of noncommercial vehicles that attain less than 30 miles/gallon in the city. This is a radical step and would immediately eliminate the sale of certain vehicles (such as the Hummer) that do far more harm than good to our environment. It would force innovation in the automotive market. Savings in the oil supply and the pocketbook of many American households would be seen within a year. Vehicles used for commercial purposes would be exempt, with some form of documentation required for commercial use.
3. Require cities to increase residential and commercial population density. By creating more walkable neighborhoods and locating homes near businesses and jobs, the need for any sort of local transportation can virtually disappear.
4. Require federal and municipal building construction nationwide to meet LEED Silver standards or better. The U.S. Green Building Council established the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating system for buildings that wish to be certified as energy efficient or using sustainable resources. Washington State has taken a step in this direction with Executive Order 04-06. This would include both new construction and remodels.
5. Significantly advance funding for the implementation of alternative energy projects. Research is not enough. We know that some of these sources of energy are not only viable but sustainable over the long term. We must implement methods of utilizing these alternative energy resources on a local and regional scale.

There are a number of other things that could very easily be done, and a number of other paths that could be followed. These represent the ideas that I find most imperative for the survival of our current culture and way of life. I intend to expand on a couple of these items in later posts, so stay tuned.

Jon Landsbergis wrote into the New York Times regarding the wind farm proposed for the south shore of Long Island. This was a fairly short piece, but there was a paragraph that struck me as being very interesting:

Neither the wind farm nor any other energy source should get a blank check for development, and affluent areas should not be allowed to use their political influence to stop wind farms. But let’s balance the cost of not developing new sources with the cost of war.

– “Wind Power and War“, New York Times, July 16, 2006

Mr. Landsbergis is absolutely correct: no energy source should get a blank check for development. We must spend time exploring those alternatives. Hydrogen, fuel cells, wind power, hydroelectric power, nuclear power, solar power, geothermal power, tidal power, wave power, biomass power – all of these should be explored, but we cannot accept only one. All these sources will have a significant amount of debate encompassing them, and some of them certainly will be dismissed as inviable, but we cannot simply wave our hands and magically make them disappear. We must consider each on their own local merits. Energy sources that work for New Jersey may not work for Colorado or Oregon.