by Ethan Johnson
July 6, 2008

The New York Times went two-for-two this weekend with stories about high US gas prices and what is being done now to cope with them, and what could have been done to minimize their impact. Fair warning: NYT online articles tend to require free registration.

Item 1: American Energy Policy, Asleep at the Spigot

This article is an excellent synopsis of the many opportunities - and failures to capitalize on them - that the USA has had over the years concerning a comprehensive - and tenable - energy policy. Whenever people complain about the Bush Administration not working hard enough on the gas crisis, I like to say, "they're oil men... they've been working their asses off to get the price per gallon to $4!" Mission accomplished, indeed.

As I have been researching and wrapping my head around the many issues concerning energy production and consumption, I can't say enough about conservation. And one of the many ways that energy - in this case, gasoline - can be conserved is to not only drive less, but get greater fuel economy out of your vehicle. Times are indeed changing when my Dad just traded in his 1994 Buick for a 2000 Honda. Right now, Mar and I are stuck with what we have, including a roughly 19 mpg mini-van. The second I can trade in the mini-van for something more "eco", I will. "Eco" does not have to mean "runs on trash" and has a range of 39 miles per day. A boost of 10 MPG will be significant.

From the article:

Even as politicians heatedly debate opening new regions to drilling, corralling energy speculators, or starting an Apollo-like effort to find renewable energy supplies, analysts say the real source of the problem is closer to home. In fact, it’s parked in our driveways.

Nearly 70 percent of the 21 million barrels of oil the United States consumes every day goes for transportation, with the bulk of that burned by individual drivers, according to the National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan research group that advises Congress.

As for our mini-van, I have this to say: We made an informed decision that we were stepping way down in fuel economy relative to my diesel VW Beetle that got roughly 40 MPG. However, the Beetle isn't the best option for hauling heavy or large loads, plus we have three dogs. We have indeed hauled a lot of large and heavy loads (including several trips to the city dump), and the dogs fit comfortably. And more often than not, Mar and I ride in the van together. On the weekends, her car sits dormant and we use the van for everything. Yes, her car gets better mileage, but I don't fit comfortably in it (I am 6' 5") and we can't always maximize our efficiency with her car, depending on where we are going and what we're doing at any given time. Since I don't drive very far, I prefer to let her max out on fuel efficiency during her daily work commute and allocating the van as the all-purpose vehicle. When we trade in the van, we'll have to find a good compromise (read: something I fit comfortably in) that allows us to get errands done and so forth.

I can't believe I'm finding myself in agreement with anyone from Exxon, but here is it, with emphasis added:

When Senators Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat, and Frank H. Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, attempted to put together a grand bargain of opening up more of Alaska in exchange for raising auto efficiency in 1998, the two couldn’t persuade enough members of either party to go along.

“It was a no-action policy,” says Lee R. Raymond, the former chief executive of Exxon Mobil, who has had a ringside seat for most of the energy policy debates of the last 25 years. “By the time there is panic, people need to realize this: There is no quick-fix on this. By the time you panic, it is way too late.”

Indeed.

Item 2: At $100 for Tank of Gas, Some Choke on ‘Fill It’

This is one of those you have GOT to be kidding me articles that has to be some sort of satire. Sadly, it isn't, which makes examples such as this one all the more galling:

Bryan Carisone, a heating and air-conditioning contractor in Raritan, N.J., “absolutely loves” his new GMC Denali XL, an extra-large sport utility vehicle with televisions built into the leather seats. But in June, one week after he bought it, he pulled into a station on a near-empty tank and watched the total climb higher and higher — to $109.

“It just about killed me,” Mr. Carisone said.

I'm not sure how this SUV owner missed the part about low fuel economy + large gas tank * high gas prices = what on Earth were you thinking?!

It's one thing, such as the case with us, where perhaps the huge SUV was exactly what this buyer was looking for. It filled the void. It provided the necessary features and cargo room. Who knows. But unless car dealers are obscuring the information sticker that is plastered on the side of every new vehicle, this should not have been news. If anything, it should have been an informed decision, and perhaps the buyer had that kind of money to throw around on gas. He clearly (believed he) did for the vehicle, although that's a story for another article.

Steve Burtch bought a Dodge Ram truck last year, when gas cost $3.75, because he thought gas prices had peaked and would start coming down. Instead, he pumped his first $100 tank in June. “I don’t know how much longer I’m going to be able to keep this up,” said Mr. Burtch, 43, who lives in Marion, Ohio.

Is gambling legal in Ohio? Actually, if it is, maybe he could play some games of chance to raise the funds quickly to gas up.

I am extremely pessimistic about gas prices coming down ever again. And by "down" I mean under $2/gallon. Remember when we were bitching about $2/gallon? Now there would be lines for miles if a station offered that for one hour. Oh wait.

Like the former Exxon CEO said, if you're panicking, it's already too late.

Good thing Exxon and our government chose to panic about increased fuel efficiency standards or being unable to compete with smaller and more fuel efficient foreign cars.

I'll end on a decidedly preachy note, noting fully my glass surroundings. Every election year, we're told that [candidate] is not going to be beholden to the "special interests". And yet, as the first NYT article notes, strangely those "special interests" were so special that some congress folk didn't need to be lobbied or coerced into supporting them. The appearance of say, not being in the pocket of the Detroit automakers is enough to compel a Michigan Senator to vote one way or another, rather than what his or her constituents, let alone the country might have wanted. (Or needed.)

This is a stark example of an area where we, the lowly People, have the opportunity to be our own Special Interests. By choosing more fuel efficient vehicles, by conserving energy, by supporting public transportation (where applicable), by modifying our routines and attitudes away from a "consume at all costs" to a "take what you need" mentality, congress and those "special interests" might follow suit. Certainly the rhetoric will change at their end. And you, despite being dismissed as powerless or unimportant except as window dressing at election time, will indeed be part of the solution. There's no reason to wait for congress or "big business" to formulate a sensible energy policy for you. Voting is part of it, but there are different methods of voting. Ballots are one, but let us not forsake our greater arsenal: Our feet and our wallets.

Lasting, tenable change will not come overnight. We have our own house to get in order too. But every little bit counts when we're all in this together. <EM>

(More articles like this one may be found here.)