Energy Literacy Advocates Newsroom

It looks as though the inelasticity of gasoline prices is finally giving way to increased conservation by the American public, as evidenced by the article below:


Americans ditching the car

By Kenneth Musante and Aaron Smith, CNNMoney.com staff writers

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Americans drove 9.6 billion fewer miles in May compared with a year earlier, according to a report Monday from the Federal Highway Administration.
"We have seen the longest decline in vehicular miles traveled since we started collecting this data," said U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters in a conference call with reporters.
Peters said that in the first four months of this year, Americans traveled 40.5 billion miles less compared with the same period in 2007. She said the decline in usage means less tax revenue for highway system.
Many of these commuters are flocking to trains, buses and bikes, or telecommuting from home.
Rising gas prices are to blame for the driving decline, and the use of public transportation is soaring, said Virginia Miller, spokeswoman for the American Public Transit Association, a private trade group.
"It does seem that we are on track to beat last year's record [public transportation] ridership," she said, noting that the 2007 tally of 10.3 billion public transit trips was a 50-year high.
"That can really only be explained by the large increase in gas prices," said Miller.
Gasoline prices soared in May, rising for 24 consecutive days in the month, and breaking the psychologically significant $4-a-gallon barrier in many states, according to data from motorist group AAA.
The FHA said that driving in May experienced the third-largest monthly drop since the agency, a division of the U.S. Department of Transportation that manages the nation's highways and bridges, began collecting data 66 years ago. It was the largest drop for any May, a month that usually sees driving increase due to the Memorial Day holiday, the agency said. Three of those largest monthly declines have occurred since December, as unusually high fuel prices take a toll on drivers.
Trains, buses, bikes, telecommuting
Many of these drivers switched to public transportation. Usage jumped in the first three months of the year by 88 million trips from a year ago, for a total of 2.6 billion, according to the most recent figures available from the APTA.
Some of the most dramatic increases occurred in the light rail systems in Baltimore, Minneapolis and St. Louis, the commuter rails of Seattle and Harrisburg, Penn., the buses of San Antonio and Denver, and the subways and elevated rails of and Boston.
The Boston Globe reported Monday that the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority broke a ridership record of 375 million passengers in fiscal year 2008, which is 21 million more than the prior year.
Other commuters, like Eric Creese, a senior database administrator in Eagan, Minn., switched to muscle power for commuting. Creese, a former triathloner, said that high gas prices inspired him to "get back" into biking.
"I asked myself, 'Why drive 150 miles a week when I can save my car, my money and do something good for my body and environment,?'" said Creese, who said he has biked 1,000 miles to work since May and saved about $250 in gas.
Now Creese runs a Web site - GasFreeCommute.com - for bike commuters, with calculators to estimate calories burned and gasoline saved. His co-workers have logged their miles on his site, totaling 5,400 so far.
And if commuters really want to save money, they'll stay at home, said Chuck Wilsker, president and co-founder of The Telework Coalition. Wilsker estimates the nationwide tally of telecommuters to increase by 4 or 5 million workers this year, from an estimated 28 million at the start of 2008.
"If you want to quickly reduce your commuting costs by 20%, leave your car at home one day a week; if you want to reduce your costs by 40%, leave your car at home two days," said Wilsker, who telecommutes from his suburban Maryland home to Washington, D.C.
Not only does Wilsker save on gas, but he said he saves on automotive wear and tear, lunch and dry cleaning.
"You know what I'm wearing?" said Wilsker. "I'm wearing shorts, sandals and a tank top. I'm sitting here working from home. My dry cleaning bill is none."
Feds get squeezed on taxes
As high fuel costs led many to rely on other forms of transportation, such as mass transit, and to cut back their miles on the road this year, the reduced driving also sliced tax revenue that would normally go toward highway maintenance, the FHA said.
The federal tax on gas generates 18.4 cents per gallon of regular gas sold and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel fuel, which gets pumped in to the federal Highway Trust Fund. Some states also add a tax of their own to fund various projects.
The FHA budget totaled $42.18 billion in fiscal year 2008. The Bush Administration has requested $40.14 billion for fiscal year 2009.
As Americans drive less, new ways are needed to fund the national road system, the highway agency said. Even though fewer drivers are using the highways, funding is still critical, party because of a backlog in highway projects.
Peters said she would unveil a new plan on Tuesday to "fundamentally reform our nation's transportation." She said much of the plan will focus on calculating a better cost-benefit analysis for maintaining the national highway system, as well as "weaning ourselves from the gas tax over time."
First Published: July 28, 2008: 9:45 AM EDT



Find this article at: http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/28/news/economy/driving/index.htm?cnn=yes

Labels: economy, oil price, oil supply/demand

It is a testament to our media driven society that Paris Hilton actually puts forth a more reasonable (albeit over simplified) energy plan than either presidential candidate! Below is an article on the subject, including a link to the video.



Don’t Laugh. Paris Is Right.
What Ms. Hilton could teach Messrs. McCain and Obama about our energy crisis.
Howard Fineman
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 3:27 PM ET Aug 7, 2008
Even if you know this statistic it's worth repeating: In the mid 1970s, the last time we were in a dither about energy, we were getting a third of our petroleum from abroad. Now, decades later, we buy more than two thirds of it from overseas. As T. Boone Pickens says, it's the largest transfer of wealth in history, with the possible exception of the armadas of gold and silver the Spanish took home from the New World centuries ago.
The new "oil shock"—not an Arab oil embargo this time, but a scary run-up in the price of crude—has dragged us back to an old storyline and a confrontation with the monsters we failed to destroy decades ago. We're still using up our resources too fast, damaging the environment unnecessarily and becoming too dependent on others for our survival. This time, the challenges are even more difficult to deal with. China and India are growing too fast; oil producers are choking on dollars whose value they distrust; Russia and Venezuela (and some Muslim countries) are antagonistic, turbo-charged petroligarchies.
So where should we turn for inspiration and leadership? To Paris Hilton, of course!
I mention her not only because I am betting she looks better in a one-piece bathing suit than John McCain or even Barack Obama. No, we need Paris because her cheerful and sensible approach to the energy problem—encapsulated in her own poolside “ad"—is a lesson in leadership to the two "real" presidential candidates.
Paris's message: don't stress, don't dis each other's ideas, let's just try everything!
It doesn't get any smarter than that.
McCain and Obama, by contrast, are engaged in a phony war that refuses to accept the Hiltonian point: we need every tactic in this new energy war. We need all the production, conservation and research strategies we can imagine. Nothing should be belittled, or dismissed; everything should be attempted. We can't afford to think otherwise.
At the Aspen Institute's Ideas Festival recently, I was struck by the fact that the captains of industry from Silicon Valley and the academic and journalistic muckety-mucks agreed on only one thing: we need to tackle the energy challenge with the urgency and imagination of the Manhattan Project and the Marshall Plan combined. Men and women who are paid to see over the horizon, and who have a good track record of doing so, said privately that we are a decade from ruin at best.
So what are McCain and Obama doing? Arguing about tire gauges and offshore drilling!
It didn't have to come to this.
Perhaps because of his national-security and Navy background, McCain was the first of the two candidates to see the urgency of the issue. The other, less generous explanation, is that McCain needed to tap into the old Bush crowd at the Houston Petroleum Club, and that the only way to overcome their skepticism of him was for him to abandon his semi-green stance on things and go pedal-to-the-metal on the need for more production. And it is true that McCain has racked up lots of donations.
For whatever reason, he was the first of the two candidates to capture the urgency that the American people feel. His Lexington Project was unveiled early this summer at a time when Obama, who had just wrapped up the Democratic nomination, wasn't paying much attention. And to McCain's credit, his plan does have an all-hands-on-deck quality to it, stressing production, to be sure, but also creative tax and investment notions for pushing the technology and conservation envelope.
But in recent days, McCain has gotten sidetracked by some of his own (and his advisers) juvenile rhetoric, as they attempt to portray Obama as an unmanly and out-of-touch Ivy League fop. McCain has wasted valuable time ridiculing Obama for his sensible reminder that individual self-help acts on conservation—like making sure your automobile tires are properly inflated—can add up to tremendous energy savings.
Eventually, McCain was forced to concede that everyone from the American Automobile Association to the Department of Energy has been saying exactly the same thing about tires. In fact, I'm sure even the guys at NASCAR check the pressure on the tires of their civilian cars, not to mention the ones they drive around the track.
As for Obama, his own New Energy for America Plan, released last week, bears similarities to McCain's in terms of a cap on carbon emissions and trading of emission rights; various tax incentives and awards to push the technology of alternative fuels, especially for cars. He, too, is in favor of a "smart grid" to wheel power more efficiently as we increase of reliance on electricity to power all kinds of vehicles.
But Obama can't let go of the chance to portray McCain as a mindless, rapacious driller and digger who eats uranium for breakfast and quaffs kerosene with his coterie of Big Oil friends. Obama's plan dwells on problems associated with nuclear power, and none of its benefits (such as the complete absence of carbon emissions). In his original proposal, Obama flatly opposed opening up new offshore areas to oil exploration, too.
As rapacious as McCain is, however, Obama has now joined him—at least part way—in agreeing that some drilling in newly permitted offshore spots may in fact be a good idea. Obama knows the truth. New ocean prospecting won't produce immediate results, but it can at the least be an expression of American determination—and that can have an effect in and of itself.
Just ask Paris.


URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/151256

Labels: energy policy