Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    Did President Bush walk to get to his boat outing, or maybe drive or
    fly?
    
    Are you saying that allocation of gas (should it ever return to that)
    should be done regardless of usage?  I have to say that there are
    some fuel uses are much more important than others.  There's no problem
    with the "as long as it's mine I'll use it as I wish" attitude unless
    it means that somebody's out doing donuts in the lake while somebody
    else can't get to a grocery store, or a doctor, or something really
    vital.
    
    annie

    The amount of gas Bush would use zooming around in his boat 
    all day is used up in less than a second when Air Force One (the 
    presidential plane) starts up. 
    
    But appearances do mean a lot.
    
    Bruce

    .2,
    
    Yep, and the Air Force One is getting a lot bigger.  It used to be a
    707, but now is 747.  So far, Bush has taken 2 "breaks" from his
    vacation.  That means flying back and forth from DC to Maine 6 times
    already.  Well, I don't think it is burning all that much gas, but I
    have a feeling that Bush is becoming a hostage of his own vacation (as
    someone said in the news).
    
    Alf

    Speaking of gas, whatever happened to gasahol? It seemed like such a
    good idea to make a fuel from something organic, especially something
    that we in the U.S. have in abundance.
    
    If we developed alternative energy sources back in the 70's and stuck 
    with them we wouldn't have to go to war for this valuable limited re-
    source. Greed wins out again! Oh well. Nothing new. We'll all suffer
    long term pain for short term gains. Myopia at it's best.
    
    Kate

    Yeah, Air Force One or the Pres. helicopters use more fuel in seconds
    that that boat uses in hours.
    
    "Am I saying that recreational use of fuel is more important than
    someone going to the grocery store?"  No I am not saying that.  And
    I didn't quite say "I will use it for whatever I want, and to hell
    with everyone else".
    
    I said that if it came to shortages fairly distributing the available
    fuel is a horror.  I well remember the fuel lines of the early 70's
    and how who you knew or where you lived is what ACTUALLY determined
    the amount of fuel you got rather than your need.
    
    Different people have different priorities and needs.  So... I said
    that it seems to me that if it came to fuel shortages alloting a
    given amount per vehicle or person with a drivers license might be
    the fairest way to distribute fuel.  That way driver X could use her
    fuel to get to the grocery store and driver y could use his fuel in
    his boat or whatever.   The individual decides which is more important
    to them.  How is it fair while driver X uses the fuel in recreational
    uses (while car pooling the rest of the time) and driver Z uses it 
    going to work and doesn't have enough to go on vacation in the family
    car?
    
    Its fair because IMO two major objectives are accomplished:
    
    1. Fuel use is controlled as to overall consumption per unit.. unit
    means family or individual.
    
    2. The family or individual has as much control as possible within
    the amount each is alloted as to HOW the fuel is used.
    
    If we get into a 'shooting match' about how my trip to work is more
    important than your trip to the grocery store (and this happened back
    in the early 70's) we get into ENDLESS debate over 'appropriate' use
    of the fuel.  My suggestion above (I think) minimizes debate over 
    appropriate use and still more Government control over WHAT YOU CAN
    DRIVE YOUR CAR FOR.  If you think you have felt restricted in personal
    freedom try being arrested for driving your car on an inappropriate
    errand.  
    
    You may laugh (I don't know if you remember the early 70's) but people
    were SHOOTING each other for fuel. 
    
    Jeff

    re:-1
    
    Jeff,
    
    I remember the shortage being in 1979. Was there an earlier one?
    
    Kate

    
    There was an interesting quip on the news last nite about
    natural gas powered autos.  Seems in some sections of the country
    gas stations have oil-based gasoline, and natural gas for cars/trucks.
    And you could tap into the natural gas line to your house (which in
    my case powers my furnace) to get all the gas for your own vehicle...
    drawback was only being able to run about 200 miles.  (but on a tank
    in my truck i only get about 250...)
    
    I hadn't heard of this, in real use, just assumed it was still
    experimental.  Anyone have any more info?
    
    deb
    

    re .6  "was there an earlier shortage than in 1979?"  BOY WAS THERE!
    I hardly noticed the 79 shortages compared to the 73 shortage.  I was
    burning a mixture of kerosene and gasoline in my car because I just
    couldn't get enough gas to get to work.... for MONTHS.  I could get
    kero in hardware stores and 'cut' the gas with it to stretch the
    gasoline out.  BUT DON'T TRY KERO in todays cars.  You will damage
    the engine. The car I had at the time a 1968 Toyota Land Cruiser I could
    get away with the kero with.  I bought a motorcycle so I could get by
    on a couple of gallons of gas a week to get to work. 
    
    Gasoline in Mass was sold to you depending on the last digit of your
    license plate number.  You could buy maybe five gallons of gas every
    other day at the stations which were open during limited hours after
    waiting (sometimes for hours) in the gasoline line to the pumps.
    IF the station didn't run out BEFORE you got to the pump, or the
    station didn't close before you got through the gas line.  
    
    A typical week after carefully planning every mile you drove to be
    sure you didnt waste ANY fuel would go like this:
    
    Get up at 4 AM IF it was a day when your licence number matched an ok
    buying day for you.
    
    Drive to the still closed gas station which opened at 5 AM and closed at
    8 AM. (Bring a book to read)  wait in the already formed line which
    started to move at 5 AM when the station opened.  When you got to the
    pump the max. amount you were allowed to.
    
    Notes:
    Some stations allowed fill ups only if you had less than a half tank.
    If you had more than a half tank you couldn't get ANY gas.
    
    Others had a limit... say 2 to 8 gallons.
    
    After all the conditions were met you hopefully filled your tank and 
    drove to work after picking up the other car poolers and refused to 
    drive Jr. to school because he could ride his bike or take the bus.
    
    The rest of the week KEEP YOUR EYES OPEN AT EVERY GAS STATION TO SEE
    IF:
    
    1. It was open
    
    2. Actually had gas.
    
    3. Your license plate matched the day it was LEGAL for you to buy gas.
    
    4. The line was short (dream on).
    
    If these conditions were met ZIP IN THERE AND TOP OFF YOUR TANK because
    God knew when the next chance would be.
    
    When you drove, drive at 55 MAX to save gas.
    Drive like there is an egg between your foot and the gas pedal.
    Shut the engine off at traffic lights or when stopped in traffic.
    Eliminate recreational use of the car such as Sunday drives or a trip
    to Moms on the Cape. 
    Eliminate private airplane use, boating, skiimobiles, dirt bikes,
    powered hang gliding, recreational vehicles, camping etc.
    Take your vacation via public transportation or go somewhere CLOSE!
    
    These conditions are almost like house arrest except for work or
    walking or biking unless you live on public transportation lines.
    
    Thats what it can (and has) been like when there was a real fuel
    crunch.
    
    On top of all this have the fuel prices skyrocket to $ 1.50 a gal
    or more when you CAN get the fuel.
     
    I have seen all of this happen in the Boston Area except the fuel price
    to $ 1.50 a gallon, then, it ONLY went from .30 per gallong to a buck
    a gallon.
    
    Lets hope this doesn't happen again.  Short of a continental U.S. WAR
    or a food shortage or a major natural disaster there are few non health
    related things likely to have more of an impact on daily life than
    another gas shortage.
    
    We are (from what I can tell) slightly better off then we were then
    because we are as a whole using energy more efficiently.
    
    I have a coal store in my house and don't have to rely on heating oil
    this winter.  (I learned my early 70's lesson well).
    
    Jeff

    
    re .8:
    
    Well, none of this would have had a chance of happening again
    if our *wonderful* government had developed an *intelligent* energy
    use policy that included non-polluting, renewable forms of energy.
    

    Ugh, I remember the last two gasoline crunches also.  It makes me mad
    when magazine columnists and such people glibly say that the federal
    government should raise taxes on fuels by enormous amounts to "encourage
    conservation".  What about folks like me, who super-insulated our houses
    as soon as we bought them (15 1/2 inches in my attic, for example),
    already installed double pane or better windows everywhere, drive tiny
    fuel-efficient cars, shut off all but three rooms in our homes during
    the winter (I heat only the kitchen/living room and the bedroom), and
    walk to work?  If you triple my heating cost, there is nowhere else I
    can cut (I don't air condition at all, and I heat the house to 65 oF
    only during the evening hours when I am home, 55 the rest of the time
    since that is as low as I can set the furnace), especially since DEC is
    not planning on giving me a raise for another two years.  Gimme a
    break! - I am already doing my part; pick on someone else!
    
    /Charlotte (feeling depressed and broke this morning!)
                     

    re .9 - Ay-yup.

    re ... - It's worth remembering that the vaunted 55-mph national speed
    limit resulted from the 1974 fuel shortage. Prior to that, most
    interstates had a 70 mph speed limit, with 80 mph in the wider open
    spaces (like I80 across the midwest) and no speed limit at all in some
    areas (like across the deserts of Nevada). For a while, Mass.
    instituted a state-wide 50 mph speed limit cap, then got upped to 55
    when the Federal government passed the national speed limit.

    Hmm... If this continues, anyone want to hazard a guess as to whether
    the 65 limits in the country will stand? The average car probably gets
    12-14 mpg better than in 1974, but the government is always looking for
    a way to pass legislation that doesn't require them to think (too hard
    for them).

    Might's well own a Yugo...

    .10  "What happens to the people already conserving?"  You will be 
    expect to conserve more.  The same thing happens to me.  We get lost
    in the 'noise' of the general effort to conserve.  All the fuel you
    have saved (not used) by your own efforts over the last years WILL NOT
    be avalable for you to use even though others around you used all they
    could with abandon.   Life is not fair, and no one every promised
    us a rose garden.  Jeff

    
    re my note in .9:
    
    I guess what I was trying to say in .9 is that we shouldn't even
    be *having* this conversation.  We should've had better sources
    of energy by now (17 years after the first crisis) and there's
    really no excuse.
    
    This topic annoys me.  It's the wrong answer to the problem, Jeff.
    
    

    
    
    Well, with buddies of big-oil in the white house it's no wonder that
    the US has not invested in alternative sources of energy.  I also think
    that the very powerful will never have to limit their recreational
    uses of oil and gas.   So George can tool around in his power boat and 
    take the jet to and from Maine all he wants.  God, in my own tunnel vision 
    I never considered the impact of a fuel crisis when I took a job 35 miles 
    from where I live...
    
    so glad there are young americans defending my right to drive...
    
    Justine

    Justine
    
    I  think to reduce this whole situation to defending our right to
    drive or have cheap gas is overly simplistic.
    
    
    The whole world is so oil dependant that a major mid east war
    would cause a serious world wide depression, and that is worth
    - in my mind - doing something to prevent.
    
    But I entirely agree that we've wasted tremendous amounts of
    initiative in re alternate energy sources.
    
    Bonnie
    
    (who was promoting these issues 15+ years ago as a teacher)

    Ummm...I hate to rain on a consensus...but I don't think it's
    been government's role to do the smart thing, to do the right thing,
    EVER in this country.  And none of us really expected it this time.
    If we expected alternative energy sources we'd have expected it
    from private concerns, who could do it economically, make the 
    research pay off, get cooperation from big users of the current
    type (like home heating and automobile manufacturers) to work out
    new distribution methods if necessary, etc.  If big business hasn't
    yet figured out how to do it and to make money at it, I positively
    shudder to think of the government getting into it, and funding it
    on our tax dollars which are already in too short supply to do the
    things I expect the government to do.  The one thing the government
    could have done was tax gasoline much higher starting years ago to
    encourage that other development in the private sector.
    
    DougO 

    What happened to the fuel efficiency regulations for cars?  I thought
    that long ago all cars had to get at least 25 MPG but it turns out
    that the regulations were changed to allow lower mileage for a longer
    time, supposedly to enable the car manufacturers to redesign and
    retool.   And the regs were also changed to allow a manufacturer
    to average the fuel efficiency across the models. (If you make 10
    different kinds of cars, they can average a certain MPG but 
    most of the models can be real gas guzzlers.)

    I wonder too what happened to alternative energy research?  Lots
    of alternative fuel/energy projects were defunded in the last 10
    years.
        
    I well remember the gas crunch of 1973/4.  In the state I was living
    in we had the last digit rule (if your license plate ended in an
    odd number you could only buy gas on odd numbered days).  Gas stations
    hung out red flags if they were open but not pumping, yellow flags
    if they were only pumping limited amounts, and a green flag if
    they could provide full tanks.  The lines were sometimes a mile
    long.
    
    On line, you'd turn off your engine.  And then wait for the line
    to move quite a bit before restarting and moving up.  Police patrolled
    the line to make sure that no one cut in.  Fights broke out if someone
    broke in to a line.  The gas station would put a sign on the last
    car in line. Gas cost about $1.50 a gallon. 
    
    The car I drive gets between 36 and 40 MPG all the time.  

    Yes, I am a "waster".
    
    I have a Honda that gets 40 mpg.  But I live ~27 miles away from my
    social life.  I guess I could move closer to my social life, but then
    I'd have to drive ~20 miles to work.  Maybe I should just sit home,
    or better yet, quit my job.  Maybe I should just die, then I wouldn't
    use any fuel.
    
    And if I'm going to die, then I think we should also stop cruise ships
    from going to the Caribbean because they probably use more fuel on one
    trip than I would have used in a year.
    
    Lisa/waste supreme.....who's put 10000 miles on her car in 5 months.
    
    

    re: .7, I saw a similar broadcast.  It costs approximately $2000 to
    get a fit-up to convert automobile fuel to natural gas.  But the
    advantage is that natural gas is domestically sourced.  It would
    provide the U.S. with *alot* less dependence on foreign fuel sources
    and it would probably help the U.S. economy too.  Apparently the
    auto manufacturers have heard about it but haven't acted on it.

    There are several problems with powering vehicles with natural gas.
    
    Natural gas weighs a lot more that gasoline.  
    
    The storage container is more complex than a conventional gas tank.
    
    You can't just 'pump' the natural gas as you can gasoline.  It has to
    be under pressure.
    
    The max distance on a full tank is a lot smaller.
    
    What's wrong with public transportation folks?  Big Oil and Detroit got
    together with the Feds and spent decades turning us into a country
    of people who can't get along without our autos.  Everyone is talking
    about operating cars more efficiently.  Why not demand a system that
    will transport people more efficiently.  On a train you don't have to
    stare at an ugly strip of black while breathing the fumes of the auto
    in front of you.  You can relax, read, play games, even work (GOd
    forbid).  I HATE commuting.  It is a waste of my time and energy.  It
    is totally unproductive.  I heard on a report recently that it costs
    $1200 anually in lost productivity for each American who drives to
    work.  They figure that this will rise to approx $5000 by 1993 because
    teh volume of traffic will rise and the commute times will increase -
    something to look forward to!
    
    Nest time vote for a Railroad Baron instead of an Oilman.

    
    Well, public transportation is great if it goes to where you work.
    and it runs at the hours you work, and you don't have to leave where
    you work to get lunch, go to the cleaners/post office/dentist/wherever
    during the day.  Such is NOT the case with many of the DEC facilities.
    I mean, where is closest train/bus/subway station to MRO??? or to
    where my house is???  
    
    When I worked downtown i did use public trans. most days cuz i could
    walk to wherever needed during lunch hour, or before/after work.
    but on days when I had offsite meetings, or customer visits, or
    other things going on I drove.   Had to...
    
    Re: natural gas...it didn't seem like too much of a bother to 
    re-equip the cars/trucks for natural gas.  And it looked
    easy to fill the tank...  As for the weight of the tank...i don't
    know..that might be a problem, but surely there are ways around that.
    With the new self-locking seals i don't think fill/storage is as
    much of a problem.  And supposedly the dual wall tanks are safer
    than the standard gas tank on autos.
    
    so, what are some other solutions?  I have also seen some newer
    version of electric cars which look pretty nice...but again the
    time between recharge may be a problem.
    
    deb
    

    I think  .20 is quite valid. I remember how much incentive the last oil
    price jump gave to building the DC subway system. Unfortunately, as
    prices dropped/stabilized, the outer reaches of the system were never
    built. But it was designed to get you just about anywhere.
    
    An even more famous system is that of New York. You would not BELIEVE
    how many New Yorkers do not own cars. They don't have to. They have 24
    hour public transportation. I've only seen the system collapse once. It
    was a huge power out.
    
    Europe and Japan do trains far better than we do. And many places have
    figured out how to do subways. I remember reading that Mass Transit was
    considering bringing the "T" out to Marlboro and Worcester. It might
    take years, but projects like that deserve our support in providing
    long term solutions to a real problem.

    If the government really wanted to encourage energy conservation,
    rather than just raise taxes under the guise of doing something that might
    even benefit the populace at large, they could start by reinstituting
    the tax credits for installing energy-efficient things.  That is the
    only way I managed to afford my solar hot water system; when I got the
    tax refund from the energy rebate, I paid off the home improvement loan
    I took out to install the thing.  It would have taken many years to pay
    off the high cost of adding on one of those things to an existing house
    if the government hadn't helped out (my system feeds into my natural gas
    water heater, which doesn't run anymore except during the winter).
    The tax credit wasn't such a big factor in putting more fiberglass
    batts in the attic, since that stuff used to be fairly cheap anyhow
    (paid for itself in one winter's heating bills; probably not true
    anymore), or adding storm windows where there weren't any before, but
    the water heater was real expensive because of the amount of labor it
    took to retrofit it.   At least it was easy to get the loan because the
    bank knew that I would be able to pay it off with the tax credit - that
    was part of the loan application; I wouldn't have qualified for a loan
    otherwise.
    
    When I worked in Boston (and lived in Waltham) I used to take the bus
    in to work.  But if I had to work late, I could get "stuck" and either
    have to hitch home or take a long series of connections on the T to get
    back home.  The last bus left town at 7 pm.  So sometimes I had to
    drive, if it looked like there was going to be the usual
    Friday-afternoon-disaster or something.  These days, it's no problem:
    you can see my house from the office window here (such a deal!).  I
    didn't much like taking the bus, anyhow.  I don't like speeding down the
    Mass. turnpike standing up hanging on a strap, and I get real sick real
    fast of constantly being on the alert for the pickpockets and purse
    snatchers when the bus is crowded (my boss got mugged, but I never
    did; I was REAL careful!).
    
    I don't know why we are talking about these depressing subjects in this
    file anyhow - maybe because the noting community in this file is more
    supportive than most.  I guess some of us have relatives and friends
    who are now on their way to lands of the oil despots, and such.  The
    only person I knew in Kuwait was killed in the Iraqi invasion, sigh.
    
    /Charlotte

    It is great to see pseudo-economists/scientists dropping in from the 
    'box.  Look what we have here:  Gas quota, Alternative fuel, lowering
    speed limit...  But there is just one minor technical issue, how do you
    impliment them?  I don't want to even begin to list the enormous
    problems in the implimentation.  Let me just say that before anyone
    gives "implimentation suggestions", try to look beyond your gas bill and
    think it in terms of National employment rate, National inflation rate,
    and National GNP.
    
    The bottom line is that in this country, government control has very
    limited effect, and everything the government does comes with a heavy
    price.  There is one agency of the government that is quite good (still not
    effectively, but good enough for government work), and that is IRS
    (surprise surprise), so the smart guys (folks like Adam Smith) will 
    try to do as much as possible through the tax man.  You wanna limit gas
    consumption?  Tax the gas.  You wanna make the car more fuel efficient?
    Add surcharge tax to gasguzzler...  The only problem, I am afraid, is
    that IRS is not very popular around here.  So there you have it.  
    
    Alf 
                                                                   

    i personally don't see aproblem with reduced
    range due to natural gas or electric engines.....
    
    i mean, at the moment i fill up once or twice a week,
    but if i had the option to top off my tank every night
    at home for less money, and could still do the same
    amount of driving, wouldn't bother me none.
    
    jonathan (who rarely drives 300 miles in a single day)

    I was in Colorado for the first oil shortage and don't remember
    gasahol. I do remember hitch-hiking to work a few days each week. And
    looooong lines at the gas station.

    I lived in Omaha during the second crisis and gasahol was heavily used
    there. It's a farm state afterall, that helps the locals. I used it in
    my Honda Civic and had no problems.

    Currently in Colorado we have to use high oxygen fuel in the winter to
    help cut down on polution. Some say it hinders milage but I never had a
    problem. liesl

    re .13 It annoys you, it annoys me too... believe me! Your right..
    the topic address the the issue of the horse already being out of
    the corral..... but that is reality..... we can moon about what should
    have been and we are still right here.... so what do we do?  We learn
    what we should have learned 15 years ago and developed alternate
    means of transportation and energy sources years ago.  We didn't.
    Why not?  Because of two main things... 
    
    1. The free world is driven (a pun here) by economics. Gasoline
    was still the most SHORT TERM cost effective way to get around, and
    still is right now.  When prices rise enough to make alternatives
    cost effective you will see them phased in.
    
    2. People tend to forget, and go the easy route.  I have watched over
    the years as most of the early fuel conservation guidelines were
    dropped by the wayside and we went back to the old ways.  I was
    wondering how long it would be before another oil shock brought
    us up short.
    
    Lets not learn this lesson the hard way again if this crisis passes.
     
    Yeah, is depressing, I hate it too.   Jeff

    I lived in Deutschland for some years, and appreciated the great public
    trans.  I understand that Japan also does great work in this area.  I'm
    not sure how workable large scale (term selected on purpose) public
    trans is here in the U.S. because of the enormous distances involved. 
    Might work best here in the northeast because we are a comparatively
    small area, but after driving through 3 to 5 states on the first half
    day of vacation, the states per day figure goes way way down.
    
    Safe, clean, cheap, dependable, flexible public transportation - I wish I
    could believe it's feasible here.
    
    aq
    

    We once did have good trollies in a lot of cities, but GM set up a
    "street car" company that bought a street car system, converted it
    from  electric  to diesel busses, tore up the tracks, sold it, and
    bought another.

    The company lost money, of course, but GM subsidized it to get rid
    of  trolley  systems  to  increase the market for buses. It worked
    very well.

--David

    David,
    
    Those trolley lines lines used to exist in the country also. I recall
    being told that women at Mt Holyoke college could take a trolley from
    South Hadley all the way to Cape Cod for a day's outing back in the
    1920s.
    
    Bonnie

Doctorow's book, Ragtime (I think) had a section where the main character
went from New York City to Worcester by trolly  hopping from town to town
(five cents from the edge of town to the center, a one cent transfer),
over a two or three day period.

If you know where to look, you can still see remnents of the Maynard
streetcar line that went, I believe, to Stow and Hudson.

Martin.

Ps: gasoline in Scandinavia is now over $4/gallon (much of this is
taxes that are used to subsidise the public transportation system).

    I'd like to see some proof that 55 mph really saves gas--
    it depends on the car
    
    How about better timing of streetlights-- every stop means more gas to
    go again.  Better yet-- no cars in the cities anyway.
    
    Also, tax the hell out of gas-- GM's had enough time to get cars more
    efficient.  A couple months ago in Detroit in GM's showroom they were
    still proudly displaying cars with 13 MPG STICKERS IN THEIR WINDOWS. 
    GIVE ME A BREAK!!!
    
    ALSO, IF YOU CAN AFFORD A JAGUAR, WHY IS THERE ONLY A ~$1200 GAS
    GUZZLER TAX? ON IT?????
    
    ---BECCA

    Re: .33 
    
    >    proof that 55 mph really saves gas--
    
    There is lots of proof. I've seen pages of graphs showing how fuel
    consumption increases as speed increases. (No, I don't have a reference
    handy.)
    
    The most efficient speed varies with the car, but is in the vicinity of
    45-50 miles per hour. At those speeds the engine is operating most
    efficiently, and wind resistence is not overwhelming. Wind resistence
    increases exponentially with the speed, and is the major factor as
    speed increases.
    
    I bet they can give you a more complete answer in CAR_BUFFS.
    
    Bruce 
    

    .33 .34,
    
    Yes, 55 mph saves gas.  Of course, you can build a car that is most
    efficient at 200 mph.  However, all the cars are optimized (meaning most
    efficient) to run at 35 mph.  The reason is that most of the driving is
    done in town or city that has 35 mph limit.  Hence, car efficiency
    goes down after that.  However, the speed limit issue is not simply a
    "save gas" issue.  The difficult question is how the speed limit
    affects national productivity and total output.  Yes, 55 mph saves gas. 
    However, it also means longer commute time for everyone (put lost of
    productivity here).  On the other hand, 55 mph reduces accident rate
    (put saving lives and lower medical bill here).  Yet, lower speed limit
    causes more wear and tear on cars and high way per mile (meaning
    high car cost and high way reconstruction bill, burns a lot of energy
    to build car and rebuild road too).  So the finally picture is not
    really clear (as things rarely are).
    
    Alf
                                 

    .35) said so well.
    
    Sometimes I just get so DARN frustrated by the simpletons (er
    politicians and news media) who hype 55 mph as a cure-all.  
    
    

    Much of  this  is in response to a note in the Persian Gulf string
    which seemed to belong here.

    One hears  a lot about alternative fuels or conservation not being
    economically  justified  unless  oil  is  taxed  very heavily. The
    problem  with such arguments is that we subsidize certain means of
    transportation   very   heavily   (automobiles,   trucks,  busses,
    airplanes)  and  don't  subsidize  others  nearly as much (trains,
    pipelines).  This  distorts  the  true  cost  of  these  means  of
    transportation,  and  leads  to  choices that are not economically
    justified.

    The main  subsidy  for  cars, trucks, and buses is that most roads
    are   free  or  almost  free.  Airport  land  is  often  paid  for
    publically,  but  trains  and  pipelines have had to buy their own
    land. There is also major external costs associated with using oil
    which  are  not  paid for directly by the users. These include the
    damage  that  pollution  does,  the  cost of defending various not
    terribly  attractive  governments  in  order to insure the flow of
    oil,  and  cleaning  up from various oil spills, catastrophic, and
    chronic.  It's  hard  to  put  an  exact  price  on these, but the
    indirect  costs  might well exceed the direct costs (what the user
    pays  for  oil). In fact, some studies show that the external cost
    of  driving  a  car  in  a  downtown area are $2-$3 per MILE. That
    includes  the cost of police, smog, roads, and similar costs borne
    by the general public.

    We import  about half our oil. It's an interesting exercise to see
    whether  we could cut our oil useage by 50%. I'm convinced that if
    we  wanted  to,  the  technology  is  there  to  do so without any
    significant lifestyle changes.

    There are  prototypes of cars that get about 70 mpg. (A neat idea,
    you  have  electric  motors at each wheel, and enough batteries to
    accelerate  the car to full speed. You recharge the batteries with
    a  small motor that runs almost continuously at full speed, but it
    can  be  15 or 20 hp. You can recover most of the energy wasted in
    braking and used that to charge the batteries. About the same size
    and  weight  as current cars, but more than twice the mileage, and
    less  polluting  to  boot.) Recycling aluminum uses 1/3 the energy
    that  smelting  new aluminum does. Recycling plastics uses 1/2 the
    energy  of  making new. Fully insulating a house, and adding solar
    hot water heating can cut the heating bills by more than half.

    If we  were  to  spend  money  on  this  sort  of conservation, we
    wouldn't  have  to be nearly so worried about OPEC and the effects
    it  has  on our economy. We haven't done this because we subsidize
    oil  to  the  point  that these things are uneconomical, and where
    they're  economical,  out  of  the habit of not thinking about our
    useage.

    I recommend  the  Sept.  issue  of "Scientific American", which is
    about  energy  use. Some of the savings they describe are amazing,
    in  some  cases  the  payback period is a year, in many cases it's
    under two years.

--David

>    One hears  a lot about alternative fuels or conservation not being
>    economically  justified  unless  oil  is  taxed  very heavily. The
>    problem  with such arguments is that we subsidize certain means of
>    transportation   very   heavily   (automobiles,   trucks,  busses,
>    airplanes)  and  don't  subsidize  others  nearly as much (trains,
>    pipelines).  This  distorts  the  true  cost  of  these  means  of
>    transportation,  and  leads  to  choices that are not economically
>    justified.

    I agree, and taxing oil to reflect the true cost (subsidies) of an oil 
    craving economy is one way to curb oil dependece.  I hope we can do 
    that without getting people mad, but I doubt it.  Of course, to change 
    the current energy consumption pattern also inflicts a heavy cost.  
    
Alf
                                   

    .39  With 'incentives' like that its' no wonder solar water heating has
    hardly caught on. Thats the point others have been trying to make here
    that the Gov. must allow tax incentives which make it PAY to save
    energy.  Jeff

    I have the older style of solar panels; they are mounted at an angle
    corresponding to the latitude, and face south - luckily, that means
    they are on the back side of my house, since they are not especially
    neat looking that way.  Some of my neighbors installed the newer
    parabolic panels, which are mounted flush with the roof.  So the only
    additional moving part in my system is the heat exchange pump.  The
    whole thing still cost more than $5K.  I never would have managed to
    install it without the tax credits.  It saves me about $16 a month.
    
    So, when I had the gas compnay sound out the "energy audit" person,
    they didn't come up with any reasonable-payback things we could do that
    we haven't long since done.  The only things they came up with were
    expensive, long-payback items like have another window put in on the
    south side of the house (where a bookshelf stands today, in the study).
    Some of us are already doing our parts...

    	There is an old and largly discredited theory that claims that
    money is a medium of exchange.  The theory claims that we can use money
    to come up with a comparitive value for two different and unlike things
    that may be produced in widely separated geographical areas.  For
    instance:  We can come up with an equivalence between an hour of one
    person's time in New England and a gallon of gasoline produced in the
    Persian Gulf.  The amazing thing is that two parties separated but that
    great a distance can each get what they want in exchange for something
    that the other party wishes to exchange without any form of coercion or
    hercluean effort.  
    	The newer theory says that none of us are wise enough to decide
    what we should do with the fruits of our labor and should defer our
    decisions to some higher and politically correct authority.  Adherents
    of this theory encourage their politicians (most of the politicians are
    adherents of the theory) to pass laws forcing everyone to spend the
    fruits of their labor in what they perceive to be a politically correct
    manner.  Much of Europe has come over to this way of thinking.  There
    most people use means of transportation that are controlled by the
    government.  This maximizes control while minimizing mobility.  The
    more extreme examples require a permit to travel beyone a certain
    distance.  This results in more efficient use of resources than in the
    less enlightened places which allow the citizens to do as they see fit
    with the fruit of their labor.
    
    	As you may have guessed I am one of the ractionaries who still
    hangs onto the discredited theory.  I would beg those of you who are
    more enlightened to get rid of your cars and make voluntary
    contributions to your local mass transit system.  Unfortunately you
    probably won't be able to contribute as much as you would if you were
    to find a job that makes the best use of your talents that may require
    travelling beyond the realm served by mass transit.  For that matter
    why do you think that a mass transit system that typically (even in
    more enlightened realms) cost as much to take someone across town as it
    cost me in gas to drive across a state?
    						John
     

    John, the 'public transportation' facilities have two advantages-
    one, they are not required to show a profit, two, because of (one)
    they have driven the competition out of business. 'No competition'
    coupled with 'no obligation to stockholders' results in wasteful
    mismanagement. 
    
    Dana (who got 27 MPG with a *pickup truck* this weekend :-) )

Re: .42

    The problem  with  this  argument is that capitalism by definition
    ignores  "externalities",  which  are  the  costs or benefits from
    one's  actions that do not accrue to the person taking the action.
    It  also  deals  poorly  with "public goods" which are things like
    clean air, which either everyone in an area has, or nobody has.

    The way to deal with these weaknesses is to tax things which cause
    damage  to public goods, and to subsidize (often with tax credits)
    things which help public goods.

    When you  drive  across  the  state,  you're using roads which are
    rarely paid for directly (I keep hearing of toll boths, but rarely
    go  by  one.) and you're poluting the air which we all breathe. In
    addition,  the  US and other countries are keeping a lot of people
    in  the Saudi desert to insure that oil will remain available at a
    "reasonable"  price. If you pay all those expenses, the real price
    of your driving accross the state is probably more than double the
    amount you pay.

    If you believe in relatively pure capitalism, the solution to this
    is  to tax oil, road use, and polution. Another way to handle this
    is  to  have  rations for oil useage, polution, etc. Economically,
    the taxes are more efficent.

--David

    re .44
    	I rest my case.  You say that there are "externalities" and "public
    goods".  What these are of course are not decided by the public, but by
    wise people who know more than the peasants who do the work.  Of course
    the way to protect these "externalities" is to tax the peasants so that
    the same wise people will be able to spend more of the peasant's money
    to buy their votes in the next election.  Why should politicians and
    self appointed experts decide how resources are allocated rather than
    the people who produce the resources?
    	Also a major fallacy is being ignored in this note.  The only roads
    in this part of the country that are not paid for with fuel taxes and 
    tolls (by the users) are local streets.  So the argument that taxes on
    fuel need to be raised to pay for the roads is invalid.  The present
    taxes already pay for the roads.  Whether the taxes should be raised to
    do a better job of maintaining the roads is another question.
    						John
    

    I think   you  don't  understand.  There  are  externalities,  and
    capitalism  deals with them poorly. Saying that you don't like one
    method of dealing with them doesn't make the problem go away.

    Try this  one:  The major reason for our sending soldiers and arms
    to  the  Persian gulf is to protect the supply of (cheap) oil. The
    correct  source  of  funds for this is a tax on imported oil. (The
    people  who  benefit should pay for the benefit). There's a simple
    way of making the right people pay the costs.  Any problems?

--David

    re .42 you must live in a city John.  I live in the country.  For all
    intents and purposes there is no public transportation except Taxis'
    which are just another car anyway.  You would have me sell my car on
    the spot.  How do I get to work routinely, how do I transport groceries
    to my house and the myriad other chores which one routinely performs?
    I am not a hermit... I can't sit at home and grow my own food and work
    out of my house.  The way our society is set up I MUST move around in
    a TIMELY way or suffer the consequences... which would be poverty. Oh
    I would have plenty of money for a while until I was late to work once
    too often and I got fired.

    Maybe you are suggesting that that is the price we must we willing to
    pay as individuals.  Are you suggesting that?  

    You make it sound so simple, as if just giving up ones car wouldn't
    involve downgrading ones life style to almost depression levels.

    It involves far more than convience.

    I do agree we could drive alot less and be far more efficient... but
    that is NOT WHAT YOU SUGGEST.... you suggest completely giving up
    the auto.

    If the U.S. was set up transportation and work wise the way it was
    100 to 150 years ago I COULD give up my car and not suffer MAJOR
    inpacts (not inconvience) on my life style.  You will have a problem
    with convincing people like me to 'just give up our cars' until there
    are some REAL alternatives to getting around which don't involve going
    back to the 'stone age'.  I think you will find most people view it the
    way I do and thats why its so tough to get people to change.  There ARE
    NO currently available practical alternatives.   

    I guess we had better get going on them if we expect to see people
    giving up there cars in numbers large enough to matter.

    Jeff

    .47,
    
    I think .42 merely suggested that gas price should be allowed to rise
    and fall according to market condition, and if we want to decrease our
    demand on oil, improving public transportation system is a very good
    way of doing it.  Trading in cars for Public transportation,
    alternative energy sources, or sending troops to Gulf..., all these
    choices come with a price.  I see your point about your need for a car,
    but we are debating national energy policy here.  As I said before, try
    to look beyond what it means to your gas bill and think in terms of
    national impact.  By the way, what do you suggest we do (other than gass
    quota which is expensive, unenforcible)?
    
    Alf

    He did suggest in .42 that we get rid of our cars.
    
    The difference between a National and personal energy policy is
    not much different, because the National policies are felt at the
    individual level.
    
    I think that diversity is the way to go. Don't put all our energy
    eggs in one basket, encourage car pooling, set aside money from fuel
    taxes to develop public and research/develop alternate fuels for autos
    such as hydrogen. 
    
    The biggest problem is that the U.S. transportation system is built
    around the auto for short distance travel.  The infrastructure doesn't
    really exist to encourage alternates.  For example I could bike to
    work during the summer IF there was a place to ride the bike.  I can't
    ride the bike on the Interstate I rely on to get to work. I can't walk
    to work because of time constraints, and I couldn't walk on the Inter
    state anyway.  The ONLY viable alternative to me right now is car
    pooling.  Thats fine for work, but what about grocery shopping,
    errands which involve distance travel or heavy bulky items?
    
    The bottom line is daily personal travel.  THAT is a big ticket item
    that eats up megagallons of fuel... but its also one of the toughest
    transportation problems because its the nuts and bolts of moving
    people around.
    
    I remember about 20 years ago I lived in Boston. My car was broken and
    I had to get to an outlying suberb to get to a bank. I used public
    transportation.  It took me over four hours to do the round trip
    to the suberb which could have been accomplished by auto in less
    than an hour.  THAT is the type of competition public transportation
    is fighting.  For the most part people would rather sit around in
    traffic jams than wait for hours using slow, dangerous (crime)
    public transportation.  The only place public transportation beats
    the auto for local travel is in inner cities.
    
    Another thing which motivates people to stay with cars and this is
    not a minor point is that the private auto IS a form of personal
    freedom.  Not having an auto in this Society amounts to house
    arrest. Yes, one can take the bus... on a limited schedule, at their
    times, at their points of stop and try and carry something heavy or
    bulky on a bus!  Its no wonder people put up with the expense, hassles,
    and traffic jams of private autos.  One still gets stuck in traffic
    jams on busses too WITH all the attending disadvantages of busses.
    
    We also have an image problem, and that is that the 'loses' use the
    busses.  The povery stricken or people who have lost their drivers
    licenses tend to use the bus.
    
    The auto is such an emotional mainstay of U.S. life that I think we
    are talking MAJOR lifestyle changes to significantly reduce the auto.
    I am not saying that we can't/shouldn't do it but that I think people
    tend to underplay the social significance of the impact.
     
    The suberb exists because of the auto. It became possible to work a
    long distance from where one works.  Malls exist because of the auto
     etc. etc. 
    
    To significiantly reduce auto use we will have to change the infra
    structure of the United States.  In some sense of the word we will
    have to adapt life style changes which many will view as going
    backwards. 
    
    People were SHOOTING one another in 1973 for a tank of GAS! Thats
    the sort emotionalism we are dealing with.  Not that everyone would
    run around shooting one another but people won't give up cars lightly.
    We are talking revolutionary (and I mean that word literally) forces
    here. 
    
    Is suspect that the solutions lie in a combination of efforts:
    
    1. Make the currents cars more fuel efficient.
    
    2. Develop hybrid fuel cars.
    
    3. Provide far more extensive and attractive public transportation.
    
    4. Bring back the trains.
    
    5. Provide walking biking paths adjacent to highways.
    
    6. Encourage car pooling and efficient use of ones car.
    
    7. Encourage the use of mopeds and motorbikes for errands which are
       too far to walk but don't need a car for carrying things.
    
    8. Work at eliminating the image that losers use public transportation.
       (Planes and ships are not part of this image).

    David,
    	So far you have said repeatedly that there are "externalities" and
    that capitalism doesn't deal well with them.  All I have is your word
    for this.  Can you explain?  Please don't say that I should read an
    economics text by your favorite author.  I can quote you a text by my
    favorite author tthat agrees with my ideas.  If the theory makes sense,
    then you should be able to explain it briefly and understandably.
    
    The rest:
    	The automobile is the best choice for most of us, which is what I
    was saying in .42.  Many people are saying that we should make poor
    economic choices in order to satisfy their own political/religious
    agenda.  Cost in money is a way that we can make choices about things
    that are not otherwise related.  
    	When we have a choice of taking government controlled mass transit
    or of driving a car we choose between something that takes hours and
    costs more than $2 in fare and subsidy (from the gas tax) to get across
    town and something that takes minutes and costs pennies in operating
    cost to do the same thing.  The choice is obvious and most people take
    the obvious choice.  A lot of people who don't like the idea of people
    controlling their own lives try to make them guilty for doing so.
    	These same people tell me that instead of driving an hour a day to
    work I should move closer to work or find a job closer to home.  In
    financial terms what they are saying is that I should move to a place
    where I would spend more on equivalent housing than I spend on getting
    to work presently.  Or, that I should take a job that is closer to home
    and pays less (read where I produce less).  Financially the present
    solution is one that makes financial sense.  It doesn't suit the
    agenda of people who feel that some higher authority should make
    people's decisions for them.
    	My opinion is that the people who want us to make financial unsound
    decisions have a lot in common with those who thought that a centrally
    controlled economy would be more efficient.  You'll note that the
    latter group is now beggging for aid from our less centrally planned
    economy.
    					John
     

John,

    That "externalities" exist is self-evident to any thinking person.
    These are costs (or benefits) associated with an activity that the
    person doing the activity does not pay. A relevant example here is
    that when you drive, your car emits polutants, which cause various
    people  to  be  more  likely to be sick. An externality which just
    helped  me  is  that  my  neighbors painted their house. I benefit
    because  the  neighborhood  looks better, but I didn't pay for the
    paint.

    Applied to  driving,  there  are  a lot of costs caused by driving
    that  the  driver doesn't pay for directly. Some of these are road
    repair  (most of my driving is done on town roads paid for by town
    property  taxes),  the  damage  caused by pollution which the cars
    contribute  to, police directing traffic, hospital care for people
    injured  in accidents (some of this comes from auto insurance, but
    some of it is paid for by other health insurance), and the cost of
    supporting  an  army  to  make  sure  that oil is available. In an
    economically  optimum  case,  drivers  would  pay for all of these
    costs.  There  is  a  tax  on gasoline, which should cover some of
    them,  but  all the studies I've seen indicate that it covers well
    under  half  of  the total cost, and in fact, most other countries
    have much higher gasoline taxes, reflecting that belief.

    Given these  subsidies, the automobile is the best choice for many
    people,  but if automobiles paid their true cost, other methods of
    transportation  would  be better for more people. There will still
    be a place for the automobile, but it will be much more limited.

    I don't  know what the true cost of driving is, but I've seen some
    rather  believable estimates of up to several dollars per mile for
    driving in a city.

--David