Don't Pump Gas On May 15th!

Thank God there are people who are more politically incorrect than I am.

Raison d'?tre!

Here is something from The Marshall Institute.

"Now, back to the biker and the SUV. And let?s start with the very worst of the SUV. With a single occupant, the SUV is moving 30 times its weight in useful payload. And it?s all dead weight; wasted weight; 3,000 pounds or more, moved for no "good" reason at all. So that?s a factor of 30 worse than the bike right there -- we?ll assume you have a weightless bike, so you?re just moving the payload of your own weight. The SUV also needs, say, ten times the width of roadway, right? All that useless junk needs a lot more space to barrel down the ribbon of highway. So now we?re at a factor of 300-times worse for the SUV. From the get-go, a 300-fold penalty. And that?s where ordinary intuition always leaves it.

But let?s finish the calculation. A car engine (including the refining and distribution systems behind it) is about twice as efficient in converting crude oil to locomotion as the grain-bread-muscle systems are in converting the energy in food to locomotion. So the SUV regains a factor of two or so there. It can pick up more than that if the biker eats a lot of meat, because he?s wasting a lot of land for all those cows. So maybe the SUV can get back a factor of ten so on the fuel cycle. Still, that doesn?t begin to close a 300-fold gap.

But what completely eclipses everything else is simply this -- at the source, crude oil is at least 1,000 times more frugal than growing grain, in terms of land consumed to extract and deliver energy. For obvious reasons: you make a very little hole in the earth; you extract a lot of energy. The biker, by contrast, is fueled too -- by granola, one presumes. It takes a lot of field to grow the granola to move a useful pound of biker payload down the road. Bottom-line: per mile, and per useful pound moved, drilling for oil and building an SUV-grade highway system uses ten times less land than growing food to fuel the bicyclist.

To repeat: I?m not endorsing SUVs -- for the most part they?re profligate and wasteful and certainly not to my green taste. But I do think that unless you do the numbers and follow their implications through to their logical limits, you aren?t thinking rationally about such issues at all.

A sanity check: as late as 1910, almost a third of all U.S. farmland was still devoted to feeding horses. Horses were the "organic" transportation system of that day. Feeding that organic transportation system required twice the land used today by all our roads and highways, oil pipelines, refineries, and wells.

Impossible though these numbers may sound to many right-thinking Greens, they are easy to verify. They are, in fact, obvious once one gets used to seeing plants, cows and bikers for what they are: land-hungry, territory-expanding, surface-dwelling automatons, which are optimized for survival and reproduction, not for locomotion. To be sure, a bike or a horse looks incomparably greener than an SUV or eighteen-wheel truck, but only because we so easily overlook such things as corn field and pasture and the rest of the energy cycle."

Interesting. I'll have to run this by my Ph.D in engineering (and the smartest person I've ever known, who BTW is getting patents by the boatload lately) husband.

6th Gen, the marshall report doesn't take into account that the avg suv which people have here at the beach, weighs over 6,000 lbs. also, it doesn't include the environmental impacts on the mining of aluminum and steel, and the making of plastics and rubber for the parts of the suv's as compared to the bicycles. nor does it take into account the comparison of the manufactoring and transportation costs between the two, and the trasportation costs and environmental impacts for delivering fuel to the gas stations, and the electricity burned to keep gas stations open 24-7. also, there are many health benefits to riding a bicycle on a daily basis, which you don't have by driving a suv. you can save that extra costs of joining a gym and reading books about losing weight, and jenny craig meals, etc. if you have to ride a bike to work, you will not be wanting to carry any extra weight. being in better health will also save the public much money when it comes to the costs of health care. the marshall report if more filled with holes than swiss cheese. I almost forgot to mention that most americans are overweight, and we would not have to consume any more food to ride a bicycle instead of driving a suv. we might even buy less of the useless consumer junk if we had to carry it back home on our bicycles.

The post was tongue in cheek, I thought that was obvious when I said that Smiling Joe hated Children. Regardless, the argument does have merit. Here's the whole article.

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=174

And another snippet I liked:

"And soft alternatives entail secondary sprawl of their own. Technologies that use more material and more surface -- soft fuels invariably do -- are generally going to end up polluting more, as well. The bicyclist, lest we forget, emits greenhouse gas, too, as he puffs along the road. In fact, the main reason many of us are biking is precisely to promote our emissions of greenhouse gas, and metabolize some of that excess granola we ate for breakfast, or steak that we consumed too freely the night before. Per pound of useful payload moved, the biker emits more greenhouse gas -- or so I assert -- once you take proper account of land usage, cow pasture, and the alternatives of more deforestation or more reforestation. Soft agriculture has run-offs and relies on pesticides -- pesticides bred into the pest-resistant crops themselves, and designed to kill predatory insects in much the same way as the chemicals Dow or DuPont would have us spray on less hardy plants. PV?s are manufactured from toxic metals. More eagles have been killed by wind turbines than were lost in the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The Audubon Society labeled a proposed wind farm in the Tehachapi Mountains north of LA the 'condor Cuisinart'."

Interesting find. I realize you're not promoting that idea and I think beachbob nailed it. That "study" would have real merit if it actually followed the complete chain of materials required to make and power both types of transport. In addition to those bb listed I think it left out maintenance fluid changes, oil changes, tire changes, replacement parts when broken or crashed, noise pollution, and the number of people actually killed each year from being hit by any car versus a bicycle. And then of course there is parking.

Sounds like they took it to the Nth degree on the bicycle end and barely scratched the surface of SUV requirements.

I find that report humorous at best and scary at worst that many will latch on to it to further their want of a rolling living room. It nearly sounded like a Daily Show segment. :funn:

It had more to do with the falsehood that bicycles are more environmentally friendly than vehicles. If you read the whole thing, you'd see that. He used the most vilified form of transportation, SUVs, to demonstrate that. He repeatedly said that he was not in favor of SUVs, but used them to make a point. The title of the study was "Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists". Bottom line, from a fuel consumption standpoint, and probably from a greenhouse emission standpoint, bikes are worse for the environment than SUVs. But I'd guess that 99.5% of bike riders aren't riding to save the environment.

In my effort to support the "Don't Pump Gas on May 15th!" movement, I will go to a full-service station (yes, I know of one) and have it pumped for me! Just doing my part. Thank You.

6th gen, while i undersand what the aurthor is trying to demonstrate in your post, i still say that the suv's we see down herer, weighing over 6,000, have terrible efficiency, due to having to use a motor to power a 6,000# + vehicle weight, on top of the passenger and cargo weight. the bicycle probably isn't the most efficient vehicle out there, but add a lightweight engine to it, like a scooter, and you might have the most efficient people mover, in the category of self operated vehicles. it takes a lot of horse power to push a 6,000 lb sled. horsepower which is wasted on most trips to the grocery store, work, and to pick up the kis from school. be careful, some of the dumb masses might actually believe that mostly non-sense comparison in the marshall report.

6th Gen, the marshall report doesn't take into account that the avg suv which people have here at the beach, weighs over 6,000 lbs. also, it doesn't include the environmental impacts on the mining of aluminum and steel, and the making of plastics and rubber for the parts of the suv's as compared to the bicycles. nor does it take into account the comparison of the manufactoring and transportation costs between the two, and the trasportation costs and environmental impacts for delivering fuel to the gas stations, and the electricity burned to keep gas stations open 24-7. also, there are many health benefits to riding a bicycle on a daily basis, which you don't have by driving a suv. you can save that extra costs of joining a gym and reading books about losing weight, and jenny craig meals, etc. if you have to ride a bike to work, you will not be wanting to carry any extra weight. being in better health will also save the public much money when it comes to the costs of health care. the marshall report if more filled with holes than swiss cheese. I almost forgot to mention that most americans are overweight, and we would not have to consume any more food to ride a bicycle instead of driving a suv. we might even buy less of the useless consumer junk if we had to carry it back home on our bicycles.

:clap_1: :clap_1: amen!!!!

...blame the trucking industry for getting the rails regulated. The US used to have the most advanced rail system in the world, until the government stepped in.

I'm sure you have mountains of links to back this up. care to share?

You all can always move to Great Britain. It seems like every Brit I've met abroad is completely goobed out over the whole environment thing. Now I see why.

http://setup1.wsj.com/article/SB117832926960393062.html?mod=todays_us_opinion

I'm sure you have mountains of links to back this up. care to share?

I'll have to dig through some old college textbooks and notes. It was somewhat covered in Free to Choose, in the "Who Protects the Consumer" chapter. I'm not sure if it is mentioned below, but you can look.

http://www.freetochoose.net/1980_vol7.html

http://www.freetochoose.net/1980_vol7_transcript.html

A few things here - SJ, your "freedom of choice" platform on other issues that affect you, such as spraying, rings hollow here. You haven't come out and said it, but you basically want to tax the choice of vehicles away from the consumer. You are against incentives to choose larger vehicles, but are for incentives to choose smaller, more efficient ones. There are already plenty of incentives to driving more efficient vehicles that are (mostly) market driven. There are also government incentives for hybrids. Also, people who drive SUVs are paying for their use of the road in the form of gasoline taxes that keep and maintain them. If a city or even a county wants to tax inefficient vehicles, that's fine, but be ready to reap the economic consequences.

6th Gen, that is not my thought at all. I don't believe in taxing penalties for gov't control of anything, including cigarettes.

Also, I don't have a problem with anyone's choice to buy and drive a large vehicle. A couple of points on my thoughts:

* The gov't gives a much larger incentive for vehicles weighing over 6,000 lbs, than they do for the energy efficient vehicles, more than 300% difference on the low end, with much greater incentive if your purchase is a truck or a SUV with a separated bed, like the Avalanche and Escalade, rather than a SUV without the separated cargo area. The tax incentive is so great, that it is cheaper for many people to buy the large vehicles than one with a much cheaper price tag which doesn't weigh over 6,000.

* I own a larger vehicle, wieghing over 6,000 lbs, and the primary reason for the purchase was for the larger size. A secondary reason for the purchase was that the difference in gas mileage between it and a smaller vehicle was almost nominal. Thirdly, see the above paragraph on tax incentive making it cheaper than the smaller vehicle.

* While I like the size of this larger vehicle, it comes standard with only one engine having way more horsepower than I, and most others, will ever need or use. I could tow a huge boat, or construction trailer, but I don't, nor do many other of the people who need it for the size. There are some people who will need the horsepower, but in my opinion, it would be like making only four wheel drive vehicles when the majority of drivers never leave the asphalt. I am for a choice of size and engine type. I could be getting great gas mileage in that vehicle if they offered it with an engine of lesser horsepower. Back in the seventies and even the eighties, the auto manufactorers were giving options of engine size in vehicles. You might get 8 mpg with a big block like a 454 ci engine in your truck vs 15 mpg with a 305 ci engine. The choice was there for the consumer.

In summary, I think you have misunderstood my thoughts on the subject, but thanks for letting me clarify my points.

6th Gen, that is not my thought at all. I don't believe in taxing penalties for gov't control of anything, including cigarettes.

Also, I don't have a problem with anyone's choice to buy and drive a large vehicle. A couple of points on my thoughts:

* The gov't gives a much larger incentive for vehicles weighing over 6,000 lbs, than they do for the energy efficient vehicles, more than 300% difference on the low end, with much greater incentive if your purchase is a truck or a SUV with a separated bed, like the Avalanche and Escalade, rather than a SUV without the separated cargo area. The tax incentive is so great, that it is cheaper for many people to buy the large vehicles than one with a much cheaper price tag which doesn't weigh over 6,000.

* I own a larger vehicle, wieghing over 6,000 lbs, and the primary reason for the purchase was for the larger size. A secondary reason for the purchase was that the difference in gas mileage between it and a smaller vehicle was almost nominal. Thirdly, see the above paragraph on tax incentive making it cheaper than the smaller vehicle.

* While I like the size of this larger vehicle, it comes standard with only one engine having way more horsepower than I, and most others, will ever need or use. I could tow a huge boat, or construction trailer, but I don't, nor do many other of the people who need it for the size. There are some people who will need the horsepower, but in my opinion, it would be like making only four wheel drive vehicles when the majority of drivers never leave the asphalt. I am for a choice of size and engine type. I could be getting great gas mileage in that vehicle if they offered it with an engine of lesser horsepower. Back in the seventies and even the eighties, the auto manufactorers were giving options of engine size in vehicles. You might get 8 mpg with a big block like a 454 ci engine in your truck vs 15 mpg with a 305 ci engine. The choice was there for the consumer.

In summary, I think you have misunderstood my thoughts on the subject, but thanks for letting me clarify my points.

Thanks for clearing that up. You seem to be in favor of higher gas prices, so I was assuming taxes were how you hoped to accomplish that. As you probably know, I'm against all Detroit subsidies. If they want to compete, dismantle their unions. I could go either way on cigarettes. In a perfect world, I'm for the legalization of all drugs, but I realize the political feasibility and external consequences of such.

Thanks for clearing that up. You seem to be in favor of higher gas prices, so I was assuming taxes were how you hoped to accomplish that. As you probably know, I'm against all Detroit subsidies. If they want to compete, dismantle their unions. I could go either way on cigarettes. In a perfect world, I'm for the legalization of all drugs, but I realize the political feasibility and external consequences of such.

I could see how you might think that I am for higher gas prices, but that is far from the truth. I think that higher gas prices are the only thing that will make lazy Americans (that would be most of us) to get mad and force, through the vehicle types we purchase, the auto makers to give us choice of engine efficiency, through engine type, fuel source, etc.

For most all subject, I am for freedom of choice. Sure, I could argue for either side of the coin on most subjects, but I think the Gov't needs to stay out of business and personal rights and priviledges. The free and open market will control itself, when (if) given the opportunity.

I think the Gov't needs to stay out of business and personal rights and priviledges. The free and open market will control itself, when (if) given the opportunity.

Hear, hear.

Not to keep beating a dead horse, but blame the trucking industry for getting the rails regulated. The US used to have the most advanced rail system in the world, until the government stepped in.

As I thought, it appears that the rails themselves are to blame. From your offered source:

...The cartoonists of the day delighted in pointing out that railroads had tremendous political instinct. As indeed they did. They used the consumer's complaints to get the government to establish a commission that would protect the railroad's interest...

...In the 1920's and 30's when trucks emerged as serious competitors for long distance hauling, the railroads induced the Commission to extend control over trucking. Truckers, in their turn, learned how to use the Commission to protect themselves from competition....


the railroad system of goods delivery has never been perfect, it is pyhsically unable to be an end point delivery provider. common carriers have always filled that need, and of course figured more money was to be made carrying the freight from point a to point b without the help of rails. blame the rails for their own demise.

with regards to the argument of huge suv's vs. smaller cars with regards to fuel consumption/efficiency, it's easy. i've discussed this with another member of this board, and the result is to tax gas at a rate of $2.00+/gal with the tax going towards real research of effiecient engines and fuel sources. you'd see a change quickfast. you'd see a lot of huge vehicles for sale and eventually being used as planters. then, the big three would have the immediate incentive to stop the continued spewing of mammoth vehicles out to the consumer and get with the program.

with regards to the argument of huge suv's vs. smaller cars with regards to fuel consumption/efficiency, it's easy. i've discussed this with another member of this board, and the result is to tax gas at a rate of $2.00+/gal with the tax going towards real research of effiecient engines and fuel sources. you'd see a change quickfast. you'd see a lot of huge vehicles for sale and eventually being used as planters. then, the big three would have the immediate incentive to stop the continued spewing of mammoth vehicles out to the consumer and get with the program.

You know that would greatly increase the price of, well, everything?

As for the article, the railroads were behind it initially, no doubt, but the trucking industry made it much worse. It's been a while, so I'll do some homework on it and get back to you.

You know that would greatly increase the price of, well, everything?

And that may not be a bad thing! Maybe more of us would buy less "crap" and instead save that money and quit living on credit. But, it would probably only end up hurting those who are living hand to mouth as it is.

And that may not be a bad thing! Maybe more of us would buy less "crap" and instead save that money and quit living on credit. But, it would probably only end up hurting those who are living hand to mouth as it is.

Didn't work for real estate in south Walton County.

I have no problem w/ the current gas prices, though I do feel sorry for those who are having to pay more because they have to commute from affordable housing locations to their jobs. You use more, you pay more!

Consumers NOT buying vehicles w/ low gas mileage is how you solve the problem. It's been a while since I was in an economics class, but I'm pretty sure it's still all about supply and demand, not bogus internet gas boycotts, or massive taxes.

I can appreciate the practicality and necessity of SUV's, but they are typically oversized and overpowered for what they are actually used for. My father drives an SUV - he uses it to tow boats, move his kids & their junk around the country, drive up mountains, and haul trees he cut down. I do not need a vehicle that does any of these things, which is why I don't own one and I filled my tank friday for less than $30!