> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of David Hobby > Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:19 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Economics of global warming, was: Re: 9/11 conspiracies ... > > For example, take automobile purchases. My family has three > cars, one of which gets around 17 miles per gallon (no metric > conversion, tough). The plan is to keep driving it for the > short term, but you can be sure the next car we buy will get > much better mileage. So you get no short term reduction in > fuel usage, but definitely a long term one.
But, some people are buying cars this year, right? One good number to look at is the switch from buying trucks (which include pick ups and SUVs) to automobiles. From 2005 to 2006, for the first half of the year, the relative fraction of car sales went up about 5% while the relative percentage of trucks went down by the same amount. Let's assume that this change takes place overnight. What happens to fuel usage by folks who either buy automobiles or light trucks/SUV? It's down 1% from what it would be without the change in sales. This is after a tripling in price. My point is that this decision making, which should be very susceptible to energy costs, will have a minimal impact on fuel consumption in that sector. Looking at the eia website we see that price did have some influence on driving habits. During that same period (jan-jun '06), consumption did fall about 2% from the same period in '05....to be even with gasoline consumption in jan-jun '04. So, the big upsurge in prices barely affected either car buying habits or consumption over a 2-year period. I'll agree that the rise in US fossil fuel use will probably slow as a result of price increases, but we were talking about needing a 20% drop from present values. In terms of per capita use, we'd be talking about a 30% or so reduction in 10 years. > > Similar arguments can be made for energy used for heating, etc. > It takes time to insulate and modify buildings, but if it's > economically favored, it will eventually happen. My point is that the mere slowing of the increase in consumption of in response to a drastic rise in prices indicates that we are fairly far from the point where significant reduction in energy usage is economically favored. > > I'd like to look at some analyses too. I believe that > an analysis that does not factor in a large increase in > energy conservation is simplistic. The ones I've seen do assume that less fossil fuel will be consumed. > But it's not at all > clear what should be counted as a "cost" of energy > conservation. Greatly reducing energy use would change > the economy significantly. Some sectors would lose, but > others would gain. People would change their behavior > as well. What is the long term cost of driving less, and > in a smaller car? Driving less? You see your relatives less often, you spend an extra hour a day commuting, etc. The real way to tell is gradually impose a $5/gal $10/gal tax on gasoline and see what happens. And, remember, if the per capita usage of gasoline is cut 30% in 10 years, that's only enough to handle the private auto part of the picture. > I've partially dealt with "cheap". With all due respect, I don't think that question has really been addressed. If _all_ the SUVs and pickups were switched to the more fuel efficient cars, that would only cut the fuel use by that sector by ~12.5%. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
