Thursday, March 11, 2010

the hubbert peak

3/11/10
74,921 mi.
351.5mi.
16.458 gal.
$3.159
$51.84


Standing at the chevron pump this morning, I began scribbling these numbers down on my little notebook. A habit my parents imposed upon me, I’ve been keeping notes on every time I’ve filled up at a pump since I was 16. For the first few years, it just seemed a hassle. Who wants to know this kind of info anyways? Then by the time I hit college, the basement statistician in me emerged, and I began throwing these numbers into an excel sheet, figuring out everything from the average life of a tank to the gas mileage efficiencies of my latest adventures. 21.36mpg average for this last tank. As I stood there, I watched the other cars at the pump: a Toyota Tundra, a Dodge Grand Caravan, and a Hyundai Sonata. There was a Toyota Prius parked at the air/water station, and an old Camry parked in the corner. As I watched the people fill up, I began to think about that one particular statistic, MPG. All the cars filling up were gas guzzlers, mine included.

Recently, the White House has been on a push to increase CAFÉ (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards. Basically, it’s a mandate to car manufacturers that by a certain date, they have to ensure that the average MPG of their line of cars meets a certain minimum. Of course, car manufacturers don’t like this. From seatbelts, to airbags, to the current fuel economy standards, the auto industry was dragged into each kicking and screaming. Now fuel economy is the latest battle that they’re gearing up for. This is especially dicey territory, since fuel efficiency is at the heart of the Obama administration’s energy strategy.

As I watched as the Tundra pull away from the filling station, I began to wonder why we have these vehicles to begin with? A quick trip to any other country will easily confirm that, outside the US, pickups and SUV’s aren’t at all that common. As the Tundra drove off in the distance, I then began to wonder, with the technology we have today, why we even put up with such inefficient cars. The answer, I quickly realized, lies with that fifth number I scrawled in my notebook: $3.159. as long as gas is $3 or $4 a gallon, we’ll complain and moan about how we’re getting gouged by the gas companies, how OPEC is colluding to keep gas at an artificial high, how much of our paycheck is going to transportation costs. We’ll complain and moan today, and then quietly go back to the pump and fill up tomorrow. Prices today are high enough to make us complain, to rail against oil companies, but not enough to make us do anything substantial about it.

Gas prices…aren’t high enough. If we really want to make grand strides with fuel economy, if we really want to push for development of alternative energy sources, if we really want to push for more efficient cars, we have to start with that gas price. Imposing a $5-$15 tax/gallon (yeah $15, that’s not a typo) not only helps edge the price to unbearable limits, but that initial pain at the pump will be enough to spur people to demand more efficiency out of their vehicles. M. King Hubbert asserts that oil production is on a bell curve, and production will increase exponentially until it reaches it’s peak, and then climb back down as resources dry up. He correctly predicted that US oil production would peak in the 1970’s, and then creep back down to today’s figures. The reason that OPEC is very careful about setting oil production figures is that they want the end price to be high enough to get a sizable profit, but not high enough where we will start looking for alternatives to oil. Gas prices need to be pushed to that far extreme, so it becomes an issue for discussion, sparking a national debate. In the meantime, that $5-15/gallon tax can be used to fund tax incentives for hybrid/electric vehicle development, alternative energy technology, etc.

$51.84. I could have bought 2 coffee tables at Ikea, lunch for more than a week, or a few new books. Instead, I was paying for gas. As I pulled away from the pump this morning, my mind was set, my wallet felt lighter, and my resolve grew stronger.

2 comments:

Brian Cho said...

why must you hate on us SUV drivers? you may think there is no need for such inefficiencies but you are so wrong my friend. how else will we tow our boats and rv campers or other recreational equipment? or get up to the mountains with snow on the road? and don't forget the accessorizing possibilities such as lift kits and oversized tires that significantly drop our MPGs, but increase our coolness factor. you may not think we need such vehicles, but i beg to differ. and if anything, at the end, my car will run all over your car and then come. ha!

Brenda said...

lol, this is totally my arena. In class, everyone, including the professor knew that higher gas taxes were the way to go to control travel behavior and to get people taking public transit or buying hybrids. It's a combination of our car-friendly, transit-unfriendly, transportation infrastructure and a history of pro-auto maker lobbyists. Higher gas prices would definitely make all the difference. Remember when gas almost went to $4-5 per gallon? People started to abandon their cars, carpool, bike, etc!

to Brian: SUV's are certainly needed for utility purposes, but it's not so necessary that it be used as a commute vehicle. That's why alot of metropolitan areas have car-sharing programs like ZipCar and CityCar Share. The idea is to increase efficiency by letting you drive only what you need, when you need it. Of course, they're just baby programs now, but that's certainly a good "road" to take. ^^