 |
|
Three easy ways to lower gas prices
Conservation and efficiency are our only energy quick fixes.We’re all about practical solutions here at TerraPass. While politicians pander, consumers complain and gas prices soar, you — yes, you! — can personally play a role in getting those fuel costs under control real quick. How? Glad you asked… Drive less This tip is shamelessly ripped off from the Environmental Economics blog, so I’ll just quote in full:
You might be thinking that this advice is little help to those protesting truck drivers, who need to drive to earn a living. Ah, but that’s the beauty of the “Drive Less” campaign. When demand slackens, the price of gas drops for everyone. Drive less for the environment, for your wallet, and for your trucker brethren. (I once came across a great stat on how much gas prices would drop if everyone shaved just a few miles from their weekly travels. Alas, I can’t find it anywhere. If anyone knows the figure, please post it in comments.) Slow down Maybe you can’t drive less. But surely you can drive more slowly. According to the Congressional Budget Office, drivers appear to slow down when gas prices rise. The effect is so small that it’s almost certainly unconscious, but it is nevertheless a rational response to high fuel prices. Easing off the accelerator can boost your car’s fuel efficiency 10% or more, depending on conditions. So get over to the right lane, turn on cruise control, and enjoy the scenery. Update: Pete reminds me to shill for our very cool ScanGauge II real-time mpg computer. This little number makes Sunday driving fun. Join the trucker protest Truckers demanding that Congress put caps on gas prices have the wrong policy prescription, but there is at least one simple solution at politicians’ disposal: raise the weight limit on trucks. The U.S. has one of the lowest freight weight limits among developed countries. In Canada, trucks can haul up to 138,000 lbs. When they hit the U.S. border, they have to slim down to 80,000 lbs. Lower weight limits mean more trucks on the road, which increases not only carbon emissions but also deadly traffic accidents. One study suggested that a 7% increase in the weight limit could shave off 8 billion miles of driving annually. Like so many efficiency measures, this one seems like a freebie. It’s not, actually. Infrastructure would have to be improved to handle the heavier loads. But it’s still a quick-ish fix. Bonus tip: inflate your tires This is just a no-brainer — make sure your tires are properly inflated. Then throw on some of our jazzy LED tire alerts to make sure they stay that way. Image by Flickr user iboy_daniel. Tags: Conservation, Fuel efficiency, Gas prices
Further reading
Like this article? Get weekly updates by email!
Comments2.
Comment by joe dover
@ May 7, 2008 5 AM
 If we burn petro for 200 years we contribute to global climate change. I see rising gas prices a necessary evil to get us off our butts to do something to wean us off oil. Drilling, transporting, and using petro products is polluting on many levels. This oil “crisis” may also be a fabrication of the Bush administration. One more thing to make us fearful and drain your wallet just like he has drained the federal budget. 3.
Comment by Phil
@ May 7, 2008 6 AM
Oil from Alaska is sold to Japan and other Asian countries because it is easier to transport the crude oil to their refineries by ship. The profits from there are used to buy oil from the middle east that is shipped to Texas for our refineries, where most of them are located, or to Mexico’s refineries where there are little environmental restrictions. The oli companies don’t want to transport oil from Alaska to Texas because China owns the Panama Canal and it cost more to ship it to Texas. We are not only paying for the oil barrons of OPEC but for transportation costs for the oil companies as well. This keeps the price for consumers high so that the oil companies can keep their continued profit margin. There is plenty of oil, but it is all economics. And yes, let’s get out of our dependence on oil! 4.
Comment by Jamie
@ May 7, 2008 6 AM
Up here in Michigan, we have one of the highest weight limits in the nation…and our roads and bridges (nearly unfunded nowadays) are becoming more and more dangerous due to their deteriorating condition. We actually had to shut down some bridges and roads this winter due to their exceptionally poor state. A rapid and significant return to rail, and not an increase in interstate trucking weights, is a more reasonable solution to shipping needs for the US. I say this as someone who gets her daily bread paid for by road design! 5.
Comment by J. Appelbaum
@ May 7, 2008 7 AM
Yes but with higher truck loads, it will tear up our already deteriorating infrastructure which will get only worse when the politicos pass the Gas Tax repeal this summer. (sarcasm intended) 6.
Comment by Chad
@ May 7, 2008 8 AM
Slowing down is not a rational reponse to high gas prices, for most people at least. You roughly save about four times the price of gas per hour that you save. Even at today’s prices, that is only about $15/h. Most of us value our time (and our passenger’s time) at a much higher level. Simply put, from an environmental perspective, you are better off speeding like a lunatic to work, putting in some OT with the time you saved, and buying terrapasses with your windfall cash. I drive a 2002 Ford Focus and have 20,000 miles on it. My primary mode of transit is public and when I have to drive I seek to maximize mileage so I buy CA40, a gas additive that actually works. It costs $1/tank and increases my mileage 10-20%. You can buy it too at http://www.ca40g.com. Get off the dime and do your part. I have not connection to CA40 except as a customer. I use it and find that it does work. I get at least 10% better mileage and have heard several people on the Ed Schultz Show say how it has improved their mileage as well. I have no connection to CA40 except as a customer. I use it and find that it does work. I get at least 10% better mileage. Folks — we’re missing the point Adam makes here, at least as I understand it. The point is: there is no true solution to the related problems of 1) oil prices, 2) global warming, 3) economic/geo-political disruption. Not now. Nope. No solution. Not now. There are many (many) promising technologies. There are many promising policy changes. And, yes, there’s enough coal to power the country for a long time. Do these help you or our truckers fill their tanks this summer? Nope. Adam proposes several means of making the problem less severe in short order. Nowish. Why (no, really, why) can we not take these simple steps? Drive less, drive more slowly, keep your tires inflated? (And many more — some easy and trivial, some take a trifling amount of effort). None takes sacrifice. Of course we can. Check history when, in 1978 we did exactly these things and a few others, all of which had a rather dramatic and fairly immediate result. Check out http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm for some real data. A little political leadership would help, but I am not going there :-) But we all want a complete solution to the problem, so anything that addresses just a little of the problem is tossed out as pointless or meaningless. 4% couldn’t possibly make any difference, could it? I have been writing a blog called “fivepercent” for a few years, and it’s based on the idea that a small change can make a big difference. Yes!!! Yes every single small change we make will make a difference. No single small change will solve “the problem”, and in truth none will. But if what you’re talking about is gas prices, what Adam proposes are simple (simple!!!) changes that most people (no, not all) can make starting tomorrow. We’re all looking for a “shoot-the-moon” solution, I think. We want a single silver bullet. We’re Americans. We think big and bold. Conservation is so “old world”, so dull, so what our parents did. Boring. But the silver bullet’s not going to happen. Energy, climate, economics, geo-politics are gnarly problems. They are not going to be solved in any simple or immediate way. Who wants to hear such un-American things? Certainly not most of us Americans. But it’s the truth. So, until then, take a few small steps. Come on, do it. Just do it. These changes will not immediately benefit you. But if enough of us make changes, they can be truly incredible in magnitude. Huge. And if we do, that buys us a little time to work out the various and complicated web of solutions that will be the way we move into the future. Tom Harrison 11.
Comment by Anonymous
@ May 8, 2008 7 AM
Any small steps we take as consumers will help us save money at the gas pump. However it will not lower gas prices. The truth is the industry charges whatever they want because right now most everyone has to use gas. Its all a huge scam. They (the industry) can profit whatever they want regardless of how much it hurts us as consumers. The rich stay rich,the poor live off of the government and us hard working middle class people continue to suffer. Horse and buggy anyone?? Can anybody comment on the potential impact of this technology? They only problem I see with it is that it never claims to run-on-water-only, only to mix it with gasoline. Wouldn’t it be greast if we could just power engines just on water one day? Forgot to include… http://www.runyourcarwithwater.com/?hop=watertt 14.
Comment by BCC
@ May 9, 2008 12 PM
Driving slower is generally safer, too. Advocating heavier trucks as being safer? Crikey. This post also failed to mention the huge shift to intermodal (truck + rail) freight due to high fuel prices. 
Individually, a heavier truck isn’t safer than a lighter truck. But in aggregate, having fewer trucks on the road is indeed safer than having more trucks on the road. At least, so said the study cited in the article. 16.
Comment by Ed
@ May 10, 2008 11 AM
High gas prices will save the world. What if someone designed a practical, comfortable, reasonably-priced car that got 200 miles per gallon? We’d all buy one. We’d have no reason to drive less. Eventually gas prices would surpass current levels. Global warming would still be an issue. Soon there would be so many cars on the road that traffic would be even worse than it is. So we’d have to build more roads, and urban sprawl would get to the point that the country would be one mass of pavement. So much for bird migration routes, rainwater storage, land to mitigate the impact of hurricanes… What if a gallon of gas cost $30 and cars got 10 miles per gallon? Our cities would have to be redesigned so that we could work and shop in our neighborhoods. We’d buy locally produced products. Sprawl and everything that goes with it wouldn’t be. None of this helps our truckers now, but long-term, isn’t this the direction the world should go? 17.
Comment by Aaron A.
@ May 12, 2008 3 PM
Ed (#16), Seems to me that we’d need far more cars on the road before a 200mpg car is worse for the planet than what we’re currently doing. That’s nearly eight times as efficient as the average car on America’s roads [1]. I agree that we’d have no impetus to drive less, but would we really drive that much more? It might result in more spontaneous weekend road trips, but I don’t know that we’d all extend our commutes by another hour each way just because it’s cheap. Also, I wouldn’t discount the power of evolving technology. I don’t want to pave the planet either, but if we do continue to sprawl, we can now use more permeable materials than we’ve used in the past [2]. — A. 18.
Comment by Ed
@ May 13, 2008 2 PM
Aaron, You make good points. We’d certainly all be better off if cars were more efficient. I guess I ‘m thinking that addressing the themes of sprawl, congestion, and doing what in the long run is best for the planet would involve not necessarily trying to invent something that will prolong the themes of sprawl, congestion, and all that go with them. It seems that, despite decades of nagging (to some) by environmentalists, it’s taken the recent rise in gas prices to force a sense of urgency on the issue of going Green. Humans often seem not to act until they’re taken out of their comfort zone. 200 mpg cars would keep us comfortable for quite awhile - and I can’t think that that would be good for the planet. Drive 55 MPH rather than 65-70 mph. I have a Honda Civic HX and get around 30 mpg driving 65 mph on the freeway but if I drive 50-55 mph my mileage goes up to 35-38 mpg. I ride the city bus whenever possible and save money. I don’t have to deal with parking problems. I buy a monthly pass. I would like my next car to be an Aptera. I don’t think ethanol is the answer. I can’t see using food for fuel. It raises the price of food even higher than it is. Great post with sensible solutions, well expounded upon by Tom. Slowing down is one area where government involvement could be especially helpful in making this approach more effective than we can imagine. Regarding road weights, I like Jamie’s idea of returning to rail, at least for transcontinental hauls, with trucks operating in regional realms. Ethanol should only be running tractors at first, as food is much better used fueling bicycle rides! Post a comment |
|
We have enough oil to last 200 yrs. right here in North America on Gull Island Alaska. This oil crisis is a non-oil crisis, says Lindsey Williams.