The Half the Oil Plan—A realistic plan to cut the United States' projected oil use in half over 20…

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/smart-transportation-solutions/vehicle-policy/current-policies-and-legislation/how-to-reduce-us-oil-use.html

[font face=Serif][font size=5]The Half the Oil Plan[/font]
[font size=4]A realistic plan to cut the United States' projected oil use in half over 20 years

Download: The Half the Oil Plan[/font]

[font size=3]The Union of Concerned Scientists has a practical plan to dramatically reduce U.S. oil consumption, save consumers billions of dollars, and position the United States as a global leader in transportation technology.

The Half the Oil plan offers a clear, achievable roadmap to cut U.S. oil use and move America towards a cleaner, healthier, and more secure future.

Here’s how it works.

…[/font][/font]

[Kolesar]

1. No fracking stupid natural gas methods in that plan

At least in the summary

[GliderGuider]

2. (Whispers)

William Stanley Jevons

Or not.

But...they're basically talking about cutting the world price of oil by 10% to 25% by cutting US consumption in half. The rest of the world will thank you as it fills its tank.

However, if you do this and at the same time institute a tax on oil consumption to bring the price up to around $200/barrel - then it could work. But efficiency alone? No way.

[Javaman]

3. I always think of Jervons when a "new plan" is introduced.

Cheers!

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. I did mention that Jevons was wrong (right?)

I mean, seriously, the bounce-back effect is real. Jevons was wrong about its magnitude.

Increasing the efficiency of steam engines did not cause more energy to be used overall.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

[font face=Serif][font size=3]…

The Jevons paradox has been used to argue that energy conservation is futile, as increased efficiency may increase fuel use. Nevertheless, increased efficiency can improve material living standards. Further, fuel use declines if increased efficiency is coupled with a green tax or other conservation policies that keep the cost of use the same (or higher). As the Jevons paradox applies only to technological improvements that increase fuel efficiency, policies that impose conservation standards and increase costs do not display the paradox.

…[/font][/font]

The “Jevons Paradox” as it is invoked, is simply a rationalization for why it’s OK (even better) for us to do nothing to try to improve things. (Because, according to the “Jevons’ Paradox,” if we try to improve things, we’ll only make them worse.)

BS

[GliderGuider]

5. I take a little different view

The Jevons paradox itself is neither here nor there - he wrote about it 150 years ago after all, and times change.

The position I take is that any increase in energy efficiency enables more human activity overall. The energy supply is the primary driver of human activity, after all, so doing more things with the same amount of energy automatically expands the human impact on the planet.

Because we have shown no signs of being willing to reduce our level of activity, I view anything that enables yet more human activity with a somewhat jaundiced eye.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. Then, please do not cite Jevons as some sort of natural law, unless you believe it to be true

A couple thoughts on Jevons:

1. Based on a series of experiments, and observations, Isaac Newton formulated his laws of motion, the third of which is frequently summarized as “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Jevons made one observation, and concluded (my own paraphrase) “for every action, there is a greater and opposite reaction.”—Now, this is extremely cool! If “Jevons’ Paradox” applies to physics then perpetual motion is child’s play!
2. If Jevons (and you) are correct, the route to conservation is simple! All we need to do is make machines less energy efficient! They will then become more expensive to operate, so people will operate them less, using so much less energy that they will more than make up for them being less efficient. (Do you really believe this would happen?)

Jevon’s Paradox is as valid as Zeno’s.

[GliderGuider]

8. I don't "cite" it any more. Now I just I mention it.

Your point 2 is a logical conclusion, but like so many things that are possible in theory, it ain't gonna happen. People want to do more, not less - damn the consequences and the Devil take the hindmost.

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. Point 2 is only a logical conclusion if Jevons was correct, and he was not

Since the day when someone discovered the secret to making their own fire, humans have been making greater and greater use of energy.

First, they discovered they could cook their food, which made it easier to digest, so they didn’t have to eat as much to get the same number of calories, which meant they could spend less time hunting and gathering, and more time thinking about philosophy. Pretty soon, everyone wanted to make their own fires!

Then, they discovered that they could smelt metals, and produce better tools and weapons. Pretty soon everyone wanted metal! (leading to more energy use!)

Then, they found they could melt rocks and produce glass! (King Louis demonstrated the use of the energy at his command by creating the “Hall of Mirrors” in his palace at Versailles.) Pretty soon everybody wanted the sort of (high heat) clear glass that Louis had!

The trend continues, always more and more energy being used.

Then, one day, a more efficient steam engine was invented, and following that, more energy was used, and Jevons (employing the unassailable logic of, “post hoc ergo propter hoc”) concluded that the additional energy use was caused by the increase in efficiency, rather than simply reflecting a trend that extended back milennia.


And now, every other day, someone cites Jevons to prove that any effort to try to improve our lot is useless, since the net result of our efforts will inevitably be worse. Better (in my opinion) to cite Ecclesiastes, “…vanity of vanities! all is vanity.”

Speak of “the law of unintended consequences” if you must, but don’t even whisper the name of Jevons to me.


Rather than trying to force people to conserve, by decreasing efficiency, how about this? What if we increase efficiency, while at the same time increasing the price of energy? By doing this, people will accomplish about the same amount, for the same amount of money, but use less energy in the process. (Right?)

The beauty is, the increasing cost of energy is pretty much inevitable. So, to accomplish my plan, all we need to do is increase efficiency.

[GliderGuider]

17. I did mention the addition of a tax in my original reply.

However, if you do this and at the same time institute a tax on oil consumption to bring the price up to around $200/barrel - then it could work. But efficiency alone? No way.

I don't think that will happen in the US any time soon, though.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. Probably on our way there already. Gasoline consuption is down 6% from 2007.

Edit:

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbbl_a.htm

Consumption is down in practically every category. Efficiency and cost probably the primary motivators. Easy Oil is scarce, and getting scarcer.

[GliderGuider]

9. The best way to raise the cost of oil is to reduce the money people have to spend on it.

That's what we're seeing now. Not rising efficiency, but rising relative cost.

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. BS

(See above.)

[GliderGuider]

12. Reducing the amount of money people have does NOT make oil relatively more expensive?

Is that what you're saying? If so, I don't follow your logic.

I'm not talking about Jevons here any more. I'm saying that the recession and wage stagnation has made oil more expensive in relative terms, so people are using less of it. This is simple supply/demand.

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. What you said was

“The best way to raise the cost of oil is to reduce the money people have to spend on it.”

The apparent logic here (as I read it) is that decreased demand, leads to increased prices.


I say that increasing oil prices are a given. Oh, sure (like average global temperatures) they go up and they go down, but the overall trend is up.

Oil is becoming more expensive to produce, so its sale price is bound to increase. If this were not the case, then the “tar sands” would be a non-issue, just as they were in the past.

[GliderGuider]

14. Sorry, perhaps the gist of my argument was unclear.

Yes, oil prices are increasing because of increased costs of extraction. But if we want people to reduce their use even faster, the relative price has to go up as well, and add to that effect. This is happening because of the recession.

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. cause?/effect?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/business/worldbusiness/27iht-gas.1.10459220.html?_r=1

[font face=Serif][font size=5]As gasoline costs soar, U.S. households cut total spending[/font]

By Jad Mouawad
Published: Wednesday, February 27, 2008

[font size=3]Gasoline prices, which for months lagged behind the rapid increase in the price of oil, are suddenly rising quickly, with some experts saying they could reach $4 a gallon in the United States by spring.

…

The increases could not come at a worse time for the U.S. economy, the world's largest. With growth slowing, high energy prices that were once easily absorbed by consumers are now more likely to drag on household budgets, leaving people with less money to spend elsewhere.

These costs could make U.S. economic troubles worse, piling a fresh energy shock on top of the turmoil in credit and housing. The impact could ripple across the global economy.

"The effect of high oil prices today could be the difference between having a recession and not having a recession," said Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard University economist.

…[/font][/font]

Instead of rooting for a global financial collapse as our savior, I suggest taxing oil use, and using the proceeds to “pay down” our debt, rather than cutting “social programs.”

Unfortunately such a tax would tend to be regressive, hitting the poor harder than the rich, but, then, the same is true of the “recession.”

[GliderGuider]

16. The problem is that a carbon tax is unlikely in the extreme (at least in the US)

while a financial collapse is a pretty sure bet. Whether I root for it isn't going to make it any more probable than it already is. I'm just pointing out the upside.

I'd like to see both a massive carbon tax and an economic collapse, but I think I'm doomed to disappointment on that score.

[kristopher]

18. Kick