Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Thursday, June 24, 2004
Alan Reynolds :: Townhall.com Columnist
Energy disinformation
by Alan Reynolds
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Who will win on November 4th?


 "We have apparently used up to 40 percent of our oil supply. ... There is need for a countrywide thrift campaign looking to the saving of this essential resource." When the director of the U.S. Geological Survey George Otis Smith issued that warning in 1920, he was probably prompted by the fact that the price of crude oil had jumped to $3.40 a barrel -- a level not seen again for another 50 years.
 
We have heard Smith's story repeated many times since then, whenever the price oil went up. A National Geographic cover story for June, "The End of Cheap Oil," suggested the price of oil is high because the world is using it up faster than it can be replaced. But if high oil prices today prove the world is running out of oil, what was proven by $11 oil in late 1998? 

 By mid-June, The Economist price index for industrial metals was 34 percent higher than a year ago, while oil was up less than 20 percent. Should we conclude the planet is suddenly running out of iron and copper this year, or (more sensibly) that global industry picked up smartly after the paralysis that preceded the Iraq War?

 In 1920, conservationists such as Smith pointed their fingers at the gigantic cars of the day, such as Packard and Pierce Arrow, which were soon displaced by more economical cars like Ford's Model T, which achieved 20 to 25 miles per gallon, but with only 20 horsepower. Today those fingers are being pointed at SUVs. The common belief is that if more Americans could be shamed, bribed or compelled to buy small cars, then the price of oil and gasoline would come down and stay down. National Geographic thus ends its essay by asking, "Should tax deductions for hybrid cars (i.e., subsidies to those affluent enough to purchase new imported cars) be increased?"

 The concept of conserving fuel among the small number of new passenger vehicles in order to lower prices is chimerical, since lower prices would encourage more driving among owners of the much larger fleet of older vehicles. Besides, the trendy idea that SUVs account for a huge share of energy use is wildly inaccurate.

 On June 13, Washington Post writer Jonathan Weiseman wrote a feature subtitled, "History Says Gas Spike Won't Smother SUV Love." That familiar theme was undermined, however, by an accompanying table showing that small cars accounted for 40 percent of U.S. passenger vehicles in 1975, yet average mileage was then only 13.1 miles per gallon. By 1988, the small car share was up only modestly to 43.8 percent, yet average mileage had improved enormously to 22.1 miles per gallon. Clearly, nearly all of the1975-88 improvement in average fuel economy was clearly achieved by technological advances such as fuel injection and radial tires, not by a significant shift toward smaller cars.

 By 2004, small cars accounted for merely 22.9 percent of the fleet, yet average mileage nonetheless declined by only 1.3 miles per gallon (to 20.8). That 1.3 mpg is what all the fuss over SUVs is all about. It is certainly true that dangerously tiny cars have recently become less attractive to consumers than in 1988, but one reason is that even luxury cars have become much more fuel-efficient.

 Before 2001, I drove an SUV -- a stick-shift Toyota RAV-4 that was EPA-rated at 22 mpg in the city and 27 on the highway. Now I drive a BMW 330 coupe with automatic (which the EPA rudely describes as a "subcompact") rated at 19 mpg in the city and 27 on the highway. By switching from an SUV to a subcompact, I could therefore be accused of slightly reducing the estimated miles-per-gallon of U.S. passenger vehicles. But I actually get 29 mpg on the highway, which is not bad at all. And the larger six-cylinder Lincoln LS, Chrysler 300 and Cadillac CTS are nearly as frugal with gas.

 On June 20, New York Times writer Timothy Egan wrote, "Suddenly, It's Hip to Conserve Energy." A sidebar by Dylan Loeb McClain, however, claimed, "The growing popularity of sport utility vehicles and other light-duty trucks ... has really had an impact. More than half of the growth in transportation consumption has been among light trucks."

 An accompanying graph showed light duty trucks (mostly pickup trucks and vans) accounting for 18 percent of oil consumption in 2001, up from 13 percent in 1990 and 9 percent in 1980. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Be the first to read Alan Reynolds' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily dose of conservative columns, editorial cartoons, talk radio, news, and more!
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.