Until gas taxes are raised so the inflation adjusted price of fuel takes a significant bite out our people's budget, why should we change our driving habits? If congress wan really serious about reducing oil dependence we'd match or exceed Europe's tax structure.

I drive 8000 miles a year to get to work. At the 20 MPG my Sienna averages, I spend $1200/yr on gas and get the utility of being able to haul my three kids around, groceries, etc when it suits me. Overall, I drive about 15000/yr and spend rougly $2300/yr. In the grand scheme of things, it's a less important expense than my mortgage, property tax, food, travel, electricity, etc. Gas doesn't break the top ten of things I spend $ on. I could drive a Pious and save $1200/yr, but I'd give up the utility and safety features of the larger vehicle.

It's no wonder the Pious isn't selling. If I truly cared about mileage/emissions, I could buy a Corolla, get 35-40 MPG and save $4-6K on the purchase price. If you can do basic math, there is no ecomonic reason to favor the Pious over a similar small car, say a Mazda 5. The Pious, is more a "look at how eco-friendly I am statement", the green equivalent of buy a McMansion to impress your coworkers.

This weekend, I took a 900 mile roundtrip in my van with my family + in-laws. We do trips like this 3-4 times a year. What is better for the environment, 7 people in one van getting 25 mpg, or 7 people in two cars averaging 35 mpg?

Tax me and I'll change my behavior. Put the taxes into mass transit that is accessible and goes where I need to go, & I'll use it. Until then, all a 35 mpg cafe does is create a mismatch between what people want and what the automakers have to sell.

Not only would it not solve the trade deficit (the unchallenged assumption is that is something that must be "solved"), but the Chinese would suddenly find themselves holding US treasury bonds worth significantly less than prior to the revaluation. This is essentially an attempt by Washington to rip the Chinese off by devaluing the debt they are holding. This would lead other foreign credit holders to demand higher interest rates to make up for the risk of additional currency devaluation. In turn, consumer rates for mortgages, credit cards, and small business loans would trend higher. The US would likely see consequences such as a devaluation of real estate, further erosion of our manufacturing base, and a monster recession.

Like it or not, China and the US have a knife at each other's throat.

The article is clear, 0.39 lb CO2 per person x 9300 miles round trip = 3600 lb CO2 emissions per person. A plane holding hundreds of thousands of pounds of jet fuel and only emitting 3,600 pounds total would be a miricle of science.

I agree with the distraction man poster - worrying about this when it is 4.5% of the issue, rather than converting US, Indian, and Chinese coal is a foolish waste of limited political capital.

Using "carbon" for carbon dioxide and methane is just a way for the nitwits politicians and journalists to feign knowledge when most haven't taken a serious science class since 10th grade. I noticed the same phenomena last year in Cincinnati when the media within a week of each other stopped refering to our airport as "the airport" or "the Greater Cincinnati, Northern Kentucky International Airport" (ugh), substituting CVG. e.g. "it's 70 °F downtown, 72 °F at CVG".

BTW, whatever happened to the words "earth" or "world". Now everything is "The Planet". As in the most important concert on The Planet, or we must save The Planet... argh!!!

This is what we get for letting two "C" students (Bush & Gore) control the debate on the most important scientific issue today. Marketing fluff is as important as actual data in shaping policy and decisions.

Uman - the emissions are 3600 lbs CO2 for each person on the plane, not total for the flight. Kerosene is primarily a mixture of C12-C15 hydrocarbons. Carbon comprises ~85% of the weight of jet fuel.

For Example (from "how stuff works"):

"A plane like a Boeing 747 uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel (about 4 liters) every second. Over the course of a 10-hour flight, it might burn 36,000 gallons (150,000 liters). According to Boeing's Web site, the 747 burns approximately 5 gallons of fuel per mile (12 liters per kilometer)."

That fuel will turn into roughly 1,000,000 pounds of carbon dioxide after reacting with oxygen in the air. If the jet holds 585 passengers, each passenger is "responsible" for 1700 pounds of emissions.

The emission comparision v. a Prius is valid, though more apt for a short haul flight as one can not drive from Denver to London.