- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
A few years ago, I took the info from the DOT website on vehicles in the private sector (not over the road trucks, etc.) fleet, the estimated mileage for the various types of vehicles (low mpg cars, higher mpg cars, low mpg SUVs & trucks and high mpg SUVs & trucks) did a little calculating and came up an estimate (I think on the low side as I estimated mpg to be higher than they are) that we use about about 2 billion barrels per year more than we would if we averaged 25 mpg across the fleet - or about 30% of our petroleum use. Had the automakers stopped selling the big lie of greater safety with high mpg behemoths and designed better mileage vehicles, we could have saved 2B bbl per year or more and designed engines and vehicles someone might want to buy or maybe even import!
Had we worked on achieving greater efficiencies in energy use (such as higher efficiency motors, compressors and other energy conversion equipment) beginning in the mid-1990's (when Newt and his gang railed against that) as opposed to sending overseas the production of most of what we use for that purpose, maybe we could have even gained foothold or even been a major manufacturer or supplier in greater efficiency motors, engines and other power conversion equipment and processes. Gee, something which could have produced JOBS in the US!!!! In case folks haven't noticed, much of the world actually wants higher efficiency equipment (even China which many seem to believe only wants to be like the US in energy use)! Of course, it must have been better for the economy to have GE and other former manufacturers send most of their production to China.
It is really a shame that we spent over 10 years watching while our economy has been destroyed so that we can avoid energy efficiency. A lot of workers lost their jobs in high energy use industries (such as the chemical industry where labor costs are far less than energy costs) because little or no research was done to develop alternatives while natural gas and other energy costs skyrocketed). And lest you think that this is only the imagination of some "libural", go to the Huntsman website and see what the CEO of that chemical company was saying about the ridiculous rise in natural gas prices in the early 2000's. And now look at the huge increase in prices of many companies who rely on petroleum and petrochemicals as raw materials.
Whether you believe global climate change is real or not, can't you see that the focus on producing and selling gas guzzlers is far more to blame for the price of oil than anything which those advocating carbon taxes or CO2 trading could have ever done? Or do you think that wall street analysts are all brainwashed by Al Gore?
