It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Energy Body Wants Brakes On Fuel Consumption

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   
In response to high oil prices and concerns over the oil supply, the International Energy Agency has proposed restrictions on car use. The report suggests carpooling as a requirement and potential 'car bans', in that citizens would be required to keep thier car off the road for '1 day out of 10'. The report cites government and economic advantages to these propositions.
 



english.aljazeera.net
Then more radically the idea of going further and cutting public-transport costs by 100%, making them free to use. Car-pooling, telecommuting and even corrections to tyre pressures are also suggested.

But the most hardline emergency proposals come in the form of drastic speed restrictions and compulsory driving bans. Bans could be one day in every 10 (10%) or more stringently on cars with odd or even number plates. They would be banned from the roads on corresponding odd or even days of the month (50%).


The report says public transport
should be made free to use

In forming its conclusions the IEA tacitly admits that extra police would be needed in these circumstances to stop citizens breaking the bans. Even the cost of those extra patrols are part of the IEA's study.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Some of these proposals are pretty hard-core. The acknowledgement of the necessity for more police in the case of a 'car ban' is especially striking......consider that someone is considering the need for more police. An economic crisis would most likely be accepted by a spoon fed population, but how dire are our energy concerns?

An aspect of the study suggests the minimizing of costs to the citizen for mass transit, if not the elimination of it, and that is a positive. However, measures taken to this effect won't be that effective - it's been tried before. The answer, imo, lies in new energy sources. It's time to implement alternative energy and while we're at it, it should be clean. A more massive and 'anal' law enforcement is not the answer.

[edit on 27-3-2005 by MemoryShock]




posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Car pooling already happens in certain parts of the UK.

Nothing new to us. Its to cut down on parking and to persuade people to use public transport.

We even have special lanes where its TWO people per car or more.

[edit on 03/12/04 by Bikereddie]



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Free public transportation is my favorite idea.



english.aljazeera.net...



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Not gonna happen in the US. Its been tried before. Higher prices will reduce driving and fuel conservation and efficiency.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   
If you read the IEA document, it states that driving bans would be ineffective in the United States and it isn't part of their recommendation.

The IEA recommends carpooling, setting lower speed limits, implementing a full telecommuting program, and a four-day work week as the best ways to approach conservation in the U.S.

Up until recently, conservation was on the back burner in the U.S.--however rising oil prices and the speculation that Bush's falling approval ratings are in part due to these higher consumer costs have renewed interest. However, conservation is a long-term strategy--there are few large short-term benefits from conservation. Over several years, the benefits can be huge, but setting up the infrastructure can be expensive, time-consuming, and annoying. Perhaps this is why Bush waited until his second term to address this issue...

It's not as if figuring out what to conserve is difficult--a 2001 NEPDG report ( led by Dick Cheney) strongly urged the President to support a whole host of rather drastic energy conservation programs. However, only the programs that put money in corporate coffers have been supported, such as increased usage of satellite GPS, cogeneration tax credits/permit relaxation and some of the efficient building standards.

All the other programs have been largely ignored or mired in congress due to support of corporate interests on both sides of the aisle. Perhaps now that it has become evident that the oil shortage is not going away that the message is become more dire. If only we had implemented these measures four years ago...

The 2001 NEPDG, in addition to including the 2005 IEA recommendations (except for a shorter work week), strongly recommended adopting CAFE standards for automobiles (which would require auto makers to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles), setting federal appliance efficiency standards for consumers, incentivizing green construction standards and implementing income tax credits for purchase of hybrid and alternate fuel-cell vehicles.

As there have been several new bills introduced in the past few months addressing these concerns and I expect that these measures will finally pass due to the growing concerns about the viability of the energy supply.

www.iea.org...
www.whitehouse.gov...



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by lmgnyc
The IEA recommends carpooling, setting lower speed limits, implementing a full telecommuting program, and a four-day work week as the best ways to approach conservation in the U.S.


In an ever-growing population, these measures would prove only mildly effective.....but maybe good enough for use as a transition phase. Whatever that may be.


Originally posted by Imgync
Over several years, the benefits can be huge, but setting up the infrastructure can be expensive, time-consuming, and annoying. Perhaps this is why Bush waited until his second term to address this issue...


For the reaosns you specified is why we need to start commercializing and mass producing means of implementation for more effiecient energies. Making hybrid solutions is good for the introduction, however, the step needs to be taken further at this time. Gas prices probably won't go back down(my god, I'm now old enough to say, "I remember when it only cost....") and the population, as a whole, tends to be a creature of habit. The standard gas consumption is the subconcious de facto while any ventures into hydrogen, solar, etc. are viewed and presented in the media as, "neat."

BTW, I don't think this is a Bush or even a partisan issue. The basics would be found in general socio-economics - this is consumption. The social impact is maybe where government needs to be involved....but at this point, especially with the seeming omniscence of the corporate entities, it's a point for big business. The only way that alternative sources are going to be manifested as mainstream is if the money is there.......





Originally posted by Imgync
The 2001 NEPDG, in addition to including the 2005 IEA recommendations (except for a shorter work week),


I agree with the absurdity of a shorter work week......though I would personally prefer it, the social habits of our society are set. The social habits of a nation are very important.....status-quo is essentially that.


Originally posted by Imgnyc
As there have been several new bills introduced in the past few months addressing these concerns and I expect that these measures will finally pass due to the growing concerns about the viability of the energy supply.


I think you're right on this point.......an interesting aspect of the coming legislations(5-10 years) will be how the environmentalists rally these points. Kind of inevitable, since we are headed that way anyway, but interesting if one is into the evolving social spectrum of politics........


[edit on 27-3-2005 by MemoryShock]



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock
In an ever-growing population, these measures would prove only mildly effective.....but maybe good enough for use as a transition phase. Whatever that may be.


To put it mildly! I don't think that we have a concrete idea of the extent of the "crisis." Mainstream media & politicians have been very careful when discussing the issue of any coming oil shortage. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the shortage is indeed coming quickly--many of the major oil companies have been caught over-reporting their oil reserves, Saudi Arabia's reserves are in decline & more difficult to drill, the ANWR & Canadian life-boat projects are a bust, there aren't any major oil discoveries projected/none of the major energy companies are spending money on new drilling, the rapid deals that are being made in Africa, the push for LNG--and the fact that any economic impact is still years away. I don't think that we will be faced with a severe shortage in the next two years, but 5 years?



For the reaosns you specified is why we need to start commercializing and mass producing means of implementation for more effiecient energies. Making hybrid solutions is good for the introduction, however, the step needs to be taken further at this time. Gas prices probably won't go back down(my god, I'm now old enough to say, "I remember when it only cost....") and the population, as a whole, tends to be a creature of habit. The standard gas consumption is the subconcious de facto while any ventures into hydrogen, solar, etc. are viewed and presented in the media as, "neat."


I know--just last week I was thinking about playing Dawn Dolls with my sister in the backseat of my Dad's Caprice while we waited for hours for gas station to open on the "odd" day that we were allowed to fill up the tank. And then gas was only like 50 cents a gallon...31 years ago. Ugh, that makes me feel old.

Although alternative energy sources need to be pursued, new technologies are still years away. There is reference to this in the NEPDG report--they estimate it will take up to 20 years from development to consumer adoption, due in large part to the difficulty of manufacturers to change their production lines to consumers switching out their existing inefficient products to new cars, appliances, housing, etc. In order to speed up this cycle, the government would have to take drastic measures, which would entail giving billions of dollars to private companies for mandated research, development, and production. Consumers would have to be incented to buy new products with rebates & tax breaks--and disincented if they don't adopt.

Also, fossil fuels are part of all alternative fuel projects--to produce the necessary equipment and machinery, as part of the process, and to maintain the equipment. That in itself makes alternative fuel programs inherently expensive. Any alternative fuel program may reduce dependence on oil (in some cases only slightly)--but these are just "hybrid" programs in essence as they are dependent on oil themselves.


BTW, I don't think this is a Bush or even a partisan issue.


I agree--whoever is in the White House when people have to conserve runs the risk of being blamed for doing it the wrong way, being reactionary, draconian, suppressing rights etc. The Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man could be telling us to restrict SUV purchases and use less electricity and he would be called a Nazi.


I agree with the absurdity of a shorter work week......though I would personally prefer it, the social habits of our society are set. The social habits of a nation are very important.....status-quo is essentially that.


I think that this would actually be one of the easier sells (long weekends for everyone--talk about a powerful campaign platform!) But corporations would raise holy-hell, especially in light of the fact that we are already having difficulty competing with low-cost international producers.

Telecommuting may become a reality, however. I read somewhere that people who telecommute may work longer hours (albeit in their pajamas) as long as they are properly supervised.


I think you're right on this point.......an interesting aspect of the coming legislations(5-10 years) will be how the environmentalists rally these points. Kind of inevitable, since we are headed that way anyway, but interesting if one is into the evolving social spectrum of politics........


I think that more and more the environmentalists will be defeated out of dire necessity. ANWR was really a test case--most of the major energy firms have dropped their interest in the area as the reserves are no longer projected to be the big windfall they were supposed to be, but it opens the door for drilling on more protected lands.

As people begin to pay $5 a gallon for gas, face more blackouts, and can't afford to heat their homes, I think that any environmentalist cause that is seen as an obstacle to stemming energy prices (such as blocking LNG terminals) will be shot down.

Fortunately, conservation and environmentalism go hand in hand--and the positive effects of more efficient cars and fewer drivers on the road may counterbalance the negatives of more LNG terminals and coal use.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   
We need to ban together and get all those fuel saveing patens from the oil Co.
we all know they got them.
It's up to us our goverment won't do it...... they are them.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by lmgnyc
In order to speed up this cycle, the government would have to take drastic measures, which would entail giving billions of dollars to private companies for mandated research, development, and production.


Convenient that the government will have to fund billions to private corporations for the resolution to an economic crisis that we all see coming, isn't it? If private citizens can see this far, why is the government going to drag on this issue. Providing hybrid solutions as they have done half-heartedly thus far is really only lip service.....it will be an interesting road there...........


Originally posted by lmgnyc
Telecommuting may become a reality, however. I read somewhere that people who telecommute may work longer hours (albeit in their pajamas) as long as they are properly supervised.


To a point......but our economy is thriving on the service aspect of consumerism........Telecommuting would really only apply to information based employments.

Buuuuttttt.......I can see the Wal-Marts and Mcdonalds implementing mandatory carpools
.......maybe not....


Originally posted by lmgnyc
As people begin to pay $5 a gallon for gas, face more blackouts, and can't afford to heat their homes, I think that any environmentalist cause that is seen as an obstacle to stemming energy prices (such as blocking LNG terminals) will be shot down.


I think you're right.......wow....environmentalists and there moral quests being exposed as lip service in the face of economic need.........not that I disagree 100% with it. I just think that the issue, in many cases, is really more about the social status-quo and it's symbiotic role with economic and scientific progression.......the world will probably survive us......


Originally posted by allwayslooken
We need to ban together and get all those fuel saveing patens from the oil Co.
we all know they got them.
It's up to us our goverment won't do it...... they are them.


I admire your idealism

If only it were that easy........



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   
The first and most important step to a really fuel/energy efficient society is to reengineer the whole living/retail/business infrastructure.

The current living/retail/business infrastructure in every country is totally wrong-headed, profit-driven and sprawl-growing, especially it is worse in the United States, Canada and Mexico. It is forcing people to use their vehicles to drive to-from or around locations, often consuming a great amount of oil on an hourly basis. I mean I keep seeing people using their vehicles just to drive to grocery stores less than a mile from where they lives! There are too many houses, apartments and/or condos/townhouses too far from retail areas and people have to drive long distance to works on a daily basis. Half of the people I work with at this major retail store live up to an hour away. Most people cannot afford to live in places that have high property and luxury values but have to work in that locations by driving to and from there.

Second, there are simply too many young kids, high school to college-age, cruising around on the roads and highways just for fun. We need to put a permanent ban on licensing kids 16 years or older and encourage them to use public transportation from now on. I don't care what you are or anybody saying that kids should learn to drive because it's a pastime ritual. NOT ANYMORE! Kids are the highest consumers of ANY resource, including oil/gas. The free ride is over.

I believe that everybody should live, work and shop in one location without using own oil/gas-based vehicle. Think of the money everybody can save from: paying for gas weekly, paying for auto insurance monthly, pay for any maintenance or repair quarterly or annually! Save the oil for the most essential needs of the nation.

If you live in the suburban, you should be able to work and shop in the immediate area of your suburban home, not having to drive too far to work or shop on a daily basis.

It is high time for all of us to REENGINEER the whole living/retail/business infrastructure in order to have an energy-efficient society/community for everybody.


MBF

posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   
There is a family that lives near me with 8 people in it and they ALL receive a government check. They keep 3 automobiles on the road constantly. I can't see that much business they would have to have to drive that much.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join