Are people really making a fuss about Obama's urging people to properly tune their engines and inflate their tires in order to save gasoline? No one I read is, but perhaps I read only exceptionally sensible bloggers. The thing does sound slightly unpresidential--no one wants the Commander in Chief nannying them about their lawn maintenance or checking to see that the carbon monoxide detectors are properly installed. But it's hardly worth mentioning, much less mounting any sort of actual criticism.
One thing does puzzle me, however: why do so many people drive with improperly inflated tires? Forgive my ignorance, but having grown up in Manhattan, the world of car ownership is as a closed book to me--I just bought my first real car in my mid-thirties. So what's the deal? Does it make the ride more comfortable, or are people just to lazy to put a little air in from time to time?
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Yes, Obama needs to be careful. That kind of nannying got President Carter in trouble the last time oil prices jumped. (And his suggestions were actually sensible, too.)
As for underinflated tires, two things come in. Yes, it does make the ride a little softer. Not a whole lot, with modern shocks, but a little. And the folk wisdom is still firmly in place form when it did.
But the more significant factor is that people either don't know how to check the tire pressure, or don't know what it ought to be if they did check. And if they don't check the pressure, there is a widespread concern that adding air might overinflating the tire. Which could make it explode or something. Not a serious issue, probably, but then lots of worries aren't.
Hence all the underinflated tires on the road.
Proper tire inflation isn't a super-convenient thing to do. If gas stations had the units at the pump islands (probably not safe?), I'll bet that you'd do it more often.
As it is, you may or not have the little checking gadget, your gas station may or may not charge for air and you may or may not have time. So, it doesn't get done. (P.S. A digital tire meter is about 8 bucks and is available at WalMart.)
Lazy, or more likely harried and/or uninformed.
Most people treat their cars like, say, a blender. Put the key in, it goes. I've seen people who didn't get an oil change for tens of thousands of miles simply because they didn't know any better.
As you know, I do all my own mechanical work, so I'm above average in car-related information. But with two kids, finding time to fill tires is a chore. It's not impossible, it's just less important than the thousand other battles I have to fight every day. So I usually end up doing it right before a long trip or when one of them is visibly too flat. Even that much is only possible because I bought a 12-volt inflator; getting to a gas station would be really hard for me, especially if I wanted to be scrupulous about only checking pressure cold.
It's a 1-3% difference anyway, so don't expect many people to care much, ever.
He is not nannying people! At a town hall, someone asked him what they could do as an individual to reduce energy consumption. The Right took it out of context, and now they have set the narrative.
Speaking of tune-ups, I'd love to hear Obama's suggestions. Most modern cars can't really be tuned other than replacing plugs and wires. The days of going from emissions failure to emissions passage by twiddling the mixture screw were mostly gone before I got my license.
I see cars on the road all the time with tires so underinflated that they are nearly flat. It is rather inconvenient to check the pressure, but if you do it regularly, you will save on both gas and tires. And tires always lose pressure over time, so I check and adjust mine every two to three weeks with a handheld gauge and a tire pump. Good exercise to boot.
And yes, Obama seems unpresidential when talking about this.
It was a stupid thing to say because he claimed that it would save as much oil as "they are planning to drill." He proposed proper inflation of tires and engine tune-ups as an alternative to drilling for more oil.
Suggesting that people check their tires and maintain their cars is fine, though a bit silly for a Presidential candidate to do. Claiming that it will save enough oil to bring the price down is just dumb.
And this guy wants to be President? Who is dumber, him or people who buy his baloney?
Carteresque, frankly.
Meanwhile, McCain offers up his wife to a topless beauty pagent. How very presidential.
A moderate amount of under-inflation gives you better traction -- especially in snow, better stopping distance, a slightly smoother ride, and longer wheel-bearing life ... all at the cost of poorer gas mileage and reduced tire lifetime.
Excessive under-inflation is, of course, dangerous.
Megan, there are several reasons why tires don't get proper inflation:
1. Changes in the weather. A heat wave or cold snap can cause a normal -pressured tire to over/under pressurize--remember that volume and temperature affect gas volume. And it only takes a day or 2 to change the pressure.
2. Annoyance factor. To bend down on the ground, hurt your back, measure the pressure, then get a hose, attach to to all 4 tires, and then bend down on the ground again to check to make sure you didn't over inflate is annoying and the benefit-to-energy ratio is small. It's recommended to check them once a month, but to get a real benefit, you need to do it once a week, which is really annoying.
3. Simply driving on your tires can cause them to lose pressure in the long run, as air is pushed out.
I just bought my first real car in my mid-thirties. So what's the deal?
It occurs to me, after writing two comments, that we can check back with you in, oh, 3 months and ask you how often you check the inflation of your tires. At which point you question will probably have answered itself.
According to the commenter Lawhawk at Don Surber's blog, low-tire-pressure warning systems are now federally mandated anyway.
I thought it was a goofy suggestion. People who normally don't care about car maintenance will remain the main culprits either way. Those who do regular routine maintenance in the hopes of extending vehicle lifespan and safety will save no money from the advice.
The advice isn't dumb, it's superfluous.
Checking the air in your tires:
1) Need a tire gauge.
2) Need to know how to read it.
3) Need to know what your tire pressure SHOULD be.
4) When you stop for gas, need to check it. That means you can't be in a hurry. But who isn't?
5) Then you need to drive over to the air compressor . . . if the gas station has one . . . and it works.
6) You then discover the air compressor only takes quarters.
7) Three.
8) You have two.
9) You then get grubby unscrewing the valve stem cap. Are you on your way to work, dress cleanly? Perhaps not anymore.
10) You fill the two tires on the side facing the compressor, then learn the compressor hose won't stretch to the other two.
11) So you back your car around so the other side hoping the compressor timer doesn't shut off.
12) It does.
13) It takes quarters. You might have more this time. You might not.
14) Were you on your way to work?
Other than that, it's easy, but a bunch of steps.
Megan, I believe Earnest Iconoclast hit the main point. Obama's urging people to practice sensible energy conservation is not, by itself, unreasonable; the outlandish claim for the benefits of that conservation is. That's what the right-hand side of the blogosphere was on about.
BTW, I don't think I've commented here before but I want to thank you for a terrific blog. I only discovered your site a few weeks ago but it's quickly become one of my favorites. Thanks, and keep up the good work.
Are you serious? The guy who claims he is for fair debate, treating the other side with respect, who opposes the call to: drill for more oil and thus, create more jobs, raise tax revenue, lower oil prices, reduce reliance on foreign oil (to some minimal extent), all of those things and more, his refutation of those is, "inflate your tires".
Well, what if I already inflate my tires?
He's not serious. That remark may be something you'd smile at in an op/ed piece. But when this economy is suffering because we need as much oil as we can drill for in the next 20 years to be online while we work to upgrade our fleet of cars with more efficient ones it's pathetic for a presidential candidate to put forth tire inflation as a policy.
Why doesn't he tell us his great plan to save the world is to put on a sweater in winter time, wear no shirt during the summer, and make it illegal to idle your car for 30 seconds or longer. Oh wait, we actually have people suggesting these things as possible policy prescriptions because the inanity of their previous political stances (no or very few new oil wells in the US) makes it too difficult for them to "flip flop" and suddenly support drilling after opposing it for so long.
The market has received the message loud and clear -- come up with something that doesn't use so much oil. In the meantime, let's make oil as cheap as possible. If we end up not needing it, great, it will make oil based products of which there are millions more economical, as well as helping impoverished countries where people can't rely on computer powered cars.
One can argue about whether the tire inflation suggestion was politically prudent or not. Seems to me the right-wing noise machine will find something to make fun of regardless.
But, at least according to this guy in Time, Obama is accurate as to the usefulness of tire inflation vis-a-vis drilling as an aid toward ameliorating current fuel costs:
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1829354,00.html
Is it a panacea? No. But proper tire inflation (apparently) can give a 2-3% increase in fuel efficiency. Drilling, on the other hand, is likely to produce only a small fraction of our current consumption--and a negligible decrease in fuel prices--and that only after many years.
Uh Iconoclast and Asher there is just one problem with yiour response. What Obama said was correct, if everyone properly inflated their tires it would save more oil than is available to drill in AMWR and off the coast. Even the Bush transportation department acknowledges this and recommends checking your trie pressure.
Also he wasn't nannying anyone, someone in the audience asked a simple question and he replied.
Sheesh the continual mock outrage campaigns the right runs get sillier every cycle.
And Megan if you want to know why this is still being talked about check out GOP operatives handing out tire gauges to mock Obama with, reminiscent of the purple band aids used against Kerry. Take note of McCain joking about it.
The problem isn't that he supports keeping tires at the proper inflation pressure. That's like being in support of tooth flossing, nobody doubts that it's a good idea with some small benefit and no downside.
The problem is that he can't do math and apparently believes, or wants his audience to believe, that inflating tires can completely replace all the oil that folks want to drill for or otherwise gather in US-controlled territory. It's completely wrong, off by several orders of magnitude even by the most generous estimates. That's like claiming that regular tooth flossing will increase US life expectancy by several years. Total crap.
Us mean Republicans aren't denying that proper tire inflation helps, we're denying that it can in any useful way begin to make up for the oil we'll not drilling for, recovering from oil shale, or making through liquefaction of coal. Please check the math on your own, don't take my word for it. After all, I've admitted that I'm a conservative and therefore probably an agent of bushhitlerhalliburton.
His comment was absurd and promptly debunked. It is in league with 57 states, 10,000 dead from a tornado that killed 12... And that is why folks are mocking this particular citizen of the world. Facts do not matter to the messiah.
American drivers have already figured out what they need to do to reduce gasoline consumption, which is already down 4x as much as increasing tire pressure could possibly accomplish. Some are driving less, some are now driving the speed limit routinely, some are setting the cruise control at the speed limit and letting the car's computer operate the vehicle more efficiently. regardless, they are getting the job done, as their real president knew they could and would. Imagine.
Properly inflating your tires can improve gas mileage by 3%. Of course, many people already keep their tires properly inflated, and many more are at least close to being properly inflated. Let's be generous and assume that one-half of the total possible savings would be realized if we all inflated our tires properly; that's a net gain of 1.5% fuel efficiency.
Americans drive approximately 2,880 billion miles per year. If we average 24 mpg, we use around 120 billion gallons of gasoline in our vehicles. If, through perfect tire inflation, we improved our collective fuel efficiency by 1.5%, that would be 1.8 billion gallons. A barrel of oil produces around 20 gallons of gasoline, so the total savings available through tire inflation is approximately 90,000,000 barrels of oil annually.
How does this stack up against "all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling?"
ANWR: 10 billion barrels
Outer Continental Shelf: 18 billion barrels (estimated; the actual total is undoubtedly much higher, since exploration has been banned)
Oil shale: 1 trillion barrels
So, on the above assumptions, it would take only 11,308 years of proper tire inflation to equal "all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling."
It's completely wrong, off by several orders of magnitude even by the most generous estimates.
The quote is that proper inflation of tires would do about the same for gas prices as drilling would and it could happen immediately. Please note that there is nothing here about it replacing all the oil drilled in ANWR and off the coast. It's the right wing noise machine that turned the quote from "proper tire inflation and car maintenance can save money" into "it can also replace all the oil in the US".
Advice from an old car owner, get one of these and keep it in your trunk:
Battery Charger w/ Tire Inflator & Power Supply
It has a built tire gauge so it is all you need to keep your tires properly pressurized although doing so is still a pain.
Also most cars have a sticker inside the front passenger side door well that will tell you what the proper pressure should be.
This is the quote:
JordanT, do you have a response?
He's wrong here, he should admit it, say the tire pressure thing is a good idea, but that it won't save nearly as much oil as he thought.
People are lazy.
And "nanny-ing" or not, inflating tires fully would be about 3x as effective as drilling at lowering prices (i.e. it would save 3x as much demand as drilling would contribute to supply).
To be fair, powerline is including some inflated numbers with the oil shale. But still... 90 million to 28 billion. That's pretty significant. Nearly half of Saudi Arabia's oil fields significant...
Or in dollar terms that 28 billion barrels from ANWR and the deep sea wells is over THREE TRILLION DOLLARS that is not going to the Middle East that will instead go into the pockets of Americans.
TH,
Any math / cites to back that up. Everywhere I've seen puts the savings at something like 1-300,000,000 barrels of oil per year.
Ummmmm, that figure of 10 billion barrels in ANWR is total, not per year.
via powerline, the lawyers over there don't seem to understand the difference between reserves and yearly production, so it's probably not worth debating them on their incorrect numbers to begin with.
Efficiency gains from tire inflation--via powerline says about 1 billion, annually--accrue to American drivers. The oil pumped out of ANWR (10 billion estimated gallons) gets dumped on the global market, diluting the benefit to American consumers. Especially since there would be a 10+ year lag time in getting to that oil, and China and India will be gobbling an even greater percent of the energy pie then.
As Megan has correctly stated, efficiency gains are often hard to do, but they tend to be permanent. What's so wrong about Obama pointing out that every gallon of gas not consumed by U.S. drivers is a gallon that doesn't have to be produced?
Funny reading this "The thing does sound slightly unpresidential" for Obama making a sound suggestion taht is expected to increase efficiency by about 3% and save 800,000 barrels a day. Funny because, just today McCain offered his wife for a topless biker chick contest and hardly anyone calls that "unpresidential". That liberal media sure has a bias.
Skullberg,
The math is here. The bottom line is that by Bush administration estimates, expanded offshore drilling will increase our oil production by 1% of what we currently use. Proper tire inflation and engine maintenance together make up a 7% savings in fuel efficiency. The DOT (under Bush) estimates that almost one-third of the cars on US roads are driving on under-inflated tires. So properly filled tires and regular engine maintenance would save about twice as much fuel as expanding drilling would provide. And it could start doing so tomorrow, while drilling would take years to have any effect at all. What Obama said is a simple fact, and the McCain campaign's deriding it just exposes their cynicism; they'd rather win a campaign than be honest with the public about information that could save them a fair amount of cash.
Oh, and Megan: The people "making a fuss" would be the McCain campaign itself, which is mocking the idea of trying to increase fuel efficiency by selling "Obama Energy Plan" tire gauges. Which doesn't strike me as particularly "presidential." Obama's suggestion itself is, I think, very much in keeping with a tradition of White House modeling of good citizenship, though that tradition seems to have fallen out of favor somewhere between Eleanor Roosevelt's victory garden and Jimmy Carter's cardigan.
they'd rather win a campaign than be honest with the public about information that could save them a fair amount of cash.
This assumes that moving from (say) 20 mpg to 21.4 mpg (to be very generous) can be accomplished without spending cash. Which it can't.
Are people now actually claiming that we should only consider annual production and total reserves? (Crabby pants, psm).
3 to 5 trillion dollars added into the economy (and taxed) over 2 years or over 20 years is something we should pay attention to. I don't care if it takes 20 years. I don't care if it takes 40 years. Three trillion dollars over 40 years is significant.
So we can't discuss drilling it 10 years ago because... it will have no impact now and will take 10 years to come on line.
We can't discuss drilling it now because... well it will take 10 years to come on line and it will take another 10 years after that to pump it all.
Gee thanks for the wonderful long term outlook. Remind me NOT to vote for anyone that thinks a 10-20 year commitment is too long to worry about discussing in the here and now.
This assumes that moving from (say) 20 mpg to 21.4 mpg (to be very generous) can be accomplished without spending cash. Which it can't.
Fair enough, but a $4 billion tax break for oil companies ain't cheap either. Or does expanding the national debt our children will have to pay off not count as "spending"?
So Bam is gonna save that third of vehicle operators something like 50 to 100 bucks per year on fuel costs? What about the other two-thirds of us saps try to do regular maintenance? SOL?
What about the other two-thirds of us saps try to do regular maintenance?
Obama's comment about inflating tires was a response to a question asked at a town hall meeting about what individuals can do to address energy costs. If you're already doing everything you can to conserve then, no, this answer doesn't apply to you.
But he's also proposed a comprehensive national energy plan that you might want to take a look at.
Does it make the ride more comfortable, or are people just to lazy to put a little air in from time to time?
Yes.
The tires on my gas guzzling SUV show a max pressure of 50 psi. The owners manual for my vehicle calls for 28psi in the front and 38psi for rear tires. Expansive research on stopping distance, control recovery, varied weather conditions, etc were done by the manufacturer to determine the safest tire inflation for this exact vehicle and the passengers inside (ie: my 10 year old and my wife). The problem is, most people won't look at the manual, they look at the tires and max them out to make them rock hard to get the added mpg's. So, in the pursuit of saving the planet and saving gas money...you may end up killing your entire family or someone elses (a fair swap in the minds of some eco-crazies). It is very dangerous to drive on overinflated tires. And that does NOT mean tires with more psi than the max psi shown on the tire. But rather, more air than indicated by the maker of the vehicle.
Obama would be good to mention this...if this is his energy plan. I don't think he wants anybody getting killed in the interest of conserving fuel. No matter how much fuel I use, O-Force One (Obamas personal Boing 757) takes more fuel to start than I use in a decade. So I don't really care...what's the point?
Just think of how much we could reduce US gasoline consumption by sending all of the illegal aliens home. Now there is potential savings!
Were I a Washington lobbyist, I'd be deeply moved by all the taxpayer carrots dangling in those proposals. Yet it seems there's a lot of punishment to be meted out to parts of our energy economy: Big Oil is the biggest whipping boy with the "windfall profit tax," followed by those sneaky speculators.
Yet there's little mention of specific existing technologies, which is spooky. If we're to make such drastic changes to the energy base we now rely on, wouldn't that require leveraging the energy technologies we have already mastered (and already have the infrastructure to use, by the way)?
I should think we can't simply start shutting off the lights and wait to see who's inspired enough by the darkness to get to the "carbon-free" promised land.
Most people with under inflated tires don't do anything about it because they can't see under inflation unless its severe. A tire that should be at 32psi will look similar to one at 20psi.
What the hell? Isn't this the sort of thing that you small guv'mint types should love? Given that most people are unaware how valuable proper inflation and maintenance can be, what's the deal with providing information about a way that an INDIVIDUAL can save some money now that gas prices are higher. Jesus tap-dancing christ, it's not like he's proposing some super secret ninja squad to run around and inflate your tires in the middle of the night. Here's another tip, slowing from 75 to 55 mph can save you about $1 a gallon. If your marginal value of time is high, it might not be worth it, but I'm surprised how few people are aware of how much drag kills your fuel efficiency at high speeds. But again, what the hell people?
Yet there's little mention of specific existing technologies, which is spooky. If we're to make such drastic changes to the energy base we now rely on, wouldn't that require leveraging the energy technologies we have already mastered (and already have the infrastructure to use, by the way)?
Spooky until you click on the handy links here and here. Then it's pretty darn specific.
Isn't this the sort of thing that you small guv'mint types should love?
Funny, isn't it? I guess "personal responsibility" is only for absentee black fathers and pregnant teenagers. Upstanding citizens who own cars shouldn't have to be bothered.
"This assumes that moving from (say) 20 mpg to 21.4 mpg (to be very generous) can be accomplished without spending cash. Which it can't."
Of course, this is not true at all. We can get even greater gas savings with a few simple low or no cost measures.
#1, by far, is driver education. People simply do not know how to drive efficiently. It is a skill as much as knowing how to brake or merge or make an evasive maneuver, but it is not widely taught. You can easily achieve 10% improvements in mpg through simple driving skills improvement. You can get up to 20-30% with route planning and advanced mileage techniques.
#1.5, try carpooling.
#2 is traffic flow management. Just by timing lights, you can eliminate significant amounts of idling. At low cost, you can begin to transition from intersections to traffic circles.
#3 is a four day work week. We could cut 20% of most commuter fuel use. MANY municipalities and recently the state of Utah have moved to this for their employees.
These things not only don't cost much if anything, they save huge amounts of money.
So, yeah, you're totally, absolutely wrong.
Superfluous was my description of the tire pressure suggestion.
Sorry, but I'm now reading about expanding federal funding for "green" energy research, setting up community youth corps to retrofit inefficient buildings, Cap'n Trade, and so on. There's little hope of containing the raging Leviathan in any of that.
In fact, Bam's energy proposals remind me of utopian idealized government do-goodism on a scale I haven't seen since leaving Germany, where they were busily installing solar panels and e-pinwheels on every available property, thanks to promised subsidies from doubling everyone's electric bills. The politically well-connected in Germany are profiting handsomely from all that green goodness promoted by activist government.
Wow, my first thought was "Jimmy Obama" and that was the first comment here. There have been a few comparisons between this race and 1976, and this just reinforces that. Though really, I doubt anyone will care much.
Actually, this reminds me more of the Onion "Our Dumb Century" story on Carter vs. Reagan: "Let's talk better mileage" versus "kill the bastards".
Can Obama tell me why it costs $1,900 to get my catalytic converter fixed? I don't even know what it is, but it's busted.
Shorter MarkG: "utopian idealized government do-goodism"
That sounds a lot like Paul Wolfowitz et al. circa 2003.
But, yeah, we should really be worried about a few billion invested in solar panels. I mean, that's totally worse than borrowing hundreds of billions from the Chinese to buy oil from despots.
I have no idea why it should cost $1900 to replace a catalytic converter, unless there's some weird geographical issue involved. And since most weird geographical issues of this sort seem to involve California specifications, perhaps someone on the Left Coast could explain it for us.
Last such device I had to buy cost me somewhere around $900 from an Infiniti dealership, including the installation. Then again, I live in the Central time zone.
(The cat, as it's familiarly and/or disparagingly called, reduces the toxicity of the stuff that comes out of the exhaust. It contains a thin layer of some hyperexpensive metal like platinum.)
The whole Obama argument is a logical fallacy.
Unless drilling for oil causes people to negligently maintain their tires and cars, it is not an either/or proposition.
Yes, any particular oil field is not going to make a huge difference. Any particular day of work isn't going to make a massive difference in your wages, but it doesn't follow that the logical course is to never go to work again. Global energy problems are not going to be solved by one field or one source of power. Holding out for some energetic deus ex machina is the height of idiocy.
If you don't like drilling, explain why the environmental consequences are worse than the gain of drilling. Or give any legitimate reason about why drilling is bad. Don't muck it up with stupid stuff like airing your tires. The logical thing to do IS TO DO BOTH unless you give a good reason to avoid one or the other.
Sorry, but I'm just cynical enough to hope we borrow from the Chinese and anyone else to explore all our energy potential -- and even use it, Greenpeace sensibilities be damned!
We've got traditional domestic resources we could tap into if it weren't for starry-eyed ideologues telling us that we first need to consider the hypothetical needs of the spotted owl, the eight-toed newt, and the occasional black swan. Our environmental protection laws are presently set up to make sure that wildlife doesn't suffer so much as a single bad hare day! =D
That legacy legislation is almost as stupid as it is costly in terms of wasted opportunity. The plans of Bam and his Democrat fellows do little but exacerbate the damage already done.
I re-did powerlines math, because, well it is hard to trust someone with powerline as a nom de plume
I got higher numbers for the amount saved, not surprisingly. For one thing, the avg mpg of the U.S. fleet is 19.8 not 24, which increased the number of gallons used by about 18%. Americans also drive slightly more than he said, and get slightly less gallons of gas per barrel of oil.
Then, his estimate of 1.5% savings is low, too low. I used 2.5% total U.S. savings, assuming total savings of 18% from a perfectly maintained car vs. a poorly maintained car. I figured that about 1/2 of the people maintain their car perfectly so no possible savings, then another 25% do an imperfect job so about 9% possible savings, and 25% do a horrible job with 18% possible savings - total savings possible is then 2.25% +4.5% = 6.75%. Then we can get only about 1/2 of those people to upgrade their car maintenance, so we could realize only 1/2 of the total possible savings due to people actually taking care of their cars. I then rounded this down even more to 2.5%.
This ends up being about 193M barrels a year. ANWR will pump about 700,000 barrels a day*365 = which is 260M barrels a year. So taking care of the U.S. fleets collective car will save about 70% as drilling in anwr, and it could be immediate.
If drilling in anwr is important to you because there is so much oil there, then you must be EXTREMELY supportive of U.S. consumers taking care of their cars and yes, inflating their tires. Hell, even if you use his low balled numbers, it would be 30% of anwr. If anwr is important, then so is inflating your tires.
The thing does sound slightly unpresidential--no one wants the Commander in Chief nannying them about their lawn maintenance or checking to see that the carbon monoxide detectors are properly installed. But it's hardly worth mentioning, much less mounting any sort of actual criticism.
Good grief, after laying out a comprehensive energy policy, someone asked Obama what they, as individuals could do, and he gave sensible advice, like that of Govs Crist and Schwartzenegger (and NASCAR!). Nice job knowing the context. Pay attention! Know before you blog!
Speaking of which, this is the same sort of attack scheme as we've seen since Nixon. I realize you twice endorsed Bush, Jr. because, well, who knows why, I think it's because you're a fraud and a Republican. But stop pretending to be surprised that the Republicans made this an issue.
Good news! Cap'n Ed has taken the trouble to explain it all in terms that even the most whacked-out lefty can understand.
The latter. You have to get out of the car, use the little gauge, then use a pump, then the little gauge again, every few weeks. That's not how Americans drive anymore. (Similarly see ruminations on This Old House, that the ranks of those that can do their own basic house repairs, like reseating the toilet, is shrinking.)
At my parents this weekend I noted many commercials from some American firm--Chrystler?--advising everyone to keep their tires properly inflated to save gas. And the small percentage difference is equal to the amount of gas being bandied about in various drilling discussions, so it's hardly irrelevant.
I do see this backfiring. The number of Americans who correctly inflate their tires may be less than 50%, but it's hardly clear they were all Democrats. Mock those who bother to use the little pressure gauge, and they could see Obama in a whole new light.
Oh, and the blogosphere may be carfree, but the gop was handing out gauges with "Obama energy plan" stamped on them, so it's not like no one was talking about it.
I' m convinced you people are dumb as a rock. The United States has 3% of the World's Oil Reserve; we use 25% of the World's Oil. We can drill until are heart’s content and we will not have enough oil. So you people need to STFU and fill up your tires and practice some conservation.
IL has the most nuclear power plants in the country. Obama has never spoken out against nuclear power plants as long as it can be safe.
How come there are still people in this thread who think that solar power has some sort of relationship to oil?
Unless you have an electric car, or you are for some reason burning oil to make electricity, there is no connection between the two issues. One is a source of electricity or heat for stationary installations; the other is a liquid fuel suitable for transport.
But keep saying there is a direct connection. It helps others judge the worth of your suggestions.
1) Need a tire gauge. >>> It costs less than that Big Mac meal, and is sold in far more places.
2) Need to know how to read it. >>> You're kidding, right? Tire gauges make dial clocks look complicated.
3) Need to know what your tire pressure SHOULD be. >>> Open the driver's door, there's a label on the post.
4) When you stop for gas, need to check it. That means you can't be in a hurry. But who isn't? >>> Actually, you should check the pressure when the tires are cold. E.g., while you're doing the lawn chores on the weekend.
5) Then you need to drive over to the air compressor . . . if the gas station has one . . . and it works. >>> If an extra five minutes is that important to you, buy a compressor and fill it at home. You might even save money in the long run, now that nearly all gas stations have gone to the air pumps that require 3 quarters.
But letting your tires get low is going to cost you a whole lot more, probably more in excessive tire wear than in gasoline. What's more, tires don't lose air evenly; usually you'll have one way low and the others close to where they should be, and that will cause you to lose control just when you need all the stopping or cornering ability you can get to avoid an accident.
As for those who can't bend over to reach the valve stem, GET IN SHAPE.
doctorpat,
I'm not sure which comments you're talking about, but I would imagine that anyone making a connection between solar power and oil is operating (as both candidates also do) on the assumption that fuel cell technologies are going to be an important part of any plan to reduce our dependence on oil, and therefore that using renewable resources to produce electricity will at some point come to mean using them as a significant source of power for our cars.
So taking care of the U.S. fleets collective car will save about 70% as drilling in anwr, and it could be immediate.
...assuming the size of the fleet isn't larger next year, and even larger the year after that, and so forth. Based on historical trends, this is probably not a safe assumption.
Meanwhile, back on topic: Rob's "blender" comment pretty well captures it, and the vehicle manufacturers and additive vendors have been encouraging it. No, really, folks: 100,000 mile spark plugs! 100,000 mile antifreeze! 100,000 mile automatic transmission fluid!
So nobody checks things that used to be understood as routine maintenance, because they're rated for "100,000 miles", even though that is a very optimistic rating based on an assumed vehicle use of docile highway driving by Great Aunt Betty, who in her entire life has only exceeded 45 in age and wasteline. Besides, the lease expires in three years anyway, and then it's somebody else's problem.
professordarkheart:
We use oil for other things besides transportation ( roughly 50% is used for transportation), hence 'double what offshore drilling provides' now becomes 'the same as offshore drilling provides'. Also, the estimates for fuel efficiency gains (ie 7%) must be making some assumption about just how under-inflated the tires are and how much maintenance the cars need and it is not clear what fraction of the cars these conditions apply to (it could be more or less than 1/3). Finally, Obama was not talking about just expanded offshore drilling, but ALL the proposed new drilling which will increase oil production by more than 1%. In fact the low end estimate for ANWAR is that it could provide 2.5% of our current consumption . Thus (assuming 1/3 is the correct fraction of cars) inflating tires and performing maintenance will yield roughly 1% reduction in current usage whereas all drilling will provide (in ~10 years) roughly 3.5% of our current usage.
That being said, I completely agree with Toxic:
We use oil for other things besides transportation ( roughly 50% is used for transportation), hence 'double what offshore drilling provides' now becomes 'the same as offshore drilling provides'.
Actually, it doesn't, but that's my fault for using a confusing formulation. The 7%, like the 1%, is expressed as a fraction of our total consumption; the total fuel savings from inflating tires and doing other engine maintenance is around 18-19%. The simple numbers: inflating tires and performing routine maintenance could save about 800,000 barrels of oil a day. Offshore drilling would net us around 200,000.
Also, the estimates for fuel efficiency gains (ie 7%) must be making some assumption about just how under-inflated the tires are and how much maintenance the cars need and it is not clear what fraction of the cars these conditions apply to (it could be more or less than 1/3).
No, it's not clear; it's an estimate, like the estimate of how many barrels per day would be produced by offshore drilling. Both are based on some data and some educated guessing.
Finally, Obama was not talking about just expanded offshore drilling, but ALL the proposed new drilling which will increase oil production by more than 1%.
This is a dubious claim. There's no tape, but he said something like "the oil they're talking about getting off drilling." Offshore drilling is certainly what the McCain campaign has been talking about, and it's reasonable to think that was the "talk" Obama was referring to.
In fact the low end estimate for ANWAR is that it could provide 2.5% of our current consumption .
McCain still opposes drilling in ANWAR, so drilling there is clearly NOT what Obama was referring to.
2) Cutting taxes does not count as "spending," no. Spending counts as spending.
It has nothing to do with "oil companies," except to the extent that oil companies are companies.
Which, last I checked, they are. No, the cut is not applied exclusively to them. But they get it at a time when they're about the only sector around that's making astronomical profits and is also already getting the free gift of access to valuable oil reserves; McCain rejects the idea put forward in the Group of 10 compromise proposal to exclude oil companies from general corporate cuts and redirect that money toward developing developing alternative energy sources.
Cutting taxes does not count as "spending," no. Spending counts as spending.
When it means reducing revenue such that the national debt will increase, what's the functional difference? It's "spending" in the same sense that it would be "spending" if I told my boss to withhold 10% of my paycheck; the only difference between that and paying for goods and services is that the government doesn't actually get anything in return. The fact is, any amount of tax money the government chooses to forgo will be added directly to the deficit.
Places like Jiffy Lube check and correct tire pressure for you as part of the oil change, so that's an easy way to get it checked quarterly.
I didn't realize air pressure decreases over time, so I may have to see if I can get one of those McCain campaign tire gauges]. (Don't those sound like fairly expensive pieces of swag to make a dumb joke about a dumb point?)
If we used 25% of the World's Oil, then the world would be out of oil in 4 years. Obviously we don't use 25% of the world's oil. We may use 25% of the oil used by the world in a given year, a very different claim.
This may very well be the dumbest bit of pedantry/obtuseness I've ever read on the intertubes.
I can't wait for Mr. Nieporent's explanation that, technically, we don't "use" oil, we "burn" it.
Keeping your tires properly inflated is a good thing. I already do that, and have done it since I bought my first car (well, a beat up jeep) at age 18. Since I have already done that, can I now go and drill for oil?
On a more serious note, Obama's assertion relies on the rather dubious figure that new drilling will only at 200,000 barrels a day - this number seems very lowball. It is commonly accepted that ANWAR will yield between 500,000 and 1,000,00 a day, though we won't see that amount for 10 years if we start drilling today (so they told us 13 years ago with the Clinton veto). That amount is still a small fraction of world consumption, and a smallish but significant fraction of US consumption, but it represents a lot of us $$ that would not be going to the middle east or Russia. Also, I seem to recall that oil is priced on the margins, so an extra 500,000 barrels might do more than you think for the price - certainly more than Obama's proposal to drain (I'm sorry, "tap") the strategic petroleum reserve, in the middle of a freaking war!
I'm depressed at this point at people saying that higher efficiency -- either via better cars, inflating tires or whatever else -- will save energy.
EFFICIENCY DOES NOT NECESSARILY REDUCE THE TOTAL AMOUNT USED, and it almost certainly doesn't in the case of energy. Why? THINK for a minute, folks:
If you live the EXACT SAME LIFESTYLE as you did before, but using MORE EFFICIENT implements, what happens?
Can anyone tell me what happens?
Yep, that's right: You end up with *more money*. And what do you do with that money? Spend it, thereby using energy, or save it, thereby funding others' use of energy. You replace the savings some other way.
So yes, it's a great way to save money, but doing it unilaterally, will not save *energy* (and I didn't even account for the effects of others bidding for the energy you didn't).
Moreover, yes, we should worry when the president is talking about individual, specific lifestyle changes. Because there's no reason for ANY handling of global warming to require ANY specific lifestyle change. The best two (cap/trade and carbon taxes) don't require it at all. You can still do ANY old wasteful habit you used to -- it's just that the energy for it costs more. If you still want to do it, that's between you and your god (or Apollo, as the case may be).
According to the commenter Lawhawk at Don Surber's blog, low-tire-pressure warning systems are now federally mandated anyway.
Heh, that hasn't stopped slimy greenwashing though. I don't have a copy with me and can't find it online, but I know I saw a magazine ad recently where some American carmaker claimed that one thing they were doing for the earth was installing tire pressure monitors in all their cars.
EFFICIENCY DOES NOT NECESSARILY REDUCE THE TOTAL AMOUNT USED, says some Person.
Well, sheeit! That must mean INefficiency doesn't necessarily INcrease the total amount used. That's just applying Mr. Person's reasoning in the other direction.
So, the amount of oil we use is independent of "efficiency"? Cool!
-- TP
Megan, you've ridden a bicycle all your life (as have I), where it's more obvious when tire pressures are low. How often do you check the pressure on your bike's tires? Of the total distance you've pedaled, what fraction would you estimate occurred on underinflated tires? (In my case, I'd say at least 40%. And I always ride with a frame pump!)
A large part of your answer follows, when you consider how much less a driver notices low pressure in car tires.
the total fuel savings from inflating tires and doing other engine maintenance is around 18-19%.
I've been swinging wrenches since before I could drive, and the one and only time I've seen an efficiency gain like that was when a voltage regulator crapped out and stopped charging the battery. Going whole hog on an old-fashioned engine--plugs, wires, cap, rotor, coil, points, timing, dwell, advance, valves and from-scratch carb tuning--would get you a 20% gain only if you started with a pretty maladjusted and neglected engine. Of those, only plugs and wires still exist on any car newer than maybe 1995, and you'd problably have to go back to the 80's to find points and their associated adjustments.
I haven't used my feeler gages, timing light, or dwell/tach in almost 10 years, because none of them are at all useful on my 2000 model-year cars. Even my first car--a 1984 mazda 626--was only really adjustable for timing and nothing else.
Maybe most Americans are driving around with air filters the color of oil from a '75 Mercedes diesel; I don't know. I never saw anything that bad in my days as a grease monkey, but that may have been because we were scored based on how many we sold.
So color me skeptical that tune-ups are going to save us.
And with this, the argument shuffles off into the realm of the purely arbitrary.
If the "state" sees fit to permit you to keep ten percent of your paycheck each month, your line of argument would deem this to be "government spending" on your behalf. Most likely thanks to government's big-hearted kindness.
This idea that the government is naturally entitled to all the money anyone earns in the economy until the government finishes its business, whatever that may be, flies in the face of American history, tradition, and ideals. It's essentially an argument for unrestrained government power and authority.
If that's what Obama is all about, then he's totally off the hard left, socialist charts.
We don't have an oil problem. We have a land use problem.
Want true "energy independence"? Move closer to work. Fortunately supply and demand is likely to force a lot of people to do just that, and soon. It'll be fun to watch urban land values continue to climb, and suburban land values go into the tank.
Oh, and drilling is a risk. Just like starting a business -- sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. One would think Republicans would get this, but there are so few small business conservatives left in the party anymore, it's unsurprising they don't.
Assuming drilling will guaranteeably reduce oil prices is like assuming the prize from the lottery ticket you buy today can be used for your next mortgage payment.
Why do so few drive with standard transmission? I've heard that improves the gas mileage as much.
How amusing to read the right-wing handjerk Republicans on this thread. Too lazy to check their tires, too arrogant to face facts, too dishonest to have a real conversation with other Americans. Yes, the GOP is now the Know Nothing Party.
Ah, a fellow (former) gear-head! My dad is a mechanic and I've been doing all that stuff since I was about twelve . . . or rather, that's when I started. I misplaced my timing light last move in '98 and haven't seen it since. I may still have it somewhere, but the truth is, just about all of what you talk about above is _extremely_ old school. I could do all of what you describe on my first car ('67 Chevy Impala), but my latest ('02 Toyota Corolla), well, you're right, about all I can do is change the plugs.
That being said, I think it would behoove a few people to admit that elementary arithmetical calculations show that Obama is correct. Caviling about a difference of 30%, or claiming that he was talking about _all_ reserves when the record on what was said is ambiguous on that point just makes them look like sore losers.
Finally, since comparisons 'cross country seem to pretty much inevitably crop up, I wonder how U.S. auto maintenance compares with, say, Germany? Or France, Italy, etc. Back in the day, it was a tradition for all the menfolk to gather round the yard where someone was working on their jalopy and offer unsolicited advice. Good times. And quite a few guys were actually very good at that sort of thing. Nowadays? Perhaps not so much.
This idea that the government is naturally entitled to all the money anyone earns in the economy until the government finishes its business, whatever that may be, flies in the face of American history, tradition, and ideals. It's essentially an argument for unrestrained government power and authority.
I didn't argue that anyone was "naturally entitled" to anything. Believing that a reduction in revenue is the budget equivalent of increased expenditure isn't a political philosophy; it's just arithmetic.
But since you brought up tradition, it is worth mentioning that the US Constitution is pretty clear that collecting taxes in order to finance public spending is one of Congress's primary roles ("The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"). There's nothing in there about borrowing money from China in order to promote the "general welfare," so I think it's safe to say that levying taxes is the more "traditional" way of paying for what we spend on public services.
I've been swinging wrenches since before I could drive, and the one and only time I've seen an efficiency gain like that was when a voltage regulator crapped out and stopped charging the battery.
Those numbers are from this ABC report; I don't know enough about mechanics to speak to their accuracy, so if you've got another set of stats you think are more credible, by all means post them.
So color me skeptical that tune-ups are going to save us.
If anyone had suggested that they would, you'd have a nice solid argument that you could make against them. But that wouldn't have much to do with Obama's statement that increasing our fuel efficiency is one of many things that individuals can do to help out with the high price of gas.
Obama's assertion relies on the rather dubious figure that new drilling will only at 200,000 barrels a day - this number seems very lowball. It is commonly accepted that ANWAR will yield between 500,000 and 1,000,00 a day, though we won't see that amount for 10 years if we start drilling today
The 200,000 figure is from the Bush administration's own estimates of what we'd get from offshore drilling. It doesn't include ANWR because Obama was talking about McCain's proposals for new drilling, and McCain hasn't (yet) reversed his position against drilling in ANWR, only offshore.
Many of you are dumb.
The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right.
I read the ABC report, which cites government numbers. I'm not saying you couldn't find a car that would give you those kinds of numbers, I'm saying that to get them, you'd need a car that running on visibly flat times that sounded and smelled like it was about to die. Modern computer-controlled cars are essentially self-tuning.
that wouldn't have much to do with Obama's statement that increasing our fuel efficiency is one of many things that individuals can do to help out with the high price of gas.
True, but given the investment involved in either time or money (i.e., economic resources, many of them requiring energy to produce) or both, and the tiny likely gains for all but the most abused vehicles, improving individual engine efficiency is probably one of the less efficient means of improving economy-wide efficiency.
The problem with Obama's answer is not that he was wrong, exactly. It looks as though he was off by a factor of 2, which isn't all that bad for political math. So while professordarkheart and his fellows are doing a good job of showing that the claim is not so ridiculous, they are all missing the point.
The real trouble is that the answer makes Obama look like a know-it-all. "See," the McCain camp is saying, "Yet another instance where Obama thinks he knows better than you."
They don't care if they're right on the issue (though I'm a big supporter of the drill and conserve faction). They only care that Obama comes off as a nerd. And all the people arguing that Obama was right are simply helping this meme along.
Uh-huh. You seem to be saying that 'Obama knows what he's talking about' sounds like 'Obama comes across a nerd'. Please.
But since you're here, why don't you tell us how Obama should have phrased his (correct) reply? Something that doesn't come off as 'sounding like a nerd'. I am very, very sick of the notion that any substantive policy discussion involving (accurate) numbers and basic arithmetic is somehow off-limits as being too 'intellectual'.
Rob Lyman is exactly right. Cars manufactured since the mid 90s tune themselves. Obama doesn't seem to understand that.
As for inflating your tires to get better mileage, that isn't a secret. If the government is correct, 2/3 of us already know it. I doubt there's much we could do to get the other 1/3 to monitor their tire pressure more carefully. As an old Reagan era book put it, Real Women Don't Pump Gas. And, if they don't, they sure won't carry a tire pressure gauge in their designer purse.
Pumping more oil out of the ground is REAL. It will have an effect, and it won't be to stop people from inflating their tires optimally.
Obama is a blithering idiot to have said what he did. Unfortunately he may be the President a majority of the American people deserve.
Actually, Patrick, you're fucking wrong!
Obama is a blithering idiot to have said what he did.
He did it to point out the minuscule benefits of pumping more oil in the US and that people helping themselves is part of the solution. If we produce more oil, it can easily be consumed if people decide they don't want to conserve at all. In this case we'll be right back to square one.
The Constitution says that, but I'm certain that the post-New-Deal, post-Great-Society interpretation of "the general welfare" as an excuse for unbridled government growth in the form of "the welfare state" was not part of the traditional understanding.
Look, there's nothing more wasteful than monopoly, and government is the nastiest monopoly around. It grows in size by leaps and bounds, adding layers of rules, middle management, and other bloat at every turn. Since it is the ultimate monopoly, it is never forced to compete and thereby made to slim down by force of market competition.
Well, we're all allowed some misleading arguments from time to time, I suppose.
Up front: I would prefer government to cut its size down so it could meet its expenses in general, rather than constantly borrowing money. Yet the larger problem is entitlement growth -- by far.
That said, the complaint that we borrowed too much from China is limp. "We" did what "we" always do to cover budget shortfalls -- issue government bonds. The Chinese leadership bought these to keep their own currency from rising relative to ours. Their aggressive bond purchasing does amount to lending our government money on paper, but their government accepted our government's terms.
Subtle fear-mongering that the Chinese have bought rights entitling them to whatever they want to take is misleading.
I should also add that Obama's response to a question about "What should I do to save gas."
Who says McCain isn't for drilling and for tire pressure? To date I believe McCain is the only one to actually provide people with the tools to check their tires. Obama just blathers on about it and doesn't do a think.
More talk and no action from Obama! Just words huh?
Toxic, in his 9:30 p.m. comment has it exactly correct- this isn't a case of either/or- the smart thing is to do both, or actually offer solid arguments against either or both.
Inflating your tires properly and keeping the maintenance on your vehicle up to date is a smart thing to do, and I have seen none on this thread argue against this, but, by the same token, none have actually offered an argument that shows more domestic drilling is a bad thing. If tire inflating/car engine maintenance reduces prices by changing the demand, then more domestic production does so by the same mechanism with regards to the supply, and, additionally, lowers the trade deficit in the future. However, I would agree with Person's comment that greater efficiency is unlikely to lead to an actual decrease in oil consumption- you will just get greater output/barrel used, and increased oil production will give you greater output because more oil will have been consumed. In other words, nominal prices may be fairly unaffected by either option, but real prices will be lowered by both.
Obama, and especially many of his supporters in this thread, are making themselves look silly by their implicit and explicit suggestions that efficiency gains rule out the need for more domestic drilling.
We can save 10% of gas used by air filter maintenance? Seriously?
Tony P.: Yes, that's correct. If e.g. people had to use more gasoline in their cars, that would force them to cut back in some other energy-using area.
Damn that Jevons Paradox!
We can save 10% of gas used by air filter maintenance? Seriously?
professordarkheart:
I'll accept your estimate for tire & engine maintenance and I will agree that it is possible Obama was merely talking about 'all the drilling (McCain) proposes to do' in other words just offshore drilling. However the 200,000 bpd estimate for offshore drilling is actually a conservative estimate with other estimates ranging from 250,000 bpd to 1 million bpd. Undoubtedly the 1 million bpd figure is optimistic since it comes from Republicans who want to open up drilling. But the fact remains, these two policies have roughly the same magnitude of effect and hence I see no reason to deride Obama. In fact, as I said, I think that both should be done since (a) inflating tires will help right now and (b) we will almost certainly be needing more oil as a planet in 10 years.
Of course alternative energy might save us by then - but if that's the case then the oil companies that did the drilling just loose money. Why not drill just in case alternative energy doesn't come through like we thought it would? I imagine the answer is "the environment" but why? What is the probability of an oil spill and how severe would it be? How well could it be contained/cleaned up? These are questions that, unless your view is 'no damage at any cost', should be examined and debated. Would one be as opposed to drilling if the taxes raised from it (easily 1 billion dollars/year at current prices) all went to funding alt. energy?
If Obama's right then why haven't the evil oil companies bought up all the tire gauges and air filters and stuck them in the same vault where they keep the 300 MPG carburetor?
Someone asked him what people can do and he answered the question it isn't like he made a speech about keeping tires inflated. What is unpresidential is sending around little air pressure gauges. There are plenty of perfectly understandable reasons to not like Obama but if one has anything to do with this statement being somehow 'Carteresque' grow up or leave the voting to the grown ups.
EFFICIENCY DOES NOT NECESSARILY REDUCE THE TOTAL AMOUNT USED, says some Person.
"Person" makes an excellent point. Any little (tire inflation) or major (buying an expensive hybrid) does not necessarily lower oil use from efficiency gains. It makes cost of driving go down, and the consumer then can choose more miles for the same price or actually "bank" the efficiency savings with non-oil spending. But it depends on driver behavior if there are any savings.
"Person" just tells readers basic cost curve economics 101. Something lacking in the whole Obama "efficiency will obviate the need for oil" discussion.
We have also seen a fair amount of "virtuous privilege" claims from certain leaders and even our friends in the sense that someone swapping out a family SUV for a hybrid feels so virtuous about saving gas on each mile they drive that they raise their travel by thousands of miles to better enjoy their higher milage compact. My environmentalist sister-in-law drives a 120 mile commute into LA from San Berdoo and rails on her sister who is a stay at home mommy with 3 kids and a guzzler and also fills the SUV with her part-time decorating biz paraphenalia....and doesn't like hearing she uses more net gasoline even with her Honda subcompact than the SUV takes a week. Because she is "virtuous". Same with the "Save the Earth" global warming celebrities winging everywhere on their private jets to condemn people with a carbon footprint 1/50th their size.
And someone that now obsessively takes the time and effort to check tire pressure and get a 3-4% gain? How do they benefit from the time and effort that gives them "extra driving time" in the tank? Maybe they convince themselves they earned that extra 400 mile trip to see Granny or that the "savings" means all their tire pressure efforts justifies a 2nd air travel vacation or just a little jet ski.....
Another item missing from most "we can avoid getting new fossil energy if ONLY we are efficient and embrace solar energy research
so solar solutions 30 years out can come true is that lower per capita energy use matters not in the least in lowering NET energy use - if all efficiency and conservation gains are eaten up by mass immigration.
When the US had 160 million people, we produced about as much oil as today, but we were a net oil energy EXPORTER. We also had less use because we had financing and hardcore poverty that prevented many people who own cars today from owning them back then. In the 70s, we made massive efficiency gains in oil usage, ending oil consumption in key industries. All those gains were eaten away by population growth, as we went from 225 million in 1973 to 300 million in 2007 and are projected with the mass 3rd world tide arriving here to go to 363 million in 2030 and 434 million in 2050.
Along the way, despite all the huge high tech auto (no tune-ups, radial high mpg tires, high efficiency engines, lower weights) and industry savings, when we let environmentalists tie us up in court on any new energy, that meant we went from 30% foreign oil dependency in 1973 to 71% today.
Chris Ford-
"Any little (tire inflation) or major (buying an expensive hybrid) does not necessarily lower oil use from efficiency gains."
While its not a necessary causal connection, in the aggregate it will have a significant effect. You should have learned this type of thing in Econ 101.
Let's not be dense we want more gas so we can drive the same amount for less money efficiency lets you do exactly it and pretending other wise is using a small amount of cleverness in pursuit of being a complete idiot.
In fact, as I said, I think that both should be done since (a) inflating tires will help right now and (b) we will almost certainly be needing more oil as a planet in 10 years.
Of course alternative energy might save us by then - but if that's the case then the oil companies that did the drilling just loose money. Why not drill just in case alternative energy doesn't come through like we thought it would?
I actually agree with this, which is why I think Obama is smart not to dig in his heels on offshore drilling. The fact is, the oil companies are not going to do anything with offshore rights except for sit on them until rising demand spikes oil prices so high that they're moved to drill (if oil companies were interested in drilling now, they'd presumably already be doing it on the 68 million acres they already hold the leases to). I'd love for us to be using 100% renewable energy in ten years. But if we're not, we're going to need oil, and we'll be in a worse position to demand environmental accountability in offshore leases then than we are now. So I don't see much harm in letting oil companies hold leases that, if the rest of a progressive energy plan is implemented, are going to be worthless before they're ever exploited anyway.
Obama, and especially many of his supporters in this thread, are making themselves look silly by their implicit and explicit suggestions that efficiency gains rule out the need for more domestic drilling.
I haven't seen anyone say anything of the kind (and certainly Obama hasn't). Obama is proposing requiring oil companies to expand domestic production by mandating that they actually pump the oil they already have access to instead of stockpiling it until the price is even higher. It is of course the case that in an oil-based economy, we will need to exploit any and all of the oil reserves that we can find. Oil reserves being finite, however, we can't stay an oil-based economy indefinitely; developing alternative renewable energy sources is the only real long-term plan. It would be great for consumers, though not for oil companies, if we could manage to do that before demand outstrips supply. It's for that reason that the Gang of 10 compromise, which Obama supports, allows for expanded offshore drilling if and only if the tax revenues raised from it help to fund that long-term plan.
The problem with Obama's remarks isn't that he's wrong or that he used math, the problem is that he conflated personal virtue (conservation, tire pressure) with policy (what the government does, drilling in this case). Demanding that people start being virtuous isn't a policy or an adequate substitute for policy.
That's why politicians, when asked what to do about the crime problem, don't respond with "if you people would stop committing so many crimes, we could have a safer society without all these expensive new jails my opponent is proposing." People commit crimes; people drive on underinflated tires. The question is, what are you going to do that is actually within your control as President?
"The question is, what are you going to do that is actually within your control as President?"
Well, Rob, that wasn't the question. The question posed to Obama was "What can I do". Meaning, what can I do as an individual to save gas. So, you're wrong.
The problem with Obama's remarks isn't that he's wrong or that he used math, the problem is that he conflated personal virtue (conservation, tire pressure) with policy (what the government does, drilling in this case).
This simply isn't true. Someone at a town hall meeting asked what individuals can do to ease the pain of gas prices, and Obama responded with the tire suggestion. In other words, he was asked, "what personal virtues might I embrace to help me out here"? What was he supposed to suggest? "Get a rowboat, row 50 miles offshore, and drill an oil well"?
Demanding that people start being virtuous isn't a policy or an adequate substitute for policy.
It's interesting to note that, if we now count every word a candidate utters as a policy proposal, then McCain is now "demanding that women start stripping on demand and fellating bananas when their husbands say so." And personally, I don't think that's an adequate substitute for an actual policy to legalize pimping.
rick: You clearly didn't understand Chris Ford's point. The (Jevons) effect he described does not somehow disappear when you aggregate the effects of the individuals. He (and I) were NOT saying "The effect is small at the individual level, so it doesn't matter", which would have made your reply relevant.
What he was saying is that reductions at the individual are unlikely to reduce that individual's fossil fuel use *even and especially* if he keeps his tires properly inflated. So saying that it will have good effect in the aggregate is like saying that selling at a loss is okay, "because I'll make it up on volume!"
And the reasoning (that you missed) was that simply making your stuff more efficient *saves you money* in addition to saving you the energy use. Now, let's think for a minute about what a consumer does when suddenly, that energy savings appears in his pocket. Hm, think think think. Oh, I know, he USES IT!
And what are almost all uses going to involve? You guessed it! ENERGY!
So rick, it seems like you're the one missing out on Econ 101.
So, Obama's advice isn't even good advice for how individuals can help out. It's how individuals can let different people spend the energy they didn't bid for, or reallocate their own use.
As I've long said, unless you fundamentally change the *dollar incentives* going into each unit of energy purchase, efficiency and conservation amount to "emptying" a pool by sucking it out of your end and dumping it in the other.
professordarkheart,
Several commenters above, and Obama himself, compared the gains, in both magnitude and time of effect, from more domestic drilling to that save from tire and engine maintenance. They do this to argue against allowing more domestic drilling. In other words, they are almost always offering it as an alternative, rather than a supplement.
Sure, Obama was asked a question about how an individual may save on gas, but he then later drew the comparison to oil drilling in order to deflect the building political pressure to open up sites like ANWR (a move that even McCain is still resisting). More efficiency is not an argument against more domestic drilling. Producing more of the oil we use within the borders of US is a good thing/bad thing whether or not we fill our tires or tune up our engines.
Well, Rob, that wasn't the question. The question posed to Obama was "What can I do". Meaning, what can I do as an individual to save gas. So, you're wrong.
Obama brought up drilling, thus dragging policy into a personal question; that was the mistake. If he had simply said "check your tires," then this entire thing wouldn't have been an issue. It's the juxtaposition of the personal with policy that's an issue, and that's 100% on Obama.
As an aside, what kind of idiot asks a lawyer and politician for car advice?
"Obama brought up drilling, thus dragging policy into a personal question; that was the mistake."
Fuck it. Im done.
I wonder whether anyone is working on self-inflating tires?
With a neodymium magnet on the hub and a coil in the rotating part, each wheel could gather some energy with no physical connection, and it could inflate its tire if it needed it.
One flaw in this proposal is that slow leaks go undetected. This is bad because the one time you don't drive for three weeks the battery would go dead and the wheel would go flat.
BTW, on those cars that detect that pressure is low in at least one tire, they don't do this by measuring tire pressure. They use the signals from the ABS to detect that one tire is spinning faster than the others, which it will do if the pressure is low because that effectively lowers wheel diameter so more rotations per mile. It's just software; there's no piece of hardware you could point to and call the "low tire pressure detector". However, my proposed device would actually measure pressure so it could do the topping up.
People might pay a few hundred dollars but not a thousand for an automatic tire inflator package, and the gas savings might be about that much over the life of the vehicle; 1% of a lifetime gas consumption of 5-10K gallons or $20K-40K. I would certainly pay a few hundred dollars once to avoid a minorly annoying chore twice a month for ten years, and it's more in keeping with being a high-tech country.
-dk
I shouldn't call them "self-inflating tires" but "wheels that automatically inflate their tires".
-dk
Rob,
Indeed! I wonder if Obama can help me find a way to get rid of hard water stains in my toilet.
As an aside, what kind of idiot asks a lawyer and politician for car advice?
Well, seeing as how both account for a large portion of the cost of any late-model vehicle...
that was the mistake
Obama's "mistakes" so far:
And now, since all of those claims are wrong:
Seriously, guys. He made a helpful suggestion, in passing, using accurate numbers, when specifically asked for such a suggestion. Deal with it.
I wish one of the candidates would have the cojones to say that high oil prices are desirable if we are serious about conservation.
As one who works in the oil services sector, we are building offshore drilling rigs as fast as we can. The entire industry is running at above full capacity. The existing rigs are all busy as can be.
Many of them are going overseas, but I'm sure that domestic drilling would pick up if more places were opened up. There are a lot of reasons why a specific lease might not get developed, though, including sea floor conditions, access to pipelines, etc...
Back during the 1970s energy crisis, DOT used to put out stuff about the importance of proper tire inflation. There was a fair amount of truth back then, because tires needed to be inflated at every three or four fillups.
Since then, a chemical has been developed that when added to the rubber makes it unnecessary to check tire pressure except when it's obvious that the tire is underinflated. If so, it's probably due to a slow leak that needs to be attended to, rather than simply putting air in. As a result, the gains in reduced gas consumption from having all of us check our tire pressures regularly would be minimal.
The company that developed the chemical that reduced air loss in tires? Exxon Chemical.
Hey, I'm not saying Obama's wrong on the numbers--I know nothing of probably daily production from unbuilt rigs--I was just responding to SOV. I don't think the problem is arithmetic, I think it's conflating energy policy with personal conservation. That's what the free tire gauges are mocking.
This whole foofaw has made exactly 0% difference in my vote, which is even less difference than I anticipate from inflating my tires this coming Friday.
I wonder if Obama can help me find a way to get rid of hard water stains in my toilet.
I think if you get holy water touched by the Obamessiah that problem pretty much solves itself.
Hmmm, maybe if he will bless my wellhead, then the problem would go away. I will have to check to see if he visits Connecticut before the election.
Credit where it's due: Obama has not yet demanded that we all start using dollar coins, despite the fact that the Treasury has adopted "It's real change" as a slogan for the campaign to convince us it's a good idea.
Let this be a lesson to all politicans: if anyone asks you what they, personally, can do to help solve a problem, DO NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION.
Obama answered this question with respect to energy use, and now suddenly everyone is acting like using a tire gage is "his energy plan."
The correct answer to all "what can I, personally, do" questions is: "Why would you look to me, your leader, for leadership? It's almost as if you want me to nanny you or something. F*#k you!"
Let this be a lesson to all politicans: if anyone asks you what they, personally, can do to help solve a problem, DO NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION.
No, the lesson is, don't attempt to tie it to a broader policy point. Tire gauges are fine and dandy, but the reaction is not to tire gauges, it's to the juxtaposition of tire gauges with offshore drilling.
The truly correct answer is probably "What the hell do I know about gasoline conservation? I've spent my life as a 'community organizer,' whatever the hell that is. Next time your community needs organization, just call on me. For car questions, why don't you ask a mechanic or something?"
For those who seem to have forgotten it, here, again, is the quote from Obama himself:
Had Obama not mixed oil drilling policy with the answer to, what anyone should agree was a stupid question to ask a presidential candidate, then we would not be talking about this today.
I was joking earlier about the hardwater stain, but to ask Obama for a solution to that is no more stupid than the question asked. Really, we need leaders to tell us how to maximize mileage/gal?
So, Person seems to believe this:
More efficiency = no reduction in gasoline use
Less efficiency = no reduction in gasoline use
The only possible inference is that gasoline use is independent of the actual, physical efficiency of gasoline use. More MPG, less MPG, makes no difference. So our cars are at their optimal MPG right now, and it doesn't matter when 'now' is. Curious.
The argument Person is pushing says that if you drive a more efficient car (in the strict sense of a car that gets more miles per gallon) then you save MONEY. Whatever you spend that saved money on, it will mean more 'energy' use. The exact same argument works in reverse: drive a less efficient car, you have less money to spend on other 'energy' use.
Of course, if the price of gasoline goes up by X%, and you take steps to increase your MPG by that same X%, you are NOT saving money. You are paying the exact same money to drive the exact same number of miles. The retailers, distributors, refiners, and producers of oil get exactly the same number of dollars from you to divvy up amongst themselves. They just need to pump fewer barrels of oil out of the ground for it.
So what did your increased MPG change? Not your cash flow, or your travel. Not the revenues or the profits of the oil industry. It only changed the physical amount of oil withdrawn from the planet's finite reserve.
Of course, if you increase MPG when gas prices are CONSTANT, then Person's argument is fractionally correct. Saving gas will save you money -- but you will only spend a FRACTION of that money for more gas. You might buy some beer with it, for instance. Making beer does involve 'energy' use, but (unless you drink a strange brand of beer) an extra gallon of it does NOT equate to an extra gallon of oil pumped out of the ground.
-- TP
Tony P.: So in other words, you agree with me, except for adding some crankish peak oil connotations.
I was very specific that an increase in efficiency PLUS an increase in the price of oil (whether from S/D or from new taxes) could make the total energy use go down, since you get the same ouput for less fuel but lack the extra purchasing power -- which, surprise surprise, is the same bolt of insight you just shot us with.
Anyway, the point isn't so much that higher efficiency MUST mean higher total use; it's just that with energy, it's much, much more likely.
. Saving gas will save you money -- but you will only spend a FRACTION of that money for more gas. ... You might buy some beer with it, for instance. Making beer does involve 'energy' use, but (unless you drink a strange brand of beer) an extra gallon of it does NOT equate to an extra gallon of oil pumped out of the ground.
Right, because the relevant comparison is between a volume of oil and a volume of whatever else you buy.
But I'll admit, that's a good point, though I think you're significantly underestimating the price of a beer that is ultimately buying energy. The more important effect though, is when those savings are applied in ways that increase general economic growth, which in turn drives up demand for (and capability of) extracting oil.
Person,
The fraction of the price of beer which is ultimately paying for 'energy' is somewhere between 0 and 100%. I could make a case that it's very close to 100%, as a matter of fact.
But I could make a case that the fraction which pays for 'labor' is ALSO close to 100%. So could you, I bet. It's just a matter of where we stop, as we follow the endlessly-dividing stream along which flows the $8 we pay for a 6-pack of Harpoon IPA. In a sense, even the $4 we pay for a gallon of Exxon gasoline is mainly paying for 'labor'. For sure it all becomes SOMEBODY's income. The physical oil, lying under ground, is as free as it is useless.
I say all this to make a point: we can define the 'productivity' of any factor of production you care to name. Divide this year's GDP by, say, the number of tons of vanadium mined or imported this year and you have a ratio we can fairly call the 'productivity' of vanadium. Likewise we can define the productivity of labor, or of petroleum. Increasing the productivity of any of those factors means that either we get more GDP or use less of that factor.
Your argument is that if we raise the productivity of oil (get more GDP per barrel of oil) we might easily end up using more oil. My objection is that if we increase GDP (a worthy goal) WITHOUT increasing the productivity of oil (i.e. without increasing 'efficiency') we end up using even more oil than THAT. If our goal is to increase oil consumption, 'efficiency' is pointless. If our goal is to increase GDP, 'efficiency' is a good thing.
-- TP
If you look at the context, Obama was answering a question somebody had posed and was trying to point out that we, as individuals, too can make small changes that will save us gas and money. Why are we so lazy? Just regular maintenance can do wonders and small changes in habits. Vote for Obama! He's sensible. Visit WHYOBAMA08.ORG!
Tony P.: I guess we agree more than we disagree then.
Obama does well with the tire inflation suggestion. It shows he’s been studying. It is a contribution. It relates him to the guy working on his car; it’s a blue collar suggestion. All to the good. As to ‘we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling,’ we’ve been debating how factual it is; but, regardless, for his supporters its attitude may be what they want. Its attitude is, ‘it’s simple (you’ve been missing it).’ This may appeal to single unmarried women, for instance, who may feel that this happens in the social pressure they feel to be married or in jobs that they don’t have autonomy in and transfer the expectation to economic and social policy issues expecting that that there really are simple answers that are denied.
What!?!?!? This is just ridiculous - and dishonest.
Where did Obama (or myself for that matter) say that as a matter of policy people should conserve gas by proper auto maintenance instead of drilling for oil? He did no such thing. And you know it. He said that in terms of gas saved, it was comparable to what the quantities that would be available under McCain's plan to drill off-shore for oil. That's it.
You guys are not only very obviously wrong in an objective sense, you're looking ridiculous tying yourselves in knots trying to say anything other than you were wrong. Instead, you're going to try to find some way, any way, to somehow shove off your stupidity onto Obama. What a bunch of class acts.
Tony P, statements about the energy content or labor content of a good are not vacuous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input-output_analysis
-dk
Where did Obama (or myself for that matter) say that as a matter of policy people should conserve gas by proper auto maintenance instead of drilling for oil?
Where did *I* say I thought Obama was substantively wrong? I'm just analyzing the political implications of his statement, which I belive have nothing to do with either "nerdiness" or arithmetic. Politically speaking if you put two things in the same sentence, people will assume you think they're related.
Dick, I am sincerely puzzled. Did I suggest that such statements ARE vacuous?
-- TP
(I so wish I had thought of this)
Whip Underinflation Now! Fill your tires with CO2!
Pretty sweet response from Obama on the whole tempest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akjXqfvLu28
Real world data.
My 2008 Corvette with rear tires inflated to recommended 30 psi: 26 mpg highway.
My 2008 Corvette with rear tires inflated to 25 psi for better launch at the drag strip: 22 mpg highway.
My 2008 Corvette with rear tires inflated to 35 psi just to see what affect it has on mileage: 26mpg highway.
My 2008 Corvette with rear tires inflated to recommended 30 psi: 20 mpg city.
My 2008 Corvette with rear tires inflated to 35 psi just to see what affect it has on mileage: 22 mpg city.
My 1991 Caprice with '96 Impala engine with rear tires inflated to recommended 32 psi: 21 mpg highway.
My 1991 Caprice with '96 Impala engine with rear tires inflated to 21 psi because we neglected to check it when we got it back from the paint shop: 16 mpg highway.
I check mine monthly (recommended interval) and have a little compressor in my garage.
Air compressor usage could once be found for free, if you knew which gas station to go to. Nowadays, you must not only find a gas station with an air compressor (and most don't have them), but also carry around a bunch of change (or go make change) in order to use one.
Then you have to deal with the fact that there's usually only one at the gas station and that the sorts of people who have the time and patience to seek out air compressors and check their tires religiously tend to not be the same kinds of people who will complete the process in an expedient way.
In short, you probably have to go out of your way to find and pay for one, and, once you do, you might be waiting for an hour as the three old men in front of you take their sweet, sweet time. And this probably can't be done on the way to or from work, since you might accidentally get brake dust smudges on your nice, professional clothes.
Of course, you could buy an air compressor, but that's not exactly cost-efficient since you should only need to use it about a dozen times a year.
I don't have a TV.