05-21-2007, 03:13 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-21-2007, 03:17 PM by TheDragoon.)
I get the impression that there is a lot of misinformation (or at least things that don't jive with my experiences in Seattle) floating around in this thread. Here are some of my thoughts regarding life in Seattle:
Energy Conservation
Someone brought up energy conservation activities earlier in this thread as something that people can do to help reduce emissions/energy use. However, he has assumed that those sorts of things are not being done in the US; that is a major misconception. Energy conservation is a big deal in the US. I know that for the past 15 or so years (and basically as long as I can remember) there have been publicity and/or public education drives trying to teach people all of the listed activities that can reduce energy use. People are turning off lights when they leave the room, taking shorter showers, using energy efficient lightbulbs (I have actually heard of laws dictating that they must be used in certain areas) and so on. This has been going on for a long, long time, and I think it really has made a difference throughout my region, at least.
Common American cars
The average Seattlite does not drive an SUV that gets 10 mpg. Rather, the vast majority of cars that I see on the roads are smallish cars. They are not necessarily as amazingly small as European cars, but they are certainly lightweight and even a normal internal combustion engine can average around 25-35 mpg, nowadays. That's pretty good. In addition, I am seeing a rising number of hybrid cars out there that can maintain 40-50 mpg easily. Certainly, there are a number of people who do drive big SUV's, but I've been noticing more and more of them that are using hybrid technology to push their gas mileage around 20-25 mpg. And let's be clear, there ARE people out there that need that big of a car (the best example I cite for this is one of my friends who attended the UW in past years. He drove a Chevy Avalanche around town because he could only afford one car and he works on a farm in Montana over the summer where he needs all of that horsepower) and then end up driving it around town.
Mass Transit
I think Munkay brings up some very valid points about how mass transit simply doesn't make sense in some areas. Certainly, it makes sense in the big cities or other high population density areas; that is why most big cities have mass transit options available. When I went to the UW, there were many people who had grown up in Seattle and did not even have their driver's license because it simply wasn't necessary. They could ride the bus everywhere they needed to go. However, in the suberbs things get much more difficult since people are more spread out, walking is less viable of an option, and people want to go to a wide range of destinations. I know down south of Seattle the buses are more few and far between because it simply doesn't make sense to drive a large bus around for the 5 people that its route works for. In that case, cars are a much better option.
Alternative Fuels
This isn't necessarily specific to Seattle, but as someone who has done research on fuel cells and other alternative fuels, I will chime in with my 2 cents:
1. Biofuels CANNOT fill demand.
The huge amount of space per gallon of fuel (ex: biodiesel via soy is ~100 gallons per acre per year if I recall correctly) means that there is no way you are ever going to be able to grow enough crops to make more than a small dent in the current consumption of fuel.
2. Biofuels DO reduce emissions slightly (in general) if you look at the lifecycle of the fuel, but its production does require a fair amount of fuel to run the farm equipment and process the feedstock. There is a net gain in fuel for most of these, but it certainly does burn fuel to make fuel.
3. Economy of Scale
Large facilities tend to be cheaper and more efficient than smaller facilities. This is why having a large centralized power station would be better than having small individual power stations (like, say, a car's internal combustion engine). However, as has been stated before, you're not avoiding emissions by using an electric car, you're merely moving those emissions to whereever your power is coming from. If everyone switched to electric cars then more powerplants would need to be opened so there would be more emissions from those. The big thing preventing this, right now, is the maturity battery and electric engine technologies compared to existing traditional technologies.
So overall, for our green European friends, I would say that the US is currently doing quite a bit to try and reduce emissions, the average person is driving a more fuel-efficient car than you seem to be giving us credit for, mass transit is used in places where it makes sense and it is not used where it doesn't make sense. All of this is being done without the need to tax gas beyond its current state. So why are we arguing? :)
Energy Conservation
Someone brought up energy conservation activities earlier in this thread as something that people can do to help reduce emissions/energy use. However, he has assumed that those sorts of things are not being done in the US; that is a major misconception. Energy conservation is a big deal in the US. I know that for the past 15 or so years (and basically as long as I can remember) there have been publicity and/or public education drives trying to teach people all of the listed activities that can reduce energy use. People are turning off lights when they leave the room, taking shorter showers, using energy efficient lightbulbs (I have actually heard of laws dictating that they must be used in certain areas) and so on. This has been going on for a long, long time, and I think it really has made a difference throughout my region, at least.
Common American cars
The average Seattlite does not drive an SUV that gets 10 mpg. Rather, the vast majority of cars that I see on the roads are smallish cars. They are not necessarily as amazingly small as European cars, but they are certainly lightweight and even a normal internal combustion engine can average around 25-35 mpg, nowadays. That's pretty good. In addition, I am seeing a rising number of hybrid cars out there that can maintain 40-50 mpg easily. Certainly, there are a number of people who do drive big SUV's, but I've been noticing more and more of them that are using hybrid technology to push their gas mileage around 20-25 mpg. And let's be clear, there ARE people out there that need that big of a car (the best example I cite for this is one of my friends who attended the UW in past years. He drove a Chevy Avalanche around town because he could only afford one car and he works on a farm in Montana over the summer where he needs all of that horsepower) and then end up driving it around town.
Mass Transit
I think Munkay brings up some very valid points about how mass transit simply doesn't make sense in some areas. Certainly, it makes sense in the big cities or other high population density areas; that is why most big cities have mass transit options available. When I went to the UW, there were many people who had grown up in Seattle and did not even have their driver's license because it simply wasn't necessary. They could ride the bus everywhere they needed to go. However, in the suberbs things get much more difficult since people are more spread out, walking is less viable of an option, and people want to go to a wide range of destinations. I know down south of Seattle the buses are more few and far between because it simply doesn't make sense to drive a large bus around for the 5 people that its route works for. In that case, cars are a much better option.
Alternative Fuels
This isn't necessarily specific to Seattle, but as someone who has done research on fuel cells and other alternative fuels, I will chime in with my 2 cents:
1. Biofuels CANNOT fill demand.
The huge amount of space per gallon of fuel (ex: biodiesel via soy is ~100 gallons per acre per year if I recall correctly) means that there is no way you are ever going to be able to grow enough crops to make more than a small dent in the current consumption of fuel.
2. Biofuels DO reduce emissions slightly (in general) if you look at the lifecycle of the fuel, but its production does require a fair amount of fuel to run the farm equipment and process the feedstock. There is a net gain in fuel for most of these, but it certainly does burn fuel to make fuel.
3. Economy of Scale
Large facilities tend to be cheaper and more efficient than smaller facilities. This is why having a large centralized power station would be better than having small individual power stations (like, say, a car's internal combustion engine). However, as has been stated before, you're not avoiding emissions by using an electric car, you're merely moving those emissions to whereever your power is coming from. If everyone switched to electric cars then more powerplants would need to be opened so there would be more emissions from those. The big thing preventing this, right now, is the maturity battery and electric engine technologies compared to existing traditional technologies.
So overall, for our green European friends, I would say that the US is currently doing quite a bit to try and reduce emissions, the average person is driving a more fuel-efficient car than you seem to be giving us credit for, mass transit is used in places where it makes sense and it is not used where it doesn't make sense. All of this is being done without the need to tax gas beyond its current state. So why are we arguing? :)
-TheDragoon