The Question:
If I'm shopping for a car, you tell me to buy the one that gets 30 mpg versus the one I really like but only gets 22 mpg. Now you say: Jeremy do you want to 'do the right thing' and help the environment or be bad and hurt the environment? Then I tell you to shove it because that 8 mpg-difference isn't going to make much difference in the big scheme of things.
The scheme of things:
Now I'm going to do some math, so I'm sorry if you don't like math but I like using it because it's hard to rebuke. I usually drive about 5,000 to 6,000 miles per year, about 110 miles - or 5 gallons of gas - per week. Let's guess the average truck driver drives 10 hours per day at 60mph on highways, equaling 600 miles per day over 5 work days, totaling to 3000 miles per week. In 2 weeks, a truck driver drives as far as I do in 1 year. It would take me 25 years to match that of a trucker's annual driving mileage.
A truck driver, who gets worse fuel efficiency - between 3-8 mpg - than my 22mpg, expends two to five times as much fuel. So, a trucker expends 75 to 200 gallons of diesel - aka carbon emissions - in 1 day compared to my expending 27 gallons for the same distance. (By the way, diesel fuel used by truckers and unleaded gas used by most cars do not have the same, but rather similar carbon footprint). So while I consume 225 to 280 gallons per year, a truck driver consumes 18,500 to 50,000 gallons for their 150,000 miles per year. My 22mpg car is so insignificant that, at my highest projected consumption and the truckers' best fuel efficiency, it would take me 65 years to match the carbon emissions output of 1 single truck driver in 1 year.
To top it off, that 8mpg that you wanted me to save -- 280 gal. per year (22mpg car @ 6000 miles) minus 200 gal per year (30mpg car @ 6000 miles) = 80 gal. difference -- would be equivalent to 1 day's work for 1 trucker. And there are millions of truckers on the road every single day...
I imagine, with 970 gallons as the average fuel consumption per hour of a commercial airline flight when total airline energy consumption represents 10% of all transportation consumption, that energy efficient airplanes should be relevant part of the discussion too. I won't go through all the same math with this one but the amount of fuel I would save each year (80 gallons between 30mpg and 22mpg car) is less than one-tenth of the average fuel consumption of one commercial flight. Imagine American Airlines decides tomorrow to cut just one of its weekday back-and-forth flights from Dallas to New York for one year (260ish days x 1940 gallons = 504,400 gallons). That change alone would save more fuel than I could possibly consume in 100 lifetimes.
Airplane fuel efficiency has improved over the last decade but the targets are still laughably unambitious. Every time I'm walking to class and a plane flies overhead I don't feel my walk has impacted the big picture, but I still enjoy my walk of course.
My Answer:
Regardless of the individual perspective, small scale automobile transportation as a whole accounts for more than 50% of total transportation energy consumption. So while it may not matter what I do, it matters what we do. It's going to take an industry-wide fuel efficiency standard to make an impact for the environment and for consumers. If consumers are given choices where the minimum fuel efficiency for every vehicle is 25mpg, then I think we'd make some headway. Policymakers need to get ambitious.
I agree that climate change and carbon emissions are a vital interest for every human being on the planet. I consider myself pro-environment and I'll vote for limits on carbon emissions any day. I'm only stating my view on what kind of impact I can effect as a consumer, specifically as a user of transportation.
As long as the fuel efficiency of airplanes and trucks continues to be pathetic all while the best comparable change I can muster is a measly few mpg's, then I'm sticking with my 20mpg Toyota 4Runner that I love dearly. What are you coming back with now?
No comments:
Post a Comment