Simple Solutions
Taken from July 15, 2008 Presidential Press Conference. (Transcript from Whitehouse.gov)
Q- …one thing nobody debates is that if Americans use less energy the current supply/demand equation would improve. Why have you not sort of called on Americans to drive less and to turn down the thermostat?
THE PRESIDENT: They’re smart enough to figure out whether they’re going to drive less or not….
So no question about what you just said is right. One way to correct the imbalance is to save, is to conserve. And as you notice my statement yesterday, I talked about good conservation. And people can figure out whether they need to drive more or less; they can balance their own checkbooks.
Q But you don’t see the need to ask — you don’t see the value of your calling for a campaign –
THE PRESIDENT: I think people ought to conserve and be wise about how they use gasoline and energy. Absolutely. And there’s some easy steps people can take. You know, if they’re not in their home, they don’t keep their air-conditioning running. There’s a lot of things people can do. But my point to you, Mark, is that, you know, it’s a little presumptuous on my part to dictate to consumers how they live their lives. The American people are plenty capable and plenty smart people and they’ll make adjustments to their own pocketbooks.
HILLARY
The President thinks that we all know ways to save energy, and in turn save money. For example, he mentioned household temperature. But I wonder if people really understand that by lowering heat in the winter by just 2 degrees you can cut your energy bill by 10 percent. That is one good way to save energy, but there are many, such as not leaving the refrigerator door open, and by turning off lights when you leave a room. Even better, you can unplug appliances when they are not in use. Americans waste $1 billion a year powering items like TVs and DVD players while they’re turned off. So unplug your TV, stereo, computer, microwave when you’re done using them. Unplug cell-phone and MP3 chargers as soon as the devices are powered up.
JACK
As important as our knowledge of energy saving processes is, we need to make it an important part of our experience. Yes, on some level, I know that I’m going to save some energy by turning out lights, unplugging appliances, and minimizing the amount of time that I spend in the automobile. However, it has not hit the alarm sign. I vaguely know I’m wasting energy, but basically feel it is so small that it is insignificant in the overall scheme of things – a drop in the ocean. What I am hearing now from you, and from many other people, is that a real effort made in saving the energy that I am responsible for will add up to big numbers, both in the economy and in cleaning the atmosphere. Assuming the truth is in what you say, then the President is making a major mistake in this casual assessment. As a matter of fact, there should be a concerted effort to publicize the reality and how each one of us impacts on these major problems.
HILLARY
You couldn’t be more right. It is the little things that will significantly add up to make a real difference. For example, if every American had one meat-free day per week, it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions as much as taking 8 million cars off the roads.
JACK
And that doesn’t include your feeling better without the personal gas that meat creates in your system.
HILLARY
Right. We’re not even going there! Another easy change that can help people with their fuel consumption, and therefore lower their bills, is in the laundry. Ninety percent of the energy used in clothes washing goes to heat the water, so washing in cold water is a simple way to cut energy use drastically.
These little changes can save a family money, stop the waste of resources, and change the supply/demand ratio, which will bring down costs for everyone. Seems like something that our leaders could be sharing with the population at large.
JACK
It is a clear cut coincidence, but has a great deal of meaning. Today’s economic headline is that the price of oil dropped almost $16/barrel due to decreased demand. As a natural adjunct of this rare good news the stock market shot up 270 points and suddenly (at least for the day) Americans have a more optimistic outlook. But whether we like it or not, the reality of energy at a higher price effects our lives.
There are pieces of information now hitting us from many different directions. Currently, there is a movement to reduce the speed limits to 55 miles per hour. In the 1970s, the 55 mph speed limit saved 167,000 barrels of oil a day, or 2 percent of the country’s highway fuel consumption. Up to 4,000 traffic deaths a year were avoided as well, with the lower maximum speed. It makes sense to live with the inconvenience of a lower speed limit.
We now need to dispense with the inane idea that our individual contributions are so small as to be insignificant. Our politicians need to stop talking about the fact that we are at war and must sacrifice and tell us how. They must emphasize the importance of persuading all Americans to join the conservation cause. It takes a planned effort to not only tell us we have a problem, but also tell us how we may help to solve it.
Please note, Hillary, that Jack Nadel International now has a complete section (http://www.eco.nadel.com/) and emphasis on going “green” in our merchandising efforts. I would invite Paul Navabpour who leads this cause at our company to comment on some of the results.
Communication is inspiration! Share your thoughts below.
8 Comments
Leave a reply
What you say is absolutely correct.
Paul 07/23/08 @ 8:40 amAs consumers, we vote with our dollars. Hence we can tell the larger entities, businesses and the government, what we feel is right for us and for our future generations.
This can be clearly seen in the decline of large car sales versus consumer’s decisions to opt for more efficient modes of transportation. Just in our small town of Menlo Park (near Palo Alto), we witnessed the closing of a Ford, and Chevy auto dealership. In the place of the Chevy dealership is now a Tesla dealership (all electric sports car which sells for $100,000). This would not be happening if consumers didn’t create a pull for such vehicles.
In London, most new homes are being equipped with small monitoring devices inside the house which shows the residents how much electricity they are using, and these devices can be set to have an alarm if the electricity demand is increasing. Residents have been quoted as saying that they truly enjoy seeing the immediate reduction of usage when they turn off an unwanted light, or switching to more efficient bulbs; every little bit adds up!
From the perspective of our business, I try and educate my clients that environmentalism is not solely wearing “hemp and organics”, but rather purchasing quality goods that last, don’t get thrown away, and have quality built in.
Every little bit helps, and we are all empowered to vote with our dollars!
-Paul
“In 1995, the newly ascendant Republican Congress repealed the 55 mph limit. Most states acted quickly to allow speeds of up to 65 mph or even 75 mph on their interstates, and for good reason. As an energy saving policy, the double nickel was a bust. The National Motorists Association reports that about 95% of American drivers regularly exceeded the federal speed limit. Does it make sense to resurrect a law that 19 out of every 20 Americans disobeyed?
“In the first few years when the law was strictly enforced, according to the Congressional Research Service, gasoline consumption was reduced by about 167,000 barrels a day. But over time the law was increasingly ignored, and average speeds on the highway fell by only a few miles per hour. The National Research Council estimated in 1984 that Americans spent one billion additional hours a year in their cars because of the speed limit law.
“Mr. Warner repeats the myth that a lower federal speed limit will increase traffic safety. Back in 1995, Naderite groups argued that repealing the 55 mph limit would lead to “6,400 more deaths and millions more injuries” each year. In reality, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data reveal that in the decade after speed limits went up (1995-2005), traffic fatalities fell by 17%, injuries by 33%, and crashes by 38%. That’s especially significant because in 1995 far fewer drivers were gabbing on their cell phones or text messaging while driving.
“In a study for the Cato Institute in 1999, I compared the fatality rates in states that raised their speed limits to 70 mph or more (mostly in the South or West) with those that didn’t (mostly in the Northeast). There was little difference in safety. Of the 31 states that raised their speed limits to 70 mph or more, only two (the Dakotas) experienced a slight increase in highway deaths. The evidence is overwhelming that traffic safety is based less on how fast the traffic is going than on the variability in speeds that people are driving. The granny who drives 20 mph below the pace of traffic on the freeway is often as much a safety menace as the 20-year-old hot rodder.
“Retail gasoline stores report that Americans have already reduced their gas purchases by about 5% this year — by driving less and buying more fuel-efficient cars. At $4.59 a gallon, motorists don’t need to be lectured by politicians on the financial savings from cutting back. Those who want to stretch their dollars can drive 55 mph on their own (though they are well advised to stay in the right lane).
“To the left, fairness means we all suffer equally together. In light of this alleged moral imperative, it doesn’t matter if a lower speed limit means Americans would spend two billion extra hours on the road, or that, according to the Labor Department, assuming a $15 per hour average wage means the speed limit could cost the economy between $20 billion and $30 billion a year in lost output.
“Calls for a 55 mph speed limit — and for that matter most other government energy conservation plans, such as urging people to ride a bus or a bicycle rather than driving a car — reflect a mindset that oil and gasoline are more valuable than human time.
“But America is not running out of energy. We have potentially hundreds of years of oil and natural gas and coal supplies in America alone, if Congress would only let us drill for it. What is in short supply — the only truly finite resource, as the late economist Julian Simon taught us — is the time each of us spends on this earth. And most of us don’t want to spend it sitting longer than we have to in traffic.” –Stephen Moore
Curious George 07/23/08 @ 6:54 pmGeorge,
You and Mr. Moore may choose to stick your heads in the sand and hope to see oil, but the rest of us are going to move forward. Why pass this problem on to progeny (even your magical 100 years from now,) when we can do something now?
It’s not surprising that people see the world this way. If one watches C-SPAN they only see their Republican leaders, one after the other, get up and say that the answer to our problems is to “DRILL”.
It’s a shame that most people, even people who watch C-SPAN on TV, didn’t see the whole Homeland Security panel (that T. Boone Pickens was on,) as it was relegated to C-SPAN3 on the internet. If you had seen it, then you would have found out that there are lots of methods to harness power and create fuel, and they are being used around the world ALREADY.
We are falling behind a country like Germany, that we blew to little bits, which recognizes that there are CHEAPER and better ways to meet their energy needs without destroying the environment.
When did our leaders stop believing that the US could be an innovative leader in this world, and that as individuals we could make a difference? George, when did you stop believing?
Hillary 07/24/08 @ 7:35 amFirst of all, I think it’s GREAT that this blog was posted, and that it is generating discussion. George, do you actually think that people who would present ideas to help conserve resources, or use less dangerous resources, don’t value human life, or value something like oil more than human life? You can certainly disagree with specific ideas, and/or promote your own solutions, but by agreeing with someone who would make a statement like that, it is difficult to take your comment seriously.
I have no doubt that the authors of this blog, and the people promoting less oil, lower speed limits, or whatever the idea may be, value human life greatly. In fact, it’s the entire reason why they promote their ideas so passionately - we all wish the best for the planet, and the people living on it. I think we can all at least agree to come to the discussion from that place.
Now, as for specifics, I think ANY ideas that might be helpful should be considered. For example, it appears (from your data) that the lower speed limit law did save oil - LOTS of it - as long as the law was enforced. Had it continued to be enforced, much more oil would have been saved, and perhaps we would not be in the position we are in today.
Further, there are MANY reasons why a lowering of our dependence on foreign oil (or any oil, for that matter) would be beneficial. In addition to environmental benefits, there are economic, political and national security benefits. As a practical matter - how many new jobs could be created for alternative energy solutions? How much improvement could we make to this country’s infrastructure if we spent just a fraction of the money we now spend buying oil?
A debate about what solutions might help is constructive. Stating that people with whom you disagree do not value human life is not.
Scott 07/24/08 @ 7:57 amBe careful what you wish for: clean air causes global warming.
Curious George 07/25/08 @ 3:18 pmI strongly believe in clean alternative sources of energy, but “progressives” were instrumental in stopping the development of nuclear power plants. Since you seem to admire our European betters, you should know that France generates virtually all of its electricity from nuclear.
Curious George 07/25/08 @ 3:24 pmMichael Barone summarizes the problems caused by environmental extremists and other ironically named “progressive” groups:
“Our system of divided government and litigation-friendly regulation makes it hard for our society to do things and easy for adroit lobbyists and lawyers to stop them. Nations with more centralized power and less democratic accountability find it easier: France and Japan generate most of their electricity by nuclear power
“In contrast, lobbyists and litigators for environmental restriction groups have produced energy policies that I suspect future generations will regard as lunatic. We haven’t built a new nuclear plant for some 30 years, since a Jane Fonda movie exaggerated their dangers. We have allowed states to ban oil drilling on the outer continental shelf, prompted by the failure of 40- or 50-year-old technology in Santa Barbara, Calif., in 1969, though current technology is much better, as shown by the lack of oil spills in the waters off Louisiana and Mississippi during Hurricane Katrina.
“We have banned oil drilling on a very small portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that is godforsaken tundra (I have been to the North Slope oil fields, similar terrain — I know) for fear of disturbing a herd of caribou — a species of hoofed animals that is in no way endangered or scarce.
“The ANWR ban is the work of environmental restriction groups that depend on direct-mail fundraising to pay their bills and keep their jobs. That means they must always claim the sky is falling.
“ANWR is a precious cause for them because it can be portrayed (dishonestly) as a national treasure and because the pressure for drilling there has been unrelenting. Democrats have enlisted solidly in their army, and they have also been able to recruit Republicans who wanted to get good environmental scorecards to impress enviro-conscious voters in states like Florida, New Jersey and Minnesota.
“Now all that is in danger, because the pain of paying $60 for a tank of gas has convinced most Americans to worry less about the caribou or the recurrence of an oil spill that happened 39 years ago. Democratic leaders are preventing Congress from voting on continental shelf and ANWR drilling or oil shale development because they fear their side would lose and are making the transparently absurd claim that drilling won’t lower the price of oil.”
Curious George 07/26/08 @ 8:24 amI totally agree with you Hillary, and I do think that it is a shame that the American government does not take this problem seriously.
Sophie Morel 08/7/08 @ 1:31 amI don’t vote “green” but i do think of the planet i live on and that i want to pass on to my kids and my nieces and nephews, so everyday i tryto pay attention. I know it is a hair in the ocean but i cannot believe that i am the only one to care and i DO believe in Human Being.
One cannot be THAT selfish and not care.
In France, when you sale a home or an apt you have to have an energy estimate made by a professional. It is a new requirement and so now one can see the energy spent in the house or if the windows are not well done, etc…
we just bought a home in Philly and we saw that the quality of materials and finitions are not the same as in Europe.
We are now thinking of putting some solar mirrors on our roof for our AC unit, bcs it kills us to think we use sooooooo much energy in this system which we don’t have in France.
So i don’t agree with you Curious George (once again, i am sorry!) and i do think that one HAS an obligation to be aware and to DO something about it, just as a citizen of this planet.
have a good day in the US!