From the World watch newsletter:

1. Fossil Fuels Continue to Cloud Up the Skies

Vital Signs Fact of the Week
Wednesday, October 29, 2003

With less than five percent of the world's population, the United States
is responsible for a large share of the world's fossil fuel burden,
accounting for 26 percent of global oil use, 25 percent of coal
consumption, and 27 percent of natural gas use. U.S.
automobiles--totaling more than 128 million, or one quarter of the
world's cars--emit roughly as much carbon as the entire Japanese economy,
the world's fourth largest carbon emitter.

Natural gas has become the fastest growing of all fossil fuels,
representing an increasing share of global energy use--nearly 24 percent
of the world's energy consumption. But annual growth rates of two
percent in this sector pale in comparison to alternative sources such as
wind that, while still a very small portion of the energy sector,
recorded an average annual growth rate of 33 percent between 1998 and
2002.

Sources:

Fossil Fuel Use Up, Vital Signs 2003, pp. 34-35.
www.worldwatch.org/brain/media/pdf/pubs/vs/2003_fossil_fuel.pdf

Vehicle Production Inches Up, Vital Signs 2003, pp. 56-57.
www.worldwatch.org/brain/media/pdf/pubs/vs/2003_cars.pdf


Once primarilyused for hauling loads, light trucks are now
heavily marketed as passenger vehicles. But even more so than cars, they are increasingly important contributors to air pollution and cli-mate change.
In the United States, model-year 2001 light trucks emitted 2.4 times more smog-forming pollutants and 1.4 times more carbon than passenger cars.


People outside the United States also use their cars less than Americans. For instance, the aver-age car in the United States travels 10 percent more per year than a car in the United Kingdom, about 50 percent more than one in Germany, and almost 200 percent more than a car in Japan.

And Americans drive less fuel-efficient cars, so these figures understate the national differences in gasoline used for driving. The United States consumed 43 percent of the 19.1 mb/d of world gasoline use for all trans-portation
purposes in 1999.

What do you think/suggest what has to be done about this?

What bothers me about this (and this cannot be put down squarely on the feet of any one party) is that the United States seems to be still stuck in 1960s energy policy. Reading foreign press, most of the rest of the world sees investment in effeciency and renewability as an investment in the country's economic future. At some point in the next 50 years, we will hit a breakpoint at which petrolium supply will no longer keep pace with demand. The country best able to compete in this new market will be the next economic superpower.

Part of it is that a lot of Americans live in the back of nowhere and most areas have poor public transportation.

True. And we are an industrial and agricultural nation. Both those industries still use a ton of fossil fuel.

Part of it is that a lot of Americans live in the back of nowhere and most areas have poor public transportation.

Excellent point. If public transportation was more reliable in Omaha, I'd be all over it. As it is, I'd have to walk 4 blocks to catch the bus and then another 4 blocks from the bus stop to get to work--not such a bad thing, all things considered, except that the buses often don't run on schedule, so the odds of me getting to work on time without leaving an hour early are slim. If I want to go to Wild Oats or to church or to my parents' house, I'd have to walk 4 blocks to catch a bus, leave the bus, walk another couple of blocks, catch another bus, and then walk several blocks from there. Again, not terribly bad if the buses are semi on-time. Plus, the bus routes don't cover a lot of Omaha.

I'd really like to see Omaha implement some sort of park-and-ride system where you drive a short distance, park your car in a lot for that purpose, and then get the bus. Problem is, I don't think very many people in Omaha would go for it.

I just have one question for World Watch: Just how do they propose we continue to drive our Hummers and SUVs without using fossil fuels? I mean, give me a break.

Anyways, if we are the number one kick ass country of all time, then we have every right to be the number one kick ass consumers of fossil fuels.

What should be done?

We need to drop our ****ing cars. This'll require 1. Investment in decent public transportation. 2. Gas prices that resemble those of europe.

ebola
np: burnt by the sun

From the World watch newsletter:
What do you think/suggest what has to be done about this?

1. Stop farming animals and plants for them to eat.
2. Use this farmland to grow organic hemp.
3. Make alcohol based fuels from the hemp.

I don't know if this will work. I just listened to "Grow More Pot" from Jello Biafra's spoken word album (I forget the name).

Foreign oil bad. Renewable resources good.

when i was in atlanta it took 2 hours to get to where i was volunteering (and 2 hours home) using public transportation

it was walk to the bus stop take the bus to the train take the train to another train take that train to another bus and then walk for about 15 minutes

by driving even with traffic it took only 30 minutes

down here in new orleans, when i didnt have a car, i had to walk 3 blocks to the street car, take the street car for a While, then walk over half a mile to get to work (and work was on a main street)
with traffic and with the way the street cars run, i would have to leave at least 1 hour before work... but with a car, it took about 8 minutes to get to work

unless they make a serious improvement in public transportation systems in a Lot of cities, theres no way that most people can cut down on their car usage

what they should do is find out where the most polluted city is from cars and work on their public transportation system first

i was pretty surprised that a state doesnt get higher federal regulation when it comes to pollutants until they get a certain number of 'smog alert days'
because louisiana is still under that number, we havent gotten the tighter restrictions

Also, public transit strikes are extremely inconvenient when you don't have a car... This Los Angeles MTA strike is a reminder how vulnerable relying on public transit can make you.

certainly public transportation would help, but on the flipside, i think that the problem could be alleviated if americans chose to live closer to their work place (or, found work closer to their house). i realize not everyone has this ability but certainly there are many people capable of doing so.

my brother, who chooses to live 45 mins from work for no reason other than he wants to live near a few friends, is a prime example. he goes to work 5 days a week and visits a friend once a week. wouldn't it make more sense to drive the 45 mins each way once a week? sigh..

True. And we are an industrial and agricultural nation. Both those industries still use a ton of fossil fuel.

This is very true. A lot of industries drag their feet over upgrading to better forms of power. Or, even cleaner means of what they have.

And, the US has cheap gas prices (as compared with most of Europe and even most of Canada), so that doesn't discourage overuse.

It does bother me that we (canadians in this case, though I'm sure it can be applied to the US) haven't pursued alternate forms of energy on a better scale then has happened. It is almost like we are going backwards instead of forward.

certainly public transportation would help, but on the flipside, i think that the problem could be alleviated if americans chose to live closer to their work place (or, found work closer to their house). i realize not everyone has this ability but certainly there are many people capable of doing so.

my brother, who chooses to live 45 mins from work for no reason other than he wants to live near a few friends, is a prime example. he goes to work 5 days a week and visits a friend once a week. wouldn't it make more sense to drive the 45 mins each way once a week? sigh..

Well.. sometimes people have kids and they live where the best school districts are.

Also.. sometimes it costs a lot to live close to work and not everyone can afford to do that. Depending on the area.. most people can't afford to live closer to work.

I would say that most people who live far from work would prefer to live closer.

Personally, I want 2 vehicles: 1 electric, and 1 hybrid. I hate gas. Living next to a refinery really makes you hate it.

The only public transportation that I've ever seen was in Saint Louis (somewhat crappy as far as usefulness - but only was on once), and in Chicago. The train cars looked horrible, had grafiti and unknown sticky stuff all over. Of course there were the people drinking too. It made me drive on the interstates over using public transportation, even though it cost more, just because of the conditions.

certainly public transportation would help, but on the flipside, i think that the problem could be alleviated if americans chose to live closer to their work place (or, found work closer to their house). i realize not everyone has this ability but certainly there are many people capable of doing so.

Some of us choose to not live within a city because we prefer to live in an area surrounded by some land, where you can enjoy some peace and quiet without the noise of the city or neighbours ten feet away from you. I've done my time in the city, and prefer to commute if necessary. I think it's pretty ridiculous to expect any person to live within X amount of distance from their place of employment. People should, and do, have the right to live where they want and if they can afford it.

I've done my time in the city, and prefer to commute if necessary.

i didn't realize you were ever in a city jail, what was that for?
:P

I think it's pretty ridiculous to expect any person to live within X amount of distance from their place of employment. People should, and do, have the right to live where they want and if they can afford it.

it's ridiculous to expect people to live near work? sorry, i just have high expectations, what can i say.. and of course people should, and do, have the right to live where they want, i didn't say otherwise. in much the same way, people have the right to drive 7 mpg vehicles, not recycle, and countless other activities. but that doesn't mean i have to like, and certainly, i can try to discourage such actions.

True. And we are an industrial and agricultural nation. Both those industries still use a ton of fossil fuel.

I don't think it's that, but I'll do some research.

I must say that I can not think of one thing in my house that says: "made in america" ?

I don't think it's that, but I'll do some research.

I must say that I can not think of one thing in my house that says: "made in america" ?

I'm Canadian and I have a few things that say "Proudly made in the United States." But, I don't know why that is important/not important.

I will be the first one to admit that the energy consumption of many countries is spinning out of control. We all need to get a grip on how we live and stop being so flipping selfish.

It's not easy to find something specific on the net (for me), but I've found this:

http://www.ssb.no/english/yearbook/tab/t-intnasj-661.html


Average electric energy consumption for

Northern Europe: 5,738 Kwh

North America: 9,884 Kwh

:eek: gosh, now I don't dare to type my energy consumption anymore......



ETA: Kwh

Living close to work is a wonderful ideal, but not always possible. Where I live, most people work downtown. To buy a single home downtown you're looking at at least $350,000. But even then, most of the homes are condos, very expensive condos at that. Homes in the urban core-- not neccesarily downtown, but within the "old city" (we were amalgamated 3 years ago) are insanely expensive. For what you pay for a 3 bedroom 1.5 bath bungalow in a decent part of town, in the SUBURBS you can get a 4 bedroom 3 bathroom brand new home with ensuite bath etc. Incidentally, my fiance bikes to work. It takes him about 10 minutes. I work from home. We were very lucky to find an affordable apartment exactly where we wanted to. 3 years ago it wouldn't have been possible. As well, three years ago he worked in the far west end of town, 25 minutes from the University (where I went to school, and he NOW works!)
When there was a lot of high-tech jobs in Kanata, everyone flocked out there and bought homes, which was great. But then there was the high-tech bust, and half of them lost their jobs. Now homes out there are much cheaper, so people buy homes out there and commute into the city core.
However, a lot of it is just selfishness, and a lot of it is also that the American streetscape is designed for people to drive, not walk. However, the love affair so many North Americans have with SUVs, Trucks, and hour-long commutes is ridiculous, and if that stuff could be a non-issue things still wouldn't be perfect, but it would be a huge step towards lessening the environmental impact of humans. And they aren't even things that will cause hardship or suffering!
As far as a lot of Americans living in the wilderness goes, I would imagine that statistically it is still a small amount. And I highly doubt that they are as big of a problem as the Californian who drives his or her SUV through an hour of rush hour traffic twice a day. I grew up rurally, and certainly can value that it has its benefits. I loathe living in a city, and I only live here because that's where the jobs are.

It's not easy to find something specific on the net (for me), but I've found this:

http://www.ssb.no/english/yearbook/tab/t-intnasj-661.html


Average electric energy consumption for

Northern Europe: 5,738

North America: 9,884

:eek: gosh, now I don't dare to type my energy consumption anymore......


So what's your point already? Got a solution?

So what's your point already? Got a solution?

Dunno, the stats for norway are even higher.

I've never been in america so I have no idea how the reality is.

I've read that it is normal to leave the computer on all day even when you don't need it for hours. When there where black outs in america during the clinton administration (can't remember the year) I've read that people never care to switch off the lights in offices, leave the airco on all night leave all kind of stuff on "stand-by" etc.

A lot of american seem to have these big frigdes with a ice cubes maker..the kind we don't see here because they are so inefficient.

Another thing is we don't see many SUV's here, or other american cars at all.
(exeption would be Chrysler voyager). These are seen as real gas guzzlers here.

I've read what some people here call a good mileage, but such a mileage would make me go to the garage to check for fuel leaks....

Petrol is $4.50 a gallon here.

I think that the low prices you've got in america are no stimulant to go for more efficient appliances/cars/machines.

In the end this will be a big risk for the U.S.

If the oil prices go up sharply (what will happen if the world runs out of it) then a lot of americans will be unable to pay electricity bills or to go to work cause the fuel is too expensive.

Personally I think the major motivation for people to do something about the amount of energy they use is money.

Therefore it would be wise (imho) to have some tax on fuel and to use that tax to stimulate the development of more efficient stuff.


*note: It is not my intention to attack americans on their energy consumption.

Here's the thing: There are very large rural areas of thinly populated space in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Greece Central France and Central Spain. Low population density can be also found in North-eastern Germany and in most of the Baltic States. This very uneven population distribution is a reason for great concern, especially among the Nordic countries.
from: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/ERD/DB/mapdb/map_9.htm?o=0

So, it appears that on a whole, Northern Europe is the most rural (farm country) and least populated.

Compare the population density of Northern Europe to the rest of Europe here (http://www.geel.org.uk/human_01.htm?o=0). Northen Europe is by far less populated per square kilometer compared to there rest of Europe.

So, comparing it to North America tilts the scales more to appear that we consume more power. Naturally, considering all of the facts, we would. Not proud of the fact, but there are logical explanations as to why it's the way it is and why the claim that North America uses "x" much more energy than Northern Europe stands true. It would have been more of an apples to apples comparison if you looked at N. America compared to Southern and/or Central Europe.

Having all the information is imperative in order to come to an informed and fair conclusion.

um....I kind find the average population density on america (or states).

But...er.....I understand the bigger travel distance....but the electricity consumption I quoted is per capita.

That's per person, right ? (I could be wrong).

And if it is per person, that would rule out the population density factor (?)

I agree that you can not randomly claim things on one statistic. The enormous electricity consumptions of norwegians could be caused by electric heating (who knows?). As you see in the table most of norwegian electricity is generated with water power and thus less poluting then fossil fuel energy.

(I'm not even sure the website is reliable, net based "facts" should always be double checked imho, but i'm lacking time)

What is missing from this discussion, it seems to me, is a little sense of history.

The US had a President who shared the concerns expressed in this thread, and shaped an energy policy that was based on conservation, alternative fuels, etc. His name was Jimmy Carter. Remember him? He was defeated in the election by Ronald Reagan. Carter failed to win a second term in office, and was widely viewed as a political failure. One of the first things Reagan did when in office was to remove the solar panels from the roof of the White House. He reversed Carter's energy policy in its entirety. And the US has followed a Reaganite energy policy ever since. Screw conservation! Get yourself a nice big, fat SUV.

I don't see any prospect of the US returning to a Carter-like policy. Possibly some initiatives could be taken at the state level, but with states like California electing Enron-tainted politicians like Arnold S. as governor, don't count on that happening.

As long as advocating conservation spells political defeat at the polls, it isn't going to happen in the US.

If 1vegan has any ideas about how to make it politically popular in the US, I'd be very interested in hearing them.