Conservation: the next big thing!

From time to time, when people talk about the oil crisis we face, and the need for a viable alternative energy resource, the idea is put forth that all we have to do is go at it as we did putting a man on the moon. We did that in less than a decade, so why not this?

Here’s why not: There aren’t too many blank spots left on the periodic table of the elements. We’ve found all the obvious stuff here on earth, and these days, if some scientist does manage to find something new to add, it’s invariably something like “garbanzobeanium” and it’s really rare. There’s simply nothing left to discover around here that will do all for us that oil has done for us. But that doesn’t mean we can’t all work together to solve the problem. There is a solution, you just won’t like it. Oh, and the US space program is pretty much wrapped up, too. Time to move on.

I must have been out the day “conservation” became a dirty word in America. It became un-American, and maybe just a little bit pink-o. Too bad, ‘cause that’s what’s gonna save us. The big “Moon Landing/Manhattan Project” response to the oil crisis is for us to go after conservation like there’s no tomorrow. Because if we don’t, there isn’t.

Since we do so very little conservation here in America right now, this is a wide open field of possibilities. We are such energy pigs. Where to begin? At home, we need to set goals for energy and resource consumption. What if we said everyone had to limit their home energy use to 5 kwh a day and 750 gallons of water a month, per person? First off, you’d have to figure out how much you are using now to see how little that is. But could you do it? Could you use that little? That ain’t much, but it’s also what the Lovely JoAnn and I use together in our house, so it can be done. I dare you to even take the time to figure out what you use at home, either per person or in total. You will be amazed.

We drive about 10,000 miles a year, and yes, we could reduce that, if and when we have to. We are not extravagant drivers, and again, that figure is for both of us together - about 5,000 miles per person per year. Put like that, it ain’t so bad. But what about you? There’s no doubt that the oil crisis will hit our driving habits hard - and first. How much could you conserve there? Time to start looking.

Of course, for any national conservation effort to work, the public has to be given a very good reason to make the sacrifice. It has to be a sort of Patriotic War Effort thing, and there are far too few people left around here who remember the last one. Still, we did it then, and we can do it again - if we are shown that we have to. I’ve always said that Americans are lousy about planning ahead, but great when it comes to responding to a crisis. And this will be all that.

So maybe now’s the time to buck the trend and look at your life in terms of future conservation potential. How much could you save, how much less would you need to use, if you absolutely had to? Eventually you will, National Conservation Effort or not. Conservation needs to be our next Big Thing.

Pick a car . . . .

Alas, the Tesla Roadster is no more. Or rather, they’ll stop taking orders for them in a couple of months. And while this is touted as big news in the auto world, I’m not shedding a tear for the loss. Did the world really need a $109,000 electric car? Apparently only 1,650 people thought so. And I was not one of them.

The car was based on the Lotus Elise platform, meaning it looked like it was designed by a 14-year-old boy trying to impress his older friend who has a driver’s license. Sure, it went from zero to sixty in under four seconds and it would do 125 mph, but it could take up to 48 hours to be fully charged. Let’s see . . . charge for days, drive for hours. Nope, not for me. You?

So Tesla has decided to stop making an electric sports car and go for a sedan. Is that going to fare any better? The new machine is priced at $58,000, but the first ones will go for $80,000. (Huh?) If you have any stock in Tesla, you also have my sympathy. I’m not sure what the public is really looking for these days in personal transportation, but I’m pretty sure it’s not an eighty thousand dollar sedan with a limited range that takes forever to “fill up”.

What I’d like to see someone build (or import to the US) is a small car with a one-liter gasoline engine. Make it a 90-degree V4 with fuel injection and offer it with either a six-speed manual or four-speed automatic transmission. Make it out of aluminum, so it’s both light and rust-free. Have it seat at least three people, or two plus groceries. And paint it bright colors. I hate grey cars. Oh, and could you maybe make it NOT BORING?

Small cars don’t have to be dull. They can be cool and fun and exciting. The new Fiat 500 looks like a party on four wheels. The Smart Car is still interesting. The Mini Cooper rocks. Me, I think the Toyota Yaris is a fun little egg. I’d drive that!

In the years ahead, we’re going to see all sorts of fun with the global oil supply, and I don’t doubt for a moment that the trend in personal transportation will be small, smaller and smallest, pretty much in that order. That doesn’t mean we have to settle for boring and dull cars. If we’re going to pay a fortune of gas, let’s get our money’s worth — let’s have some fun!

Ok, yes, for now I’m driving a big Chevy pickup truck, but hey — I’m looking. I want to know what’s out there and what my options are. Saw a pristine early 1980s Pontiac Fiero in the grocery store parking lot the other day. Remember those? This one looked as new. I wonder where it’s been hiding? And I wonder if we could get Chevrolet to bring back the Corvair, if for no other reason than to make Ralph Nader’s head explode.

It would be worth it for that alone.

Remember "Fifty-Five Saves Lives"?

That three-syllable word, those three little syllables, are being whispered again in the hallways and conference rooms in Washington, D. C. They are being mentioned in hushed tones with a knowing nod, a wink and a finger aside the nose. They are thinking about it out loud, but you haven’t heard them say them yet. You will. Just three little syllables:

“Fifty-five”.

Do you remember? Are you old enough to recall? It was the 1970s, an era of disco, big hair and Jimmy Carter, the peanut farmer what done good despite his brother Billy. To conserve energy, to conserve oil, the national speed limit was dropped to fifty-five. States that did not comply faced losing federal highways funds. So we all drove fifty-five. Or at least we pretended to when anyone was looking.

I remember driving the ninety miles or so out to Disney World under the new speed limit. Over sixty miles of the trip is done on I-4; a road where, no matter how fast you go, someone will pass you. Taken at fifty-five, the ride was leisurely and bucolic. Very relaxing. I have to say that even then, as young and wild and free as I was, I did enjoy the laid back pace of fifty-five. I was also driving a ’72 VW Bug, but it was capable of going faster. Ah, fifty-five. Homer Simpson said it best: “Sure, it will save some lives, but millions will be late.” My 1981 Yamaha SR500 motorcycle still sports the speedometer style of the era: “55” is highlighted in red, and the thing only reads to 85, despite the machine being capable of much more. That was the trend of the day.

Will we be returning to those lethargic drives of yesteryear? If we do, I hope we do it right this time. Sure, fifty-five saved fuel out on the open road, but we don’t drive on the open road all the time. What about the lesser roads? What about around town? If we do go back to a reduced speed limit (and I do believe we will eventually), I suggest we make a sweep of it; that is, yes, lower the national rural speed limit to fifty-five, but then get in there and finish the job: Lower every road’s speed limit by at least five miles an hour. If you’re going to save, by golly, then save.

It will be interesting to see if we do go back to the lowered speed limit. Right now, the political timing is off. That’s not something you do unless you absolutely have to — if you want to be re-elected. For the U.S. to drop its speed limits again, there will have to be a crisis worthy of the effort again. In the 70’s, it was the Arab Oil Embargo. And now? Will peak oil, or a sudden cutoff of our oil supplies for whatever the reason be enough to get us to slow down? I see no way that Americans would accept it simply because it made good sense. We have to have a pressing reason to make sense. Hopefully with the usual attached media circus.

Lake Avenue runs north-south along the west side of our house. It gets about 4,000 cars a day, and it seems like most of them are traveling well in excess of the road’s 30 mph speed limit. Mister President, if you read this, you can start right there with that lowered speed limit thing. Any time. Please.

I can drive fifty-five.