Energy disinformation

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By

"We have apparently used up to 40 percent of our oil supply. ... There is need for a countrywide thrift campaign looking to the saving of this essential resource."

When U.S. Geological Survey Director George Otis Smith issued that warning in 1920, he probably was prompted by the jump in the crude oil price to $3.40 a barrel -- a level not seen again for 50 years.

We have heard Smith's story repeated many times since, whenever the price oil went up. A National Geographic cover story for June, "The end of cheap oil," suggested the oil price is high because the world is using it faster than it can be replaced. But if high oil prices today prove the world is running out of oil, what was proven by $11 oil in late 1998?

By mid-June, the Economist price index for industrial metals was 34 percent higher than a year ago, while oil was up less than 20 percent. Should we conclude the planet is suddenly running out of iron and copper this year, or (more sensibly) that global industry picked up smartly after the paralysis that preceded the Iraq war?

In 1920, conservationists like Smith pointed at the gigantic cars of the day, such as Packard and Pierce Arrow, which were soon displaced by more economical cars like Ford's Model T, which achieved 20 to 25 miles per gallon (mpg), but with only 20 horsepower. Today those fingers are pointed at SUVs. The common belief is that if more Americans could be shamed, bribed or compelled to buy small cars, the price of oil and gasoline would come down and stay down.

National Geographic thus ends its essay by asking, "Should tax deductions for hybrid cars (i.e., subsidies to those affluent enough to purchase new imported cars) be increased?"

The concept of conserving fuel among the small number of new passenger vehicles to lower prices is chimerical, since lower prices would encourage more driving among owners of the much larger fleet of older vehicles. Besides, the trendy idea SUVs use a huge share of energy is wildly inaccurate.

On June 13, The Washington Post's writer Jonathan Weiseman wrote a feature subtitled, "History says gas spike won't smother SUV love." That familiar theme was undermined, however, by an accompanying table showing small cars accounted for 40 percent of U.S. passenger vehicles in 1975, yet average mileage was then only 13.1 mpg.

By 1988, the small car share was up only modestly to 43.8 percent, yet average mileage had improved enormously to 22.1 mpg. Clearly, nearly all the 1975-88 improved average fuel economy was due to technological advances such as fuel injection and radial tires, not a significant shift to smaller cars.

By 2004, small cars accounted for merely 22.9 percent of the fleet, yet average mileage nonetheless declined by only 1.3 mpg (to 20.8). That 1.3 mpg is what the SUV fuss is all about. It is certainly true dangerously tiny cars have recently become less attractive to consumers than in 1988, but one reason is even luxury cars have become much more fuel-efficient.