One of the most striking findings from this year's Cascadia Scorecard from Sightline Institute (just released Tuesday, by the way) is that Northwesterners -- or, more properly, the residents of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and British Columbia -- are using less gasoline. In fact, per person gas consumption on the Northwest's roads and highways has fallen by nearly a tenth since the late 1990s.
To put the recent declines in context: cutting gas consumption by nearly a tenth is equivalent to each driver taking a one-month holiday from driving each year. At this point, the average resident of the U.S. Northwest uses less gas than at any time since 1967.
In case you're the chart-oriented type, here's what the long-term trend looks like.
Of course, the region's population has increased, so the recent trend in total consumption isn't quite as rosy: rather than declining, total consumption has remained roughly flat for the last eight years or so. But even that represents a huge break from the preceding decade and a half, during which gas consumption rose roughly in tandem with population.
Apparently, sharp price increases since the late 1990s -- when gas prices, adjusted for inflation, were at all-time lows -- has prompted a number of changes in how we get around town:
- We're driving a bit less. Person for person, vehicle mileage trends in the Northwest are on the decline. The decline is small and tentative, but if federal numbers are to be believed, it's real. There are several possible reasons for this. The first is that rising gas prices have encouraged us to chain trips (e.g., to run two errands on one trip) and to choose destinations closer to home (e.g., the local hardware store rather than the megastore a few miles away). The other possibility is that a gradual increase in urban density in recent years may have contributed to the decline in driving; people tend to drive less in urban areas, since there's a greater variety of stores and services a short drive away, or even within easy walking or biking distance.
- We're driving more efficient cars. In the Northwest, sales of hybrids have outpaced Hummers for years. More generally, there's some evidence that sales of the largest, least efficient SUVs have fallen. But more subtle shifts are likely having an impact. In families that have access to more than one vehicle, people are choosing to use more efficient ones for some trips. That is, some people who have the option are choosing cars over trucks.
- We're riding transit. Between 1999 and 2006, transit boardings in greater Vancouver and Portland have gone up by about 25 percent; in the Puget Sound it's been about 11 percent. Commuters, in particular, seem to be choosing buses over cars -- which may have as much to do with congestion and parking prices as with anything else.
So, gasoline is the good news. And it's especially good, since the reductions, at least in the Northwest states, are steeper than for the rest of the U.S. The reasons for the Northwest's advantages aren't completely clear, but it may be that good transit and effective land use policies have given drivers in the Northwest more options for fuel savings than elsewhere in the country.
The bad news is that the broader energy trends tracked by the Scorecard aren't doing so well. Diesel consumption is still on the rise, largely due to an increase in long-distance shipping. (We're buying more stuff, and it's coming from farther away.) And electricity consumption in homes and businesses apparently ticked upward last year -- the third straight year of per capita increase
The increases in diesel and electricity completely negated the decreases in gasoline consumption. So that gives us a good news/bad news story: good news in gasoline, and disappointing news for overall energy consumption.
This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!
Oil: enough energy to melt glaciers!
Comments
View as Flat
feonixrift Posted 2:22 am
15 Jun 2007
Permalink
DogsCatsAndStrays Posted 2:37 am
15 Jun 2007
With electricity I predict larger increases in per capita consumption as large plasma screen televisions replace more energy efficient CRT's. Also more computers per capita will drive power consumption up.
Permalink
odograph Posted 2:47 am
15 Jun 2007
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:17 am
15 Jun 2007
Where does the 5-year turnover figure come from?
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
odograph Posted 3:31 am
15 Jun 2007
It's true that cars last longer now.
It's true that turnover can accelerate as fuel prices increase. If I recall correctly, the retirement rate went above 10% in the 70s/80s.
So, it's a fuzzy area for projection, and probably a bad idea to say that a rate "is" in the sense that "it will continue to be."
I'd expect changes, especially if we make the global warming and resource issues sell ;-)
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 5:07 am
15 Jun 2007
Maybe salting the roads was part of the auto-ecosystem and should be brought back. Even today, there are horribly old cars farting around I-5, and I remember reading that 1 car in 100 is usually responsible for 90% of the pollution. And that car is usually so old it's grandfathered in under the emissions testing laws (in WA state, if it's twenty years or older, it can be the biggest FartMobile it wants to be).
With technology advancing so fast, this is a case where planned obsolescence would be a good thing. If we can get everyone into a 150 mpg plugin-hybrid like the Chevy Volt -- Hooty The Owl will be whistling Dixie.
John Bailo
You Read It Here First
Permalink
gmunger Posted 5:36 am
15 Jun 2007
It works like this, and it don't cost a dime:
In the summer, close windows and shades in the morning, prior to the onset of solar heating. In the evening, as outdoor temperatures wane, open shades and windows to allow cool air in. Rinse, repeat.
In the winter, do the opposite, except just with the shades.
Whoa, dude. That's so cool.
Permalink
DogsCatsAndStrays Posted 5:46 am
15 Jun 2007
The best methodology to use for fleet average turnover is fleet half-life, it is probably as good a mathematical model as any. The trick is to try and guess the impact of external factors such as a doubling of gas prices. The five year half life (which I called turnover before) is from the oil industry and is based on gasoline price spike response. Historically the half life has been 8 years.
Permalink
gmunger Posted 6:13 am
15 Jun 2007
Who are you? And what have you done with jabaillo?
Permalink
odograph Posted 6:53 am
15 Jun 2007
Permalink
d41295 Posted 1:22 pm
15 Jun 2007
Do you think this is moral?
Permalink
tico89 Posted 1:41 pm
15 Jun 2007
If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?
Permalink
Chris Schults Posted 3:01 pm
15 Jun 2007
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 3:26 pm
15 Jun 2007
In any case, Clark provides a link to the original site, and he makes it very clear that he is reporting on the work that the Sightline Institute has done, not claiming it as his own.
Further, newspapers take press releases verbatim and report them as articles (without quotation marks) all the time, and nobody accuses them of plagiarism.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 3:30 pm
15 Jun 2007
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 3:31 pm
15 Jun 2007
grist.org
Permalink
d41295 Posted 3:35 pm
15 Jun 2007
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 3:57 pm
15 Jun 2007
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism#Self-plagiarism
Self-plagiarism is the reuse of significant, identical, or nearly identical portions of one's own work without acknowledging that one is doing so or without citing the original work.
[...]
In 1994 John Fogerty for was sued for self plagiarism after leaving Fantasy Records and pursuing a solo career with Warner Brothers. Fantasy still owned the rights to the CCR library and sound. Saul Zaentz, the owner of Fantasy, claimed Fogerty's song "Old Man Down the Road" was a musical copy of the Creedence song "Run Through the Jungle." The court made a landmark decision when it ruled the an artist cannot plagiarize him or herself.
m-w.com/dictionary/plagiarized
One entry found for plagiarize.
[...]
present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 4:09 pm
15 Jun 2007
Clark provides a link to the original site, and he makes it very clear that he is reporting on the work that the Sightline Institute has done, not claiming it as his own.
And nobody yet on this string has provided any comparisons of text to back up their accusations of plagiarism, even self-plagiarism.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 4:48 pm
15 Jun 2007
Clark provides a link to the original site, and he makes it very clear that he is reporting on the work that the Sightline Institute has done, not claiming it as his own.
What was given attribution was simply this year's Cascadia Scorecard. The verbatim text of the post was not given attribution, and that text is what was copied. In fact, the very sentence that you seem to think is providing proper attribution appears verbatim, and equally-unattributed, at multiple websites.
Was some of the Cascadia Scorecard copied as well? That question is not relevant at this point, because evidence of plagiarism of the entire text of the post exists regardless.
.
Ron Steenblik wrote: nobody yet on this string has provided any comparisons of text to back up their accusations of plagiarism
The text of the post appears verbatim or near-verbatim at multiple websites:
google.com/search?q=%22To+put+the+recent+declines+in+context%22&filter=0
Here is one. Does it look familiar?
It should.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 5:11 pm
15 Jun 2007
I suggest you do a google search on any Grist article, and you will see that they are picked up and reposted verbatim on hundreds or even thousands of other sites around the world. Writers cannot be blamed for other sites republishing their stories.
Whether writers themselves should be posting the same, original blogs on multiple web sites is a different question. I have noticed, however, that when David Roberts does, he makes it clear that the original was posted elsewhere. It seems, therefore, that the most Clark can be accused for is not mentioning that this article was also posted on Sightline's "Daily Score" website.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:28 pm
15 Jun 2007
What I want to know, Ron, is why you're engaging these clowns as though they are not clowns.
grist.org
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 5:36 pm
15 Jun 2007
But I try to ignore WHO is saying things and respond instead to WHAT they are saying. Plagiarism is a very serious charge, especially levied at a research director.
Thanks for setting the record straight.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 6:10 pm
15 Jun 2007
If mere agreement of all the concerned parties would make unattributed-copying not constitute an instance of plagiarism, then acts of the following types must also not constitute instances of plagiarism:
self-plagiarism (see above post in this thread)
submission, for academic grading, of an essay or report purchased from a paper-mill
contract cheating
Permalink