What's Not to Like About Cheap Gas

Where Cheap Gas Takes Us: More Smog Ahead If We Don't Stop Guzzling

By James J. MacKenzie

Mar. 7, 1999

Did you know that every 15 gallons of gas your car burns releases about 300 pounds of carbon dioxide into the air? Or that for every 10-percent drop in gas prices, there is a 1-percent increase in domestic travel? Or that a Dodge Durango burns about twice as much gas as a Nissan Sentra?

With the current slump in gas prices, those pesky statistics may seem too abstract to concern us much. But all Americans, from commuters who slog through smog-filled rush hours on the Beltway to adventurers who envision roaring off to the Rockies with a cut-rate tiger in their tank, ought to think twice about the broader environmental implications of the new cheap-oil era.

First, more driving means more congestion. That means more road rage, more wear and tear on your car, more summer smog and more gas consumption--hence, more emissions of greenhouse gases. Gasoline is about 85 percent carbon by weight, and while there is some debate about how much impact burning fossil fuels will have on changing the climate, there is no doubt that gas and diesel fumes cause smog.

Wait a minute, you say. What about the broader benefits, the positive ripple effect that lower oil prices have throughout the U.S. economy? They help keep inflation in check. They are salvation to the airline and travel industries, which depend heavily on low fuel costs. They boost sales of minivans, pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles, adding millions of dollars to the economy.

But there are many hidden and protracted costs to these financial windfalls. Over the long term, the proliferation of large, inefficient vehicles commits the country to a long period of higher fuel consumption. About half of new light-duty vehicles purchased for personal use are trucks, which burn much more gas than cars and meet laxer pollution standards. Largely because of the popularity of vans, trucks and SUVs, the average fleet efficiency for new cars and trucks has been declining since its peak in 1987. In short, new vehicles are getting less, not more, efficient.

Higher gasoline consumption leads to more than just greater greenhouse gas emissions. The United States has ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change signed at the 1992 earth summit in Rio de Janeiro, and committed itself to returning its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. Low fuel prices help make achieving this goal virtually impossible. America's transportation carbon dioxide emissions in 1997 were 10 percent higher than in 1990 and have continued to rise, fueled in large part by the popularity of inefficient new trucks.

Moreover, using more gas means importing more oil, and that can mean having to physically protect our access to energy in a politically turbulent region. In 1991, the United States was willing to go to war with Iraq in order to prevent a rogue dictator from gaining control of Persian Gulf oil. And yet, ironically, it is unwilling to take the steps necessary to reduce dependence on that region's oil supply.

There is no getting around the fact that Americans are becoming increasingly dependent on vehicles to meet their simplest needs. If you cannot drive because of age or disability, you are pretty much out of luck. Public transportation is generally practical only for straight-line trips between city jobs and suburban homes, while two-thirds of today's commuting is between suburbs, and the vast majority of personal trips involve multiple stops at malls, schools, medical clinics or sports facilities.

It has taken half a century to create the car-dependent sprawl around us, a trend accelerated by relatively low oil prices, and changing it will not be easy or quick. But there are solutions, some of which are already being developed. For example, metropolitan planners can encourage high-density development around transit stops with mixed residential, retail and commercial uses. Currently in use at some Metrorail stations in the Washington area, this kind of planning reduces the need for so many trips--and the problems associated with oil consumption.

Another solution, although an unpopular one, is to control demand. This can be done by increasing the gas tax, with a corresponding reduction in other taxes such as the income tax. It can also be accomplished through highway tolls that vary with time of day and traffic conditions, helping to bring transportation supply and demand into balance and reducing congestion on the country's beltways.

Over the long haul, the environmental and security threats stemming from our near-total reliance on oil for transportation will require an array of new cars and trucks that use alternative fuel sources. Natural-gas vehicles, while very clean by most standards, still emit greenhouse gases and are not a long-term, sustainable solution. Hybrids (efficient, gasoline-powered vehicles using batteries) are also clean but ultimately, they still emit some carbon dioxide into the air.

In the next century, most vehicles will probably run on some combination of batteries and hydrogen fuel cells. These cells, the darling of the high-tech community, are like batteries in that they produce electricity with no combustion or moving parts. They also produce water, but they emit no fumes.

Unfortunately, these new technologies are still expensive and have a hard time competing against gasoline--especially when it is selling for a dollar per gallon. But today, many people realize that, one way or another, our transportation systems need to be made more environmentally sustainable. At a minimum, fuel manufacturing must soon begin the transition to non-fossil energy forms that can be produced from renewable energy sources. This step alone would greatly cut pollution, lower greenhouse gas emissions and eliminate the international risks arising from dependence on Middle East oil.

The major remaining question is whether we have enough sense to tax ourselves now for the long-term benefits offered by these alternatives.

James MacKenzie, who lives in suburban Maryland, is a senior associate with the Climate, Energy and Pollution program of the World Resources Institute.