Last night NPR’s Marketplace ran a story titled “Discovery discovers green programming doesn’t sell.” Planet Green is a specialty cable TV channel owned by Discovery and dedicated to the subject of living green. Marketplace interviewed broadcast-industry journalist Tom Umstead who said: “It was laudable that Discovery tried to use Planet Green to promote a green lifestyle. But in the end, it’s a very niche audience.”

A top goal of STAND FOR LESS is to change behaviors through educating people about the importance of sustainability. After three years on the beat we are as committed to education as ever, yet we are also aware that larger market forces and trends are arguably more important in influencing and changing consumer behavior. We hope that we can give people context, deepen their understanding, even change behaviors, but on a broader scale markets drive consumers more than we ever will.

STAND FOR LESS was launched after the great contraction of the economic collapse of 2008. That collapse led people to STAND FOR LESS, because they simply had to as they were forced to face hard economic realities.

Now gas prices are rising again, and again Americans have an increased interest in standing for less with more fuel-efficient cars and driving less.

At STAND FOR LESS we are cheerleaders for policies that will lead to changing behaviors.

Clean energy and energy conservation are two of the most critical components of lightening the human impact on the planet. A gas tax, phased in over a period of 12-24 months is one idea that will have a massive impact on energy consumption. After all, how idiotic is it that Americans still drive cars that rarely exceed 30 miles per gallon when the technology for 50 MPG cars has been around for decades and is only better today? We can drive cars and STAND FOR LESS, and it’s important to drive less too!

No amount of great programming from the likes of Planet Green, or posts from STAND FOR LESS, will change habits when fuel prices remain low, as they have when adjusted for inflation. We can wait for gas prices to rise, as they will, or we can use public policy to change behavior and lessen our demand for things like oil. Long-term policies have supported cheap oil, at a high cost. Even with the most aggressive policies supporting conservation and clean energy we will need oil for years to come, but it’s time to accelerate the shift.

Smart policies like a phased-in gas tax can be sold to the public, but it will require bold political leadership as well as bipartisanship. That may seem unrealistic but the writing is on the wall for our civilization’s future if we fail to make these types of changes.

Planet Green may have failed, but we cannot give up the fight for proactive public policies that will change behaviors because living in more sustainable ways grows more important with each passing day.

Recently The New York Times published an article titled: “U.S. Inches Toward Goal of Energy Independence.”

On the surface this is not just good news, it’s somewhat unexpected news that is outstanding. America’s reliance on foreign oil has come at a steep price both in dollars shipped overseas to purchase black crude, and in the high cost of implementing American foreign policies designed to protect access to foreign oil–especially in the Persian Gulf region. Trillions and trillions of American dollars have gone to purchasing and preserving access to oil.

Our concern regarding this news of America’s decreased dependence on foreign oil is twofold: First, where is this new American energy coming from and at what cost to the environment? Second, what’s the impact to fueling climate changing carbon dioxide as Americans extract additional fossil fuels in North America?

A glaring fact that stands between the lines of the New York Times piece is that the new extraction techniques behind America’s current oil and gas boom make it clear that this is indeed the era of Peak Oil. Higher oil prices, unprecedented demand, and new technologies are allowing humans to go deeper and squeeze harder to extract the oil and gas that our modern lives depend on. This is to be expected as the easy to extract fuels have already been removed. The result is the most pronounced increase in American fossil fuel production since 1970 when the U.S. passed peak oil production.

The article emphasizes the important role conservation plays in decreasing the need for foreign oil. It also discusses, though doesn’t belabor, the costs to the environment from increased domestic oil and gas extraction. One of the environmentalists featured discusses the 2012 equivalent to the snail darter (in this case an obscure Texas lizard). As always, this trope does an excellent job of belittling concerns for the environment and biodiversity.

Then there’s that issue of carbon emissions and climate change. Scientists have told us that if we hope to impact extremely troubling trends we need to dramatically change our energy consumption by using cleaner energy and using less energy. The newly available and abundant supplies of fossil fuels in North America mean that it’s almost certainly going to be more of the same regarding American carbon emissions and energy consumption habits. It’s true that burning natural gas emits less carbon than coal, however, it’s still a high-carbon energy when compared to solar, wind, and nuclear.

Reducing dependence on foreign oil is outstanding for the United States. The U.S. has paid dearly in executing foreign policies designed to keep the spigots opened. Yet Americans forget at their own peril the costs associated with extracting domestic sources of fossil fuels. What will it take for the U.S. to aggressively move toward clean energy sources and seriously address its addiction to fossil fuels?

It’s also illegal for any part of the federal government to buy oil derived from oil shale.

Why is this?

In 2007 President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act. Section 526 of this law requires that the federal government “not enter into contracts that would lead to the purchase of synthetic, alternative, or nonconventional fuels with higher global warming-related emissions than conventional fuels.”

Former Senator John Warner testified last week on behalf of this law and urged Congress to keep it—because it’s working. He said that the law “has been an important catalyst [for the Department of Defense’s] efforts to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and find alternatives such as advanced biofuels to increase energy independence and security.” DoD is the largest energy user in the federal government and it is also one of the leading energy innovators in the U.S.

Some of the worst energy sources include oil extracted from tar sands and oil shale. This is because of the enormous amount of energy required to process these materials and get the oil out. By contrast, crude oil would have to be classified as a clean energy source.

There have been strong efforts to overturn this law, but people like former Senator Warner and Congressman Adam Smith of Washington state have worked hard to preserve the law.

It is only with laws like this that Americans will have incentives to seek cleaner sources of energy and wean ourselves off of foreign oil. As we know, the cleanest energy sources are those we can tap into right here at home including solar and wind energy.

We thank the U.S. Government for taking a stand against oil from shale or tar sands and taking a STAND FOR LESS carbon emissions from our energy sources.

If such energy is bad for the government, isn’t it bad for all of us?

Sources:

• John Warner testimony
• DoD weighs in to support law
• Text of law

STAND FOR LESS of this:

Go green with a solar charger for your laptop. Don’t miss this review by Jaymi Heimbuch: “5 Best Portable Solar Laptop Chargers.”

Watch what’s happening in Wadebridge, England as they ambitiously move toward renewable energy:

The 2012 Prius C (Photo courtesy of Toyota Motors, USA)

It’s getting toward sunset and I’m lost, sitting behind the wheel of a cherry-red Prius C prototype, at the bottom of a very steep hill somewhere in the urban wilds of San Diego.

My driving partner, Melissa Hincha-Ownby, looks over and flashes a big grin. In addition to being an auto-geek, the MNN blogger is also something of a mind reader. “Go for it!” she cries.

I do – jamming the pedal to the metal.

Imagine the smell of burning rubber as we rocket up the hill, the acceleration slamming us back into our seats. If you can picture that, you may want to get your imagination recalibrated. This newest addition to the family is still a Prius, after all, one of the most fuel-efficient vehicles on the road. And, with an estimated in-town rating of 53 mpg, the C is the most efficient hybrid vehicle on the market. No. This is not a muscle car.

Still, the C is the nimblest incarnation of the world’s best selling hybrid, and we happily zoom up the hill with no hesitation, strain or detectable shudder. The engine is slightly smaller than the standard model, but reduced weight and improved aerodynamics compensate for the lower horsepower.

Satoshi Ogiso, Chief Toyota engineer for Prius (Photo by Osha Gray Davidson)

I had been skeptical at the morning briefing when Toyota’s chief Prius engineer, Satoshi Ogiso, described the C as “feisty.” Feisty is still a stretch. But, this scaled-down version of the Prius is surprisingly fun to drive. At just 2,496 pounds, the C is the lightest Prius sold – by over 500 pounds. The tires have been pushed to the outside of the frame, giving the C a wider stance. (Must get image of Larry Craig out of my head!) The car’s Nickel-Metal Hydride battery has been moved forward and dropped down, lowering the center of gravity and giving the C more stability cornering.

The C stands for “city,” according to Toyota, but “compact” fits, too. The new model is a full 19” shorter than the liftback, as the original Prius has been renamed. “Cheaper” would also apply, with the C starting at $18,950.

Trunk space is limited, but with the rear seats folded down the total cargo area is a decent 17.1 cubic feet, enough for groceries or even a bike or two.

Performance, efficiency, room. That brings us to, um, aesthetics.

No one has ever called the Prius the world’s most beautiful car, and the C is unlikely to change that. Still, the redesigned back-end and changed proportions have made the car physically attractive. Maybe the ugly duckling hasn’t become a swan, but it has developed into a perfectly nice duck. If aesthetics kept the Prius out of the running for some buyers, the new Prius C – with its great mileage, lower price, supple handling and good looks — will appeal to a new generation of green-car buyers.

This post originally appeared at The Phoenix Sun, a blog by Osha Gray Davidson covering solar power and related topics.

It was 1982. Fuel prices had spiked over 250% since 1970. I lived in a family of ten—including eight kids. All but one of us was old enough to drive that year and we were all close in age. Desperate to better manage the family’s fuel costs, my stepdad (aka dad) decided to take a radical step–radical at a time when nearly everyone in our town drove American cars. At the expense of offending a neighbor who was a General Motors executive, and a source for business for my dad, he took the plunge and bought a Volkswagen Rabbit diesel—an import! The Rabbit got about 50 miles per gallon. Our GM vehicles in those days? About 15 mpg.

Flash forward thirty years.

The author's Honda Fit. It does OK with fuel economy.

It remains hard to find a car that gets more than 30 mpg. VW still has diesels and they still get in the vicinity of 50 mpg. Hybrids such as the Prius do about the same and are a welcome addition to the American auto fleet. New all-electric vehicles are making headway and finally showing promise for real fuel efficiency breakthroughs. However, demand for them is low because they are expensive and fuel remains relatively cheap.

Adjusting for inflation, gas is very near its historical average price for the past century (read more here on gas prices). According to this chart from the Department of Transportation (DOT), the average fuel economy of American vehicles has improved in the past few years, after lackluster changes over the past 30. Because of my personal experience in buying and owning a fuel efficient car, this DOT data seems like it overstates fuel efficiency (especially the section of the chart under “passenger cars”).

I still drive too much, even though my house is only a mile from my office. In order to let my dog out during the day I drive home which makes biking, walking, or taking a bus less practical on a daily basis.

As an individual who writes about standing for less and works hard to practice a conservation lifestyle, I know that sometimes it’s tough to make the adjustments needed if we hope to pass on a healthy planet to the next generation. At STAND FOR LESS we believe that it’s not a question of making sacrifices to our lifestyles, but finding smarter ways to live. Still, habits are hard to change!

Inexpensive fossil fuel has advantages for the American lifestyle, but maintaining these low prices is no way to run public policy if we want to reduce our dependence on oil, emit less carbon dioxide, and promote the health of the earth. Petroleum prices are heavily subsidized, including through the price paid for wars to maintain access to Middle Eastern oil.

My older brother used to like to repeat the statement: “There’s no free lunch.” That’s true enough, yet at STAND FOR LESS we know there are healthier lunches in the forms of public policies and individual choices that together will promote more sustainable living.

Can humans live in harmony with the planet rather than in a way that depletes natural resources and changes our climate?

We believe we can and one place to start is by standing for less fuel for our automobiles as well as relying on other forms of personal transportation.

Jim Breitinger
STAND FOR LESS

Evergreen’s mission statement is a good one for all of us.

Photo via Lloyd Alter:

Learn more about Canada’s Evergreen.

Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

Meanwhile other parts of the northern hemisphere experienced record cold weather. Bottom line: Major climate variations are the new norm. This is what Thomas Friedman calls “global weirding,” since global warming doesn’t mean a slow and steady warming of the planet in all places. Instead the climate change we’re experiencing creates new weather patterns which from a local perspective amount to a weirding of the weather.