4 ms·

Cars and the transportation sector are the primary consumers of oil. I think GP was saying, stop pointing at the oil company while you’re driving around in your

Cars and the transportation sector are the primary consumers of oil. I think GP was saying, stop pointing at the oil company while you’re driving around in your car. We should be pointing out the car centric transportation systems we have and work to fix them. We shouldn’t be encouraging things like suburban sprawl that increases car dependence. Reduce car usage, and you will reduce oil consumption.

bluefirebrand 2y ago
Yes, that's true But consumer vehicles are a tiny percentage of our actual overall consumption Yes we can and should reduce our usage here, but it needs to be in addition to other much bigger and important changes (which don't get talked about enough)
- jeffbee 2y ago
  Light-duty passenger vehicles are 15% of primary energy use. They are not a "tiny percentage", they are in fact the second-largest category (after manufacturing).
  - jjulius 2y ago
    15% might not technically be "tiny", sure, but that means there's a remaining 85% of energy being used in other areas, which is large enough to still supports GP's sentiment/point, IMO.
- bluejekyll 2y ago
  Not sure where this idea comes from that cars are a “small percentage”, but here’s what I could find: “light-duty vehicles (cars, small trucks, vans, sport utility vehicles, and motorcycles) 54.2%” of energy usage in the transportation sector of the US. https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/transportation-fuels https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/transportation-fuels
  - jjulius 2y ago
    > ... energy usage in the transportation sector of the US. Climate change isn't limited to one country. Additionally, you're also mis-quoting your source. According to your link, only "about 28% of total U.S. energy consumption in 2021 was for transporting people and goods from one place to another". The 54.2% you're citing is the percentage of light-duty vehicles that make up that 28% of energy use. In other words, only ~15% of energy usage in the US is from light-duty vehicles.
    - bluejekyll 2y ago
      The reason I highlighted the % of transportation that’s personal vehicles is to make it clear how much impact it has on the overall usage. 15% of total consumption is not a small percentage by any means, at least not by my estimation of small.
      - jjulius 2y ago
        I don't think it's "tiny" as OP mentioned, sure, but to my mind (and as I mentioned in another comment), that leaves a remaining 85%. 85% is a portion that I'd be comfortable using the word "most" for - eg, most of the energy usage in this country comes from sources other than light-duty vehicles. I think that's the point OP was making, word choice (eg, "tiny") aside.
        bluejekyll 2y ago
        There’s a good opportunity for those other use cases as many of them are centrally located and so with investment that could be in the form of government subsidies (if they could every agree on anything) to upgrade factories and utilities, etc. And at 85% utilization, you’re correct that it’s a big opportunity.
      - bluefirebrand 2y ago
        That 15% is in the USA, a country that has largely shipped it's manufacturing overseas. Globally it's estimated to be a smaller percentage overall, although it does seem that it still is closer to 10% according to this: https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport/cars-and-vans https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport/cars-and-vans So yes, maybe it's not "tiny". My point still stands, I think. We are focusing much more than 10-15% of our overall efforts on optimizing a slice that doesn't seem like it will contribute improvements relative to our efforts
arp242 2y ago
> I think GP was saying, stop pointing at the oil company while you’re driving around in your car. No, because it's not about passenger cars. How do you think the supermarket gets stocked? And how do you think the food gets grown? And how did that laptop you're using go from raw materials to the laptop? Whether you like it or not, oil is needed for damn near everything. "Oil companies" really aren't the problem here; they're not forcing anyone to buy oil. The problem is the entire modern economy runs on oil in all sorts of ways, and actually changing that requires a much more wholistic solution than "zomg Microsoft does business with Big Oil!"
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago
  Seems like anyone living in society has no right to criticise things society consumes. You logic is self defeating. Restricting supply of oil is exactly the right approach and will cause economy to move to alternatives
  - arp242 2y ago
    > Seems like anyone living in society has no right to criticise things society consumes. I never said that. I said the efforts were misdirected.
therobots927 2y ago
I couldn't agree more. We should have high speed rails interconnecting the top 30 most populated cities in the US. There's no reason why we couldn't still build something like that.
- bombcar 2y ago
  We have something better than high speed rail connecting the 30 most populated cities - planes. We could save some on fuel by using rail, but the bigger advantage would be converting shorter trips (people AND freight) to rail.
  - therobots927 2y ago
    That's counterintuitive to me but to be fair I've never actually looked at the numbers. Does rail really not save much in fuel relative to planes?
    - bluejekyll 2y ago
      Trains would be easier to electrify than planes, assuming the electricity can be sourced cleanly.
      - ClumsyPilot 2y ago
        What do you mean would be, India China Russia and most of Europe have nearly 100% electric trains
        bluejekyll 2y ago
        While most commuter trains in the US are electric, that’s not the case for cargo or long-haul passenger rail. So “would be” refers to the opportunity to electrify those lines. Many of the tracks in the US are not electrified today.
        bombcar 2y ago

bluefirebrand 2y ago

Yes, that's true But consumer vehicles are a tiny percentage of our actual overall consumption Yes we can and should reduce our usage here, but it needs to be in addition to other much bigger and important changes (which don't get talked about enough)

jeffbee 2y ago
Light-duty passenger vehicles are 15% of primary energy use. They are not a "tiny percentage", they are in fact the second-largest category (after manufacturing).
- jjulius 2y ago
  15% might not technically be "tiny", sure, but that means there's a remaining 85% of energy being used in other areas, which is large enough to still supports GP's sentiment/point, IMO.
bluejekyll 2y ago
Not sure where this idea comes from that cars are a “small percentage”, but here’s what I could find: “light-duty vehicles (cars, small trucks, vans, sport utility vehicles, and motorcycles) 54.2%” of energy usage in the transportation sector of the US. https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/transportation-fuels https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/transportation-fuels
- jjulius 2y ago
  > ... energy usage in the transportation sector of the US. Climate change isn't limited to one country. Additionally, you're also mis-quoting your source. According to your link, only "about 28% of total U.S. energy consumption in 2021 was for transporting people and goods from one place to another". The 54.2% you're citing is the percentage of light-duty vehicles that make up that 28% of energy use. In other words, only ~15% of energy usage in the US is from light-duty vehicles.
  - bluejekyll 2y ago
    The reason I highlighted the % of transportation that’s personal vehicles is to make it clear how much impact it has on the overall usage. 15% of total consumption is not a small percentage by any means, at least not by my estimation of small.
    - jjulius 2y ago
      I don't think it's "tiny" as OP mentioned, sure, but to my mind (and as I mentioned in another comment), that leaves a remaining 85%. 85% is a portion that I'd be comfortable using the word "most" for - eg, most of the energy usage in this country comes from sources other than light-duty vehicles. I think that's the point OP was making, word choice (eg, "tiny") aside.
      - bluejekyll 2y ago
        There’s a good opportunity for those other use cases as many of them are centrally located and so with investment that could be in the form of government subsidies (if they could every agree on anything) to upgrade factories and utilities, etc. And at 85% utilization, you’re correct that it’s a big opportunity.
    - bluefirebrand 2y ago
      That 15% is in the USA, a country that has largely shipped it's manufacturing overseas. Globally it's estimated to be a smaller percentage overall, although it does seem that it still is closer to 10% according to this: https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport/cars-and-vans https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport/cars-and-vans So yes, maybe it's not "tiny". My point still stands, I think. We are focusing much more than 10-15% of our overall efforts on optimizing a slice that doesn't seem like it will contribute improvements relative to our efforts

arp242 2y ago

> I think GP was saying, stop pointing at the oil company while you’re driving around in your car. No, because it's not about passenger cars. How do you think the supermarket gets stocked? And how do you think the food gets grown? And how did that laptop you're using go from raw materials to the laptop? Whether you like it or not, oil is needed for damn near everything. "Oil companies" really aren't the problem here; they're not forcing anyone to buy oil. The problem is the entire modern economy runs on oil in all sorts of ways, and actually changing that requires a much more wholistic solution than "zomg Microsoft does business with Big Oil!"

ClumsyPilot 2y ago
Seems like anyone living in society has no right to criticise things society consumes. You logic is self defeating. Restricting supply of oil is exactly the right approach and will cause economy to move to alternatives
- arp242 2y ago
  > Seems like anyone living in society has no right to criticise things society consumes. I never said that. I said the efforts were misdirected.

therobots927 2y ago

I couldn't agree more. We should have high speed rails interconnecting the top 30 most populated cities in the US. There's no reason why we couldn't still build something like that.

bombcar 2y ago
We have something better than high speed rail connecting the 30 most populated cities - planes. We could save some on fuel by using rail, but the bigger advantage would be converting shorter trips (people AND freight) to rail.
- therobots927 2y ago
  That's counterintuitive to me but to be fair I've never actually looked at the numbers. Does rail really not save much in fuel relative to planes?
  - bluejekyll 2y ago
    Trains would be easier to electrify than planes, assuming the electricity can be sourced cleanly.
    - ClumsyPilot 2y ago
      What do you mean would be, India China Russia and most of Europe have nearly 100% electric trains
      - bluejekyll 2y ago
        While most commuter trains in the US are electric, that’s not the case for cargo or long-haul passenger rail. So “would be” refers to the opportunity to electrify those lines. Many of the tracks in the US are not electrified today.
        bombcar 2y ago