Comment on take their money and arrest those responsible
sparkyshocks@lemmy.zip 2 days agoExactly. Cutting out all net resource consumption is really difficult, but almost all of the difficulty tends to come in the second half. The first half is worth doing.
Somewhat counterintuitively, switching from a 15 mpg vehicle to a 20 mpg vehicle (and driving the same number of miles) represents a greater reduction in fuel consumption compared to switching from 20 mpg to 30 mpg. Side note, this is also why we probably should’ve always been talking about fuel consumption per unit distance rather than distance per unit fuel, but it’s hard to change the conventions around this.
So there are a ton of examples of products that use far more or less energy than alternatives, or simple changes in time of day that can make a huge difference in fossil fuel demand.
Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
I understand and agree with your general point, I don’t believe it’s counter intuitive but accept than many people do. In any case, you used range distance disparities too close together to be accurate with a shift from a 5 to 10 mpg split. I’ll just covert to a unit per distance, as you referenced (gallons per 100 miles): 15 mpg = 6.67 gallons per 100 miles 20 mpg = 5 gallons per 100 miles 30 mpg = 3.33 gallons per 100 miles 40 mpg = 2.5 gallons per 100 miles
As calculated upgrading from 15 mpg to 20 mpg would take 1.67 fewer gallons to go 100 miles while upgrading from 20 mpg to 30 mpg would also take 1.67 fewer gallons to go 100 miles. Upgrading from 30 mpg to 40 mpg would only further reduce fuel required to go 100 miles by 0.83 gallons.
Again, I with your broader point, 15 to 20 being the same improvement as 20 to 30 is likely just as impactful and also accurate.