Survey Finds High Energy Prices Beginning to Change US Driver Behavior
03 June 2008
A national energy survey of 1,007 US respondents by RBC Capital Markets, released in conjunction with the investment bank’s annual North American Energy Conference being held in New York, found that in response to higher prices at the pump, 76% of those polled said they are driving less, 19% are using or plan to take public transportation more often and 11% have made or are considering carpool arrangements.
Four out of 10 workers said they have considered moving closer to their place of work in order to save on transportation costs, and 82% of respondents said they will consider buying a hybrid when they purchase their next vehicle.
Even Americans with incomes of more than $100,000 are feeling the energy pinch, with 48% saying they are dining out less often and 21% saving less for retirement.
While six out of 10 say they would rather pay more for cleaner fuels, an almost equal number of Americans (58 per cent) say it is more important to keep the money in their wallets.
When asked how their summer vacation plans have been altered, half said they are either staying locally or are not vacationing at all. Almost two-thirds of Americans said they would support a “holiday”, or repeal, of the federal gas tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Of this group, none said they would drive less, and nearly 20% said they would drive more because they could afford to.
Americans’ NIMBY (“Not In My Backyard”) syndrome also appears to be waning. Only 16% of Americans said that they would oppose the construction of any type of energy plant or facility in their hometown, down from 23% in 2007. 71% per cent of Americans said they would support an alternative-energy system in their hometown, including a wind or solar facility, up from 58% last year; 34% would support a clean coal technology plant (up from 27% last year); 32% would support a liquefied natural gas facility (up from 25% last year); and 21% would support a nuclear power plant (up from 17%).
Nevertheless, the survey found that although a majority of Americans attribute the rapid rise in gas prices to a lack of oil refining capacity in the US, eight out of 10 said they oppose the construction of an oil refinery in their hometown.
Americans are feeling the pain of soaring energy prices and it appears they are actually beginning to grasp the severity of our energy dependence. The dilemma has always been that the public want solutions to the country’s energy problems, but not solutions that would overly impinge on their day-to-day lives. That is starting to change and people are taking action.
—Kurt Hallead, Director of Global Energy Research for RBC Capital Markets
Notwithstanding all the changes Americans are making, compared with last year, respondents are far less optimistic about solving the country’s energy woes. When asked if the US will find a solution to its energy problems in your lifetime, 66% of survey respondents said no, up from 42% last year. Even so, eight out of 10 Americans polled said they will consider a candidate’s stand on energy issues in this year’s presidential election, an increase from about five out of 10 in 2004.
Other highlights of the survey include:
93% of Americans agree the US needs to find ways to produce more of its own oil rather than rely so much on foreign oil sources, while 59% said that oil drilling should be allowed in the North Atlantic and Pacific coastal areas or the Arctic.
When respondents were asked, “How far would you drive to save 20 cents on a gallon of gas?”,one out of five said they would drive 10 miles or more to save 20 cents per gallon.
Six out of 10 of those surveyed said they believe that their personal activities have a meaningful impact on global warming, yet 20% admitted they are not taking any steps to reduce their own carbon footprint.
More than half (54 per cent) of survey respondents disagreed with the idea of taxing Americans who drive SUVs or other gas-guzzling vehicles not required to perform their job.
The RBC survey was conducted 17-23 May 2008. GMI (Global Market Insite, Inc.) assisted RBC Capital Markets in the survey. The margin of error was ±2 per cent.
Please build a nuclear power plant in my backyard. I will use a long extension cord, so there is no need to charge me for distribution.
Posted by: NCyder | 03 June 2008 at 05:14 AM
93% of Americans agree the US needs to find ways to produce more of its own oil rather than rely so much on foreign oil sources, while 59% said that oil drilling should be allowed in the North Atlantic and Pacific coastal areas or the Arctic.
So...34% of Americans are hoping for magic fairy oil to solve their problems? Unfortunately, that sounds about right.
Posted by: Matthew | 03 June 2008 at 05:49 AM
93% of Americans agree the US needs to find ways to produce more of its own oil rather than rely so much on foreign oil sources, while 59% said that oil drilling should be allowed in the North Atlantic and Pacific coastal areas or the Arctic.
So...34% of Americans are hoping for magic fairy oil to solve their problems? Unfortunately, that sounds about right.
Posted by: Matthew | 03 June 2008 at 05:49 AM
I'd thought that $60 a bbl would have effected this change in attitudes but obviously the price had to be double that before people got the message.
Posted by: Neil | 03 June 2008 at 06:15 AM
What do you bet that of the 59% that want to see drilling in the North atlantic, Pacific, or Arctic don't agree exactly which of those they want? All the people in Cali want to drill off of New York and vice-versa. The midwesterners want to tap good ole Alaska. What a useless statistic, far too broad. NIMBY strikes again.
And of course, there is nothing to back up the statistic. Is there enough proven reserves in any of these places to impact the price of gas more than a few cents per gallon? My understanding is the answer is no. The amount of time and costs related to exploiting the resources would take around a decade and that is if the estimates on quality and quantity of fuel are correct. The US government will not let us "keep" our own oil like an opec nation, so it will go on the "open" market and be sent to Europe, China and India. The only people who make any sense in this statistic are the 7% who said we don't need more oil. We need alternatives. Luckily, we have them and they are just now coming to force.
Posted by: anonymous | 03 June 2008 at 06:23 AM
We still have a common very sensitive point, the green back.
Since the majority is still against carbon tax, oil may have to go to $200+/barrel and liquid fuel to $10+/gal to convince most of us to change our car buying and driving behavior.
Of course, with major increase in local agro-fuel production, food price may double+. We will have to find somebody to blame because we will never blame ourselves and our gas guzzlers.
However, more and more of us know that we have to reduce oil and agro-fuel consumption by as much as 50% to stop the oil and food price spiral. It could be done with an accellerated transition to Hybrids, PHEVs and BEVs if car manufacturers can produce them quickly enough.
We need BEVs and 100+ mpg PHEVs now. Unfortunately, they are not available yet. The next best things are 50 to 60 mpg hybrids for the next 24 months. How many more hybrids can Toyota and Honda produce?
Posted by: | 03 June 2008 at 06:24 AM
82% of respondents said they would consider a hybrid when they purchase their next vehicle.
And what will they do in the mean time? When they bought their current gas guzzler, they did they not have a clue that prices would be going up in the fairly near future. And how many of these will actually buy a hybrid.
Posted by: Tom Street | 03 June 2008 at 06:38 AM
The amount of time and costs related to exploiting the resources would take around a decade and that is if the estimates on quality and quantity of fuel are correct.
Of course, we've been hearing this line for what, just about ten years now?
Hmmm.
Posted by: Matthew | 03 June 2008 at 06:50 AM
I do think what happens over the next 5-7 years will be that new automobiles sold in the USA will be in what Europeans call A-segment (Ford Ka/Toyota Aygo), B-segment (Ford Fiesta/Honda Fit/Nissan Versa) and C-segment (Ford Focus/Honda Civic) categories. They'll be powered by variable-valve timing engines that use direct fuel injection to improve fuel economy without sacrificing power.
Surprisingly, Ford and GM are actually well-positioned to take advantage of this change. They can easily start building their European market models here in the USA to take advantage of the changed fuel pricing situation.
Posted by: Raymond | 03 June 2008 at 07:09 AM
When respondents were asked, “How far would you drive to save 20 cents on a gallon of gas?”,one out of five said they would drive 10 miles or more to save 20 cents per gallon.
Whad'ya bet that this one-fifth of the population also drives cars with such poor fuel economy that they wind up spending more money driving to and from this gas bargain than they'd save in the price of gas?
Posted by: jlw | 03 June 2008 at 07:51 AM
@ Raymond -
the fly in your ointment: small car = small profit. Too small to meet legacy health care and pensions obligations to the UAW, at any rate.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | 03 June 2008 at 07:52 AM
"We need BEVs and 100+ mpg PHEVs now. Unfortunately, they are not available yet. The next best things are 50 to 60 mpg hybrids for the next 24 months. How many more hybrids can Toyota and Honda produce"
You can buy as many Toyota Prius's (Prii) as you wish, and have them converted by Hymotion to 100 MPG PHEVs for $10K a piece.
We'll now see if the all the people saying they'd buy a PHEV if someone built one is really true or not.
Posted by: shane | 03 June 2008 at 08:06 AM
Posted by: DS | 03 June 2008 at 08:24 AM
Coincidentally, yes. But we have a pretty good idea how these particular 34% vote. And it ain't for Bush.
Posted by: Matthew | 03 June 2008 at 08:47 AM
Well, Pilgrim, it is a cinch they didn't poll anyone here in Texas. It will take $8.00/gal gasoline and $10.00/gal diesel and a 2x4 over the head to get these pickup driving (city folks) and Suburban, Expedition and Hummer driving yuppies to switch to something fuel efficient. And on top of that Texans are really lead foots and heavy brakers. They can turn a fuel efficient auto into a guzzler by the way they drive. Tromp on the accelerator (even seniors) to get one car length ahead before the next signal light. LBJ (and his big fast Caddys) still live in the heart of Texas and the right foot of Texans.
Rikiki
Round Rock, Texas
Posted by: Rikiki | 03 June 2008 at 10:11 AM
@Matt, Obviously it's different where you live. Here in the Pacific Northwest all the Hummers have Republican bumper stickers. Doesn't that suggest that they are the 34% that think the oil shortage is temporary, i.e., it will soon to be fixed by the oil fairy?
Posted by: Mick | 03 June 2008 at 10:27 AM
"Four out of 10 workers said they have considered moving closer to their place of work"
People will spend a 1/2 million on a new house rather than just buying a more efficent car or carpool or ride a bus or......
Posted by: B Walsh | 03 June 2008 at 12:15 PM
I bet those that want to move closer are also thinking about the time lost commuting in addition to the high fuel prices.
In the Seattle area of the Pacific Northwest, nearly half of all bumper sticker I see supporting a Democratic candidate or attacking Republicans happens to be affixed to a SUV...
Posted by: Patrick | 03 June 2008 at 01:30 PM
Rafael,
Alas, Ford and GM may not have a choice in this matter, if they want to survive. The switch to selling smaller vehicles is on, and expect the trend to really accelerate over the next few years.
Posted by: Raymond | 03 June 2008 at 02:08 PM
"Four out of 10 workers said they have considered moving closer to their place of work in order to save on transportation costs, and 82% of respondents said they will consider buying a hybrid when they purchase their next vehicle."
-----------
You think? $4 a gallon gas changes peoples minds fast. Wait till $5 or more.
Posted by: hampden wireless | 03 June 2008 at 02:40 PM
"Four out of 10 workers said they have considered moving closer to their place of work..."
I think a better question would be, would you change jobs for one closer to your home? In the U.S. jobs are more temporary than houses, and unless you bought a house way out in the exurbs, you probably have opportunities within a few miles.
In 2004 I was driving a 24mpg car 14 miles each way for work. In 2006 I was driving a 50mpg car 8 miles each way for a better job. That wasn't accidental.
Posted by: nerfer | 03 June 2008 at 03:21 PM
@shane: "You can buy as many Toyota Prius's (Prii) as you wish, and have them converted by Hymotion to 100 MPG PHEVs for $10K a piece. We'll now see if the all the people saying they'd buy a PHEV if someone built one is really true or not."
The actual cost is larger than $10K, because:
1) You will void Toyota's warranty;
2) Most independent mechanics have never touched a Prius, let alone a modified one; and
3) Toyota mechanics are likely to refuse to work on your Hymotion-modified Prius.
I know that there are a FEW repair shops in the San Francisco Bay Area which explicitly support plug-in hybrid owners. But if you can't fix your own car, the PHEV conversion may not yet be the right choice for you.
I do want a PHEV, but I also want maintenance support.
Posted by: John L. | 03 June 2008 at 03:34 PM
I think the take-away from this is that the average American is starting to realize we're having sustainability problems, but doesn't really have a clue what to do about it.
We GCCers generally have knowledge that can help, and can help right now. Off-line I'm spreading that knowledge to anyone who will listen and helping to apply it in the homes of family & friends. I'd encourage you to do the same. The local power company probably hates me...
Posted by: rob | 03 June 2008 at 07:15 PM
Very scientific.
Posted by: | 03 June 2008 at 10:03 PM
Math challenge: if gas is $4/gal, and you drive 10-miles to save $0.20 off of that price (or 1/20 of the cost) for a 20-gal fill-up, what would your mpg rating of your car need to be for you to save money ?
Answer: greater than 10 mpg (you save $4, or enough to buy 1 gal of gas, so you need to burn less than 1 gal for the 10 mile trip)
How much money would you save if your mpg rating was 20 mpg?
$2 out of the $80 fill-up
How much would you save by buying a car that gets 30 mpg instead ? 40 mpg?
30 mpg = $26 less to go the same distance as 1 tank at 20mpg
40 mpg = $40 less to go the same distance as 1 tank at 20 mpg.
(I knew there was a reason for doing all those math problems in high school ;-)
Posted by: hindmost | 03 June 2008 at 11:29 PM