It seems to me there is a fundamental problem with this. That is that any lowering of consumption by the US will quickly be compensated for by increased demand elsewhere. In fact consumption in the US has already dropped and yet prices continue to increase. Unless such a speed limit scheme is instituted world-wide I don't see much benefit except in terms of trade balance. On the other hand I think its quite a sensible proposition as a global UN-type proposal if this crisis really gets out of hand.

Re: "US Senator Richard Warner (R-VA) has requested..."

The senator's first name is John.

JT: First of all you'd need to convince Republicans that the planet needs to be saved....good luck...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEJ5pHVKjiI

Then, you'd need to convince them that big restrictions on their freedoms are needed through mandates or big government tax increases...good luck on that one too...

If you frame your argument in terms of religion (judeo-christianity), national security, and free-market capitalism (including limited government) - Republicans will respond. For example - we need renewable energy because a) Jesus does not want us polluting creation; we will determine "pollution" via PURE science, not shaky/fuzzy Al Gore science, b) we don't want foreign dirtball thug dictators controlling or hurting America in anyway shape or form - especially through our energy supplies and c) the best renewable energy solutions can be found from enterprenuers in the private sector with the right government incentives, not through big government mandates & tax hikes & big bureaucracies.

Since it worked before in the 1970's our incompetent government just might be able to implement it very quickly with little cost again.

BTW, it is John Warner, not "Richard."

I don't think it's a good idea for this reason: 55 mph could cause more accidents on long drives due to distracttion by boredom and drowsiness factors.

Besides, today's automobiles outside of SUV's and light trucks with their aerodynamic bodies and vastly more efficient drivetrains means that going from 55 to 65 mph, the fuel efficiency drop is not significant. Drivers can keep their fuel efficiency up by other factors, notably keeping windows closed above 43 mph, keeping the car exterior clean, replacing the air filter regularly, and pumping tires to recommended pressure at least twice a month.

Weren't there tax breaks for SUVs and other heavy vehichles. Meant for businesses, but abused by non-business people? Inept government brought some of this on. Inept Detroit balking at the technical feasibility of higher mpg is another source.
It boiled down to everyone treating oil like it was an infinite cheap resource, and now we see what happens when we find out it is finite and the poor countries like China and India are climbing up the economic ladder.

I'll bet the most efficient speed turns out to be about 45 or 50mph, but hopefully the curve won't be too steep.

The US Congress and the rest of the Government has ignored the fact that the oil market is not a free market and continues to allow world wide speculation as well as US speculation on oil and its derviatives. It could have passed laws against the buying of oil and oil futures and oil derivatives by parties that cannot use it or take delivery of it. Congress can impose a high import duty or tax on oil and oil futures that are being resold to oil users in the US. All parties that buy oil or its products in the US must only buy oil that has a known history free of speculative purchase or process. Oil futures can only be allowed to be bought by parties that can actually take delivery and even they cannot resell except with a minimum %20 tax. Every body knows that the production of oil is artificially limited, so there cannot be any open market in oil or its products or any financial derivatives.

Because of environmental and other political obstacles it is imposible even for refineries to be built in the US or for new oil companies to enter into the market, and the reduction of the number of major oil companies in the US has eliminated much opportunity for competition so congress is obligated to act when the energy, from crude oil even, costs ten times as much as that from delivered coal. There is no question that coal can be made into gasoline and diesel at present prices and make a big profit in the process, so congress, while not allowing acid rain producing and other known poison releases, must not allow CO2 release to be an issue in producing alternative fuels for transportation. Congress should allocate more loan funding and subsidies for coal-to-liquid plants than is given ethanol.

New nuclear power plants can be used to displace much of the use of natural gas to also free it up for conversion into transportaion fuels and to eliminate its use for producing electricity when it should be saved for use in homes and small businesses that have no other clean burning fuel. Nuclear power plants are the most cost effective way of reducing CO2 emissions. Solar and wind power is too expensive and unrelable.

The amount of wastes produced by nuclear power plants is almost an unmeasurable fraction of the wastes produced by New York city alone. We now have technology in place to get an additional amount of energy from used nuclear fuel rods equal to that which has already been produced, and we know how to get fifty times or more the energy that has already been produced.

Used fuel rods and uranium are not waste; they could produce all the power needed in the US for the next hundred years, and by then the technology for getting uranium out of the ocean will be perfected so that the earth will have fission energy available for the next million years until fusion power on the earth becomes practical.

There is nothing that humans do that is perfectly safe. All life forms, including every human, in the past and now, are by nature and must be to live, highly radio-active compared to water. These life forms are also exposed to natural radiation from space and the earth. Even putting the highly radioactive used fuel rods in ordinary landfills is much safer on the average for US citizens than the highway system or even ordinary houses. If human lives are to be saved(reduce early deaths) in the most cost effective way, most of the money spent on "safely" storing nuclear waste should be spent on eliminating the use of cell phones while operating cars. Some of it could be spent to reduce driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs.

Only 31 people(Readers Digest) were directly killed by the radiation and explosion of Chernobyl; there will be other deaths but it is not possible to prove if the cancer was caused by the radiation inherently in the body, natural radiation from space or earth, chemicals or smoking. Five thousand people were killed immediately by the release of toxic gasses at Bhopal and it is easily possible that twice that many more died within months, and many animals were also killed.

At least 3000 animals were killed by a chemical leak near Seveso in Italy and eventually 80,000 animals had to be disposed of; many humans were treated for chemical exposure. At Vajont italy, water forced over a concrete dam in a nearly 300 yard high wave caused by a giant landslide killed nearly 2000 people; the dam itself did not fail.

The chance of even a Vajont size disaster at a modern nuclear power plant is a million times less. Nothing on the earth is pefectly safe, but places that have no electricity, have very high early death rates from starvation and contaminated water. The mothers of the dead, if still alive, would rather have nuclear power even from a RBMK reactor. ..HG...

@Henry Gibson

Your thinking on nuclear power has not kept up with the associated technology. Please do some study on the topic to adjust your preconceptions! The Chinese are breaking a new trail in GEN IV reactors. In a short time, they will have fielded 1000 units throughout China. This will force the west to follow suite. Your posts will not sway the anti-nukes; but Chinese competition will.

Read these as follows:

http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/03/chinas-second-pebble-bed-reactor-steam-plant-worlds-third-commercial-htgr/

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/06/worlds-first-commercial-high.html

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html?pg=3&topic=china&topic_set=

I expect to see an upgrade in your nuclear knowledge in your next post.

I just spent two weeks in Germany driving at over 100mph on a daily basis. Even the nanny state Europeans aren't so stupid as to try and impose some golf cart type speed limit, even in a country a fraction of the size of the U.S.

It is probably not fair to include "John" Warner with the other Republicans. He is a co-sponsor of the cap and trade legislation that is going nowhere. He also has an engineering degree which puts him at odds with the science bashers in the Cheny administration. He is on record as believing that the effects of climate change will over burden our war machine (besides the US Navy, who is going to feed 1 million displaced Bangladeshis?)
Just like a trial lawyer who does not ask a question unless he knows the answer, a politician does not request a study unless he knows the conclusions beforehand.

"Way to go Unlce Leo, sticking it to the man"

Driving our gas guzzlers at 55 to save gas is the policy equivalent of pissing in the ocean to raise the sea level.