Can your behavior actually be costing you money?
When it comes to your gas mileage, the answer is yes.

I’ve been reading countless articles about improving your gas mileage by changing a few simple driving habits. Single digit points can be gained by keeping your tire pressure up, using cruise control, and driving the speed limit. The article also dispelled myths about rolled-down windows and AC usage contributing to lower gas mileage…apparently, this isn’t significant.

However, one thing can make a huge impact on your gas mileage - avoiding unnecessary acceleration. It’s so simple. You can still speed (thank god!), but by accelerating slowly from each stop you can improve your gas mileage by 35%. Really? Wow…I had to try this out.

I decided to test the theory by driving like my usual quick-start self for two tanks, and then accelerating like a grandma for the next two. Due to my corporate job and family life, my driving patterns change very little from week to week - not a good enough control for Scientific American, but consistent enough for my purposes.

The data certainly shows an improvement, albeit only a 17.5% increase. I’m sure the results would be difference if tested on a sedan rather than my gas-guzzling Honda Pilot. That may only be $200 annualized, but all these little savings can add up, so I’ll try to keep doing this.

Check out this quote from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation:

Several studies say driving without a lead foot results in the most significant gas savings of all. A European study cited by Natural Resources Canada’s Office of Energy Efficiency found that rapid acceleration from stoplights and hard braking reduced travel time by just four per cent in city driving – the equivalent of just over a minute every half-hour – but resulted in a 37 per cent jump in fuel consumption and a five-fold increase in toxic emissions. Source

Give this a try and see for yourself. You can put some of that saved money aside for the agonizingly expensive Playstation 3. Happy, non-accelerating motoring.

I’ve been reading so much lately about the looming energy crisis, and how nearly everyone seems to have their heads in the sand. While I don’t advocate the doom and gloom theory put forth by James Howard Kunstler in “The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century“, I can’t figure out why the mainstream media isn’t constantly attacking our politicians over this. Could it be that their noggins occupy the very same sandbox?

In a rare moment of clarity, MSNBC.com published an article discussing the recent claims by agri-giants Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland that corn-produced ethanol can replace our soon-to-fade hydrocarbon economy. With corn prices rising, they have the most to gain in the short term, but surely they know this is not sustainable…or do they even care?

Here are some of the key points from the article:

• Last year the U.S. produced just under 4 billion gallons of ethanol, serving just 1 percent of U.S. fuel needs.

• If we used all the corn produced in the United States to produce ethanol, it would provide only 7 percent of our total vehicle fuel use.

• If every car in America was fully powered by ethanol, it would take 97 percent of U.S. soil to grow enough corn to support it.

• About 30 percent more fossil energy is required to produce a gallon of ethanol than you actually get out in ethanol.

• Corn causes more soil erosion in the United States than any other crop.

• Corn uses more nitrogen fertilizer than any other single crop, and it’s the prime cause of the dead zone down in the Gulf of Mexico.

• Corn also uses more insecticides and herbicides than any other crop.

• Each acre of corn drains 500,000 gallons of water over three months.

I know to the militant energy watchdog these bullets are old hat, but it was refreshing to see a corporate news wrangler actually willing to write against the current of complacency and wishful thinking.

Cheers to you Dylan Ratigan.