The efficiency of cars has improved dramatically over the years and much better than 3% but the problem is increased use. Manufacturers build and consumers want and buy bigger and bigger engines which have been offsetting any efficiency improvements and emissions have been increasing dramatically with the increase being 3% in the last year alone.

Regarding the "earth is burning sky is falling" notion as being delusional, the Great Barrier Reef has been described as a vast underwater ecosystem that is ready to collapse from a combination of the increased heat and high CO2 levels in the worlds oceans, and the projected ice-free Arctic Circle during summers 20 years hence is very serious since most likely the rate of global heating will accelerate since there will be no ice to reflect heat-causing solar radiation back into space.

Not well understood, scientists do know that we get a huge amount of benefit from the world’s oceans and bodies of water and the ongoing collapse of vast underwater ecosystems is very troubling. Other accelerating and amplifying natural processes are known and more are discovered each day further heightening the concern, not in the least, how much we do not know.

Scientists used to think that dramatic global climate and temperature changes happened over thousands of years. Current scientific wisdom is that changes can happen in just a few years. As things change dramatically all sorts of feedback systems can kick in either accelerating the heating process or moderating it with lots of unknowns and potentially catastrophic consequences which is why scientists describe the current global situation as one experiment they'd prefer not to make.

Scientist James Lovelock described the situation just recently at the New York Academy of Sciences as that in which the earth’s population will eventually move to the poles. Nobel Laureate naturalist E.O. Wilson has been designing eco-corridors to facilitate species migration and hopefully at least, lessen projected mass extinctions.

Taking two million cars off the road out of 200 million cars does nothing to mitigate the ongoing and accelerating environmental devastation and increases in use of the technologies causing it. Scale is a very important concept extremely misunderstood and undervalued.

When someone goes to a doctor for a checkup they want to know if they are sick. If they are sick they want to be told what to do about it. Scientist James Lovelock describes the situation as so dire that anything we do will be like performing triage on a gravely ill patient only delaying the inevitable. Most likely we can do better but time is running out according to NASA scientist and director James Hansen who has been preaching that there is only a 10-year window to act before the tipping point is reached and nonlinear feedback systems accelerating heating kick in and any remedies we implement will have no effect. A 3% increase in efficiency by properly inflating tires does not speak to this call to action.

There are things we can do and people, institutions, and organizations, etc. positioned to provide this type of leadership and guidance are not doing it at anywhere near the required scale. Most likely, many do not know what to do even though they say they do. The enormity of the situation is so large and so unreal most remedies may appear to be quite bizarre, not practical, and not feasible. But, they do exist and will have to be implemented. Eliminating cars from the world’s great cities is one of them. Hybrid human-electric transport possibly in a form similar to recumbent bicycles and tricycles seems to be the type of technology that can support such a dramatic change from which we all will benefit.

Obviously, like you, I'm a details guy, but what are you quibbling with here? You think a video put out by a moderate environmental group could convince people to give up their cars entirely versus convincing people to take 5 minutes a few times a year to check their tires? Are you nuts? As goofy as it is, I think this video is spot on. What we should do in the future is think about how our consumption decisions affect the planet and take the small and large steps to mitigate the unnecessary impact like lower efficiency of our cars because the tires are low. Who'd a thunk Dr. Bill would stir the pot so much?

But how many of the 225 million cars (minus the ones that aren't on the road for whatever reason) have under-inflated tires? And of those, how many are not that under-inflated, and thus wouldn't see the full 3.3% increase?

Also, does a 3.3% increase in fuel efficiency automatically translate into 3.3% less emissions?

Finally, how many of the under-inflators could Dr. Bill reasonably expect to reach with that video, and how many could he convince to keep their tires properly inflated for the rest of their lives? Compared to that, how many families could someone with Dr. Bill and Environmental Defense's status potentially convince to give up a second (or third, or fourth) car, with a similar video?

I'm not saying that the answer is automatically in favor of giving up cars or inflating tires. I'm saying that it's possible to base a decision like this on research rather than a gut feeling. Yes, there are a lot of variables, but there are techniques for weighting them, etc.

Again, this is not to fault Dr. Bill. He got a question and he answered it. It's more about, "what should we do in the future, all of us who care about global warming, the oil supply and saving people's lives?"

Although I was using round numbers to make a point, your question encouraged me to get the hard data. According to the US Bureau of Transit Statistics, there are currently 225 million passenger cars and trucks registered in the U.S. The EPA estimates that generally speaking, overall fuel economy would improve 3 percent if the tires on all those vehicles were inflated properly (the link below is to a simple guide, but the 3% number is all over the EPA website):

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/maintain.shtml

So, again making some generalizations, if Dr. Bill's message got out there in a big way, and everyone checked their tires, it would have a similar effect on emissions and oil consumption to taking 3% of total passenger vehicles off the road, which would be like taking 6-7 million cars off the road, rather than the 1 million I mentioned. That sounds pretty significant to me.

And we can focus on both emissions reductions and the carnage caused by cars...who said we were leaving that out? Take a look at the posts regarding Eric Ng's death on the West Side bike path. I'd say we're quite tuned in to that issue. I commute by the Ng Ghost Bike every day and I've had two cars race by me on the bike path at night in the same area. That topic is far more emotional to me than auto emissions.

So, incremental change like Dr. Bill's tire pressure advice would have a HUGE effect regarding emissions, Micaela. While I don't share your Earth is burning/the sky is falling take on things, I do heartily agree with your push to "challenge people to change their behavior in fundamental ways, and to challenge their electeds." I see that as our collective responsibility, not a role only for green groups.

Is that true? I'm not sure, but it's an empirical question, and one that Dr. Bill might know the answer to. He seems to feel that way. If we haven't scared him away, I'd like to know the science behind this.

At what point do actions like the ones Dr. Bill recommends become insignificant in the face of the problem? At what point do they encourage people to think (as some acquaintances of mine here in NYC do), "Well, I've got a hybrid, so I'm helping the environment. I can drive my car as much as I want." Again, these are empirical questions that can be answered definitively. Right?

The Ed Abbey "f#%* everyone who doesn't see the light" school of thought is tempting, but ultimately unproductive, I think. Typical Americans have to drive, and if the 199 million cars outside of New York City had properly inflated tires, that would make more of a difference than if New York City residents sold their million vehicles tomorrow. Furthermore, working toward more efficient driving habits where people don't have another option (like Maine) and toward less driving here in NYC aren't mutually exclusive goals.

Back-biting on blogs is getting old, people. Gotta agree with ddartley here. Channel the venom into organizing and action. How about writing some letters to your city council people, gecko and brent? ED is on our side, albeit as centrist group. Criticizing them for moderate stances would be like vilifying Greenpeace for putting out white papers - we're talking about different spots on the environmental spectrum. We need both the wonks and whackos.

It's fun to get riled up and read these well-travelled posts, but without the follow-up, it's an empty exercise. I'm sure many people here have experienced successful political action, and we simply have to refocus our efforts to get results on these issues. Hopefully StreetsBlog will facilitate some movement away from the keyboards.

Let me just start out here - and this is not to knock it cause I started doing video the same way - but it's obviously an in-house production. No microphone was used (only the camera mike) and it is also appears to be the first in the "Dr. Bill series" to do a video answer to the question.

I'm also sure that they didn't have a budget either, so being that they are based in NYC, they just figured they would go out on the streets of NYC to answer the question since, well, there are plenty of cars around...right?!. (BTW: With no mike, smart choice filming around Gramercy Park where you can *mostly* get away with no microphone due to low city noise.)

I am sure it wasn't too scripted and to tell you the truth for these things - sometimes it is best that way. Have some ideas you want to talk about but always go with the flow, I am sure they didn't plan on finding that bicycle there near Gramercy Park or maybe even getting in that cab was a spur of the moment idea. Some of the best things in my videos were never planned.

Yes it is too long. Yes they need tons more cutaways of things they are actually talking about (Example - like when inflating tires, you can show the air nozzle, cars driving by, tire closeups, a tire gauge if they had one, etc) Yes I wish they would have done more about encouraging alternatives and I don't enjoy hearing the comment: "Cars are a fact of life even here in New York City. We're all driving cars. We're all going places in cars."

But if people outside of NYC are watching, these are good tips they should follow and if the average American were to watch, then it's not a bad thing.

Finally, I'll say we need to encourage more videos on environmentalism. All us non-profits are working for the love of promoting a better world. Heck, by now I saw myself in the movie industry directing motion pictures by now making six figures, but this is much more rewarding and fun to work in. Non-profits can't afford the expenditures to put these kind of things together like a Hollywood production, but I like seeing experimentation and attempts like this. And as you go along, you learn.

If anyone at ED involved in producing the videos wants some free advice I am happy to dispense, feel free to email me at: trorb@yahoo.com

Clarence

Thanks...I think...

So I did, it felt like it was over 10 minutes long and a chore to sit thru. It certainly needs to be cut down by two-thirds. Funny, from time to time I have thought some of Clarence's videos on this site were a tad long, I'll never complain again.

It's ED's reponsibility as a major environmental group to not enable delusions of diligence with pollyanna prescriptions.

i think we all agree that moderate messages have their strategic place, but in going for this embarrasingly easy pander, ED is missing a huge swath of potentially productive middle ground. (unless "productive" is defined as feel-good year-end fundraising)

Dr. Bill is grossly underestimating the sizable portion of his membership that would go further than inflating their tires if effective encouragement (not moralizing) and a good case were made. What's worse, this video perverts NYC's role as a dense, transit rich and walkable beacon for other cities.

And even if you are right and people balk, maybe that is just the kind of incitement that is needed to get America to wake the eff up to the fact that we cannot drive our way out of this mess. They should to pull the video and leave this type of thing to an environmental group with a far less impressive track record of leadership.

-Jen b

As New Yorkers, we are exceedingly lucky, and among the minority of cities that have comprehensive, reliable, fast public transportation. Many places do not (see Texas).

An organization like ED can't afford to always pitch a strident, aggressive message. There are millions of people who think global warming is made up science. For these people or others who simply aren't as aware of the facts, a more moderate message is sometimes needed or the message will simply fall on deaf ears or worse, cause people to dig their heels deeper into the earth.

Imagine the parents with 3 young kids who has 3 car seats, a huge bag of extra diapers and clothes, who must go shopping and take the kids with them, or go to the doctor. To this person a car may be perceived - right or wrong as necessary. They may want to be more environmentally friendly but are so overworked and stressed and busy they simply don't know their options. Telling these people to take public transportation will get you a look that could be sold on Ebay for $1 million dollars. But giving them small ways that they can easily start folding into their lives opens the book to do more as they see the benefits and feel themselves becoming involved.

It's all relative, and even if it only helps fractionally, it still helps... and educates... and takes into consideration the myriad variables that are involved in this issue from geographic location, availability of mass transit, economic resources, personal time, etc.

I like the piece and find it a nice addition to the arsenal.