MANY OF US remember the ubiquitous highway safety campaign of the 1970s: "Stay Alive - Drive 55." Today, driving the speed limit is crucial to another kind of survival: the planet's.
The US Department of Energy estimates that driving at 55 miles per hour instead of 75 would reduce fuel consumption by 25 percent. Since passenger vehicles and commercial trucks account for roughly half of the 20 million barrels of oil America consumes each day, saving 25 per cent would amount to 1 billion barrels a year - more than we currently import from the Persian Gulf. And it would save the average driver about 80 cents a gallon, a lot more than John McCain's summer gas tax moratorium (the same one Hillary Clinton hitched a ride on last week).
Conserving fuel by driving 55 miles per hour is not a new idea. In 1974, in response to the Arab oil embargo, Congress passed the National Maximum Speed Law, which president Nixon signed. The 55-mile-per-hour speed limit was unpopular, especially in rural states, but Washington backed up its moral suasion by docking states' federal highway funds if they didn't comply, and for a while people eased up on the throttle.
But conservatives couldn't stand this neo-European model of small cars and slow speeds. The Heritage Foundation published a study in 1986, saying the speed limit didn't really conserve much, and whatever money was saved on fuel was lost to reduced worker productivity. (Of course, that was when oil cost $31 a barrel and the minimum wage was $3.65 an hour. Since then, inflation in fuel costs has well outstripped wages; a barrel of oil topped $123 this week, an increase of about 300 percent. The minimum wage today is $5.85, which is an increase of, um, not 300 percent.)
Anyway, by 1987 it was morning in America, greed was good, and the national commitment to fuel efficiency began to unravel. Congress passed a law allowing 65-mile-per-hour speeds on rural highways, and then it was just a matter of time until all federal restrictions were lifted.
The government is a lot more careful now about treading on Americans' God-given (or is it constitutional?) right to speed. The Energy Department's website has a handy list of things individuals can do to save on fuel, including keeping tires inflated at the proper level and not braking hard, as well as slowing to 55. But any one individual's numbers look pretty small; it's easy for mere individuals to look at the chart and think, Why bother?
And they have a point. Loading up climate-change guilt onto "personal responsibility" can distract us from the larger institutional forces that are much harder to change. While individuals are anguishing over which light bulb to use or whether to buy raspberries flown in from Chile, President Bush announces "goals" for US reduction of carbon emissions that are at least a decade too late, and Congress does little to improve fuel efficiency standards on cars and trucks.
Asking people to slow down in order to reduce greenhouse gases is a little like asking them to stop eating red meat, which also carries a large carbon footprint. In other words, unpopular, unenforceable, nanny state-ism. But the benefits are real. We Americans chew up more of the environment than the rest of the world just by waking up in the morning.
Even the nation's airlines, where speed would appear to be a premium, are slowing down.
Would we really miss those three minutes? I don't think so.
No one wants to unilaterally disarm and poke along at 55 alone. But if everybody slowed down together, everybody would be late together, and the boss wouldn't notice - she'd be late too. Meanwhile road rage would diminish, the national blood pressure would drop, and we could take the time to appreciate our beautiful earth, even from the highway. The journey is the destination. The least we can do is slow down and save the ride.
Renée Loth is the Globe's editorial page editor.
