With the insanely rising cost of gasoline and the indications that there is no end in sight, I've been hearing a lot of talk about reducing the national speed limit to 55 mph. It seems to be universally understood that driving slower conserves fuel and reduces the amount of nasty emissions we're spewing into the atmosphere. Theoretically, it's perfectly understandable but I've never quite been able to subscribe to this philosophy and I'm looking for a little feedback.
If I drive an hour at an average of 65 mph and you drive an hour at 55 mph, you are clearly preserving more fuel than me. That's as simple as you can get. However, most people don't get in cars just to drive around aimlessly. I'm guessing 99.999999% of car trips are made with a destination in mind. With that being said, let's now say that I'm driving at an average of 65 mph to a destination that's 65 miles away. You drive to the same destination at 55 mph. After an hour I have reached my destination but clearly wasted more fuel and did more damage to the environment. Meanwhile, you still have like another 10.5 minutes of fuel-wasting, environment-killing activity while my car isn't doing a damn thing, but I'm the boogey man???
Call me crazy, but I would think the fuel you burn at a higher speed would be directly proportionate to the amount of fuel your saving by not having your car running as long as the other slowpokes. What am I missing here?