High gas prices....good for America.

Recently, I read on here some comments of disgust over Howard Dean saying there wasn't much Democrats could do over high gas prices. Why be disgusted? Aren't high gas prices good for the environment?

If you want people to stop driving SUVs and drive more fuel efficient cars, the best way to do that is to keep gas prices high. If you want to put pressure on the auto industry to develop more efficient vehicles, then keep gas prices high. If you want to stop urban sprawl into forest and farmland, then keep gas prices high. And if you want to create a public demand for alternative energy sources, then keep gas prices high.

I have cut my car use in half since gas prices have risen. Now I walk or take the train. Bike sales are going up. So why are we complaining? Clearly high gas prices are good for the environment. They will encourage a new urbanism already happening in the largest of our cities. Right now in Chicago and New York, many people live in a centralized location near downtown because transportation by car is already too expensive for most people. Gas is higher priced, parking is astronomical in cost, and congestion is ridiculous. People take the subway, the train, or ride bikes.

What high gas prices will do is force people to live closer to where the work or closer to public transportation even in smaller cities with no parking problems. It will mean turning ghettos just outside of downtown into safe neighborhoods again. Just like where I live. It will boost the use of bicycles and public transportation.

High gas prices are the environmentalist's and conservationist's friends. And I welcome their arrival to America.

Americans Make More Than 14,000 Roundtrips to the Sun a Year

In 1950, U.S. drivers covered some 588 billion kilometers (365 billion miles) in 40 million cars, or almost 14,600 kilometers per car. By 2003, the average distance driven per year had grown to more than 19,000 kilometers. Multiplied by the far-larger number of vehicles now on U.S. roads, the total distance traveled had grown more than seven-fold, to 4,281 billion kilometers. That’s equivalent to 14,308 roundtrips from Earth to the sun.

http://www.worldwatch.org/features/vsow/2005/08/31/

I Agree

by the way, NO, if you had any knowledge of this industry, you would know that high gas prices are NOT the friend of the environment

high gas prices mean that oil shale becomes economic, which means that alberta (canada) and the rocky mountains become economic when they are destroyed & turned into fuel

high gas prices means it becomes economic to drill alaska, offshore cali, offshore florida

high gas prices means coal becomes economic again, so let's rip the top off the appalachians

anyone who is even minorly informed abt energy matters knows that high gas prices KILL THE ENVIRONMENT

what oil co. do you work for, just as a matter of curiosity?

he sounds like more of a freind of big business!

If forcing people to walk and use public transportation is something the oil companies want, then maybe Shell should hire me as their new VP, or something.

Reducing energy consumption via the automobile means reducing the ammount of oil that is refined and shipped, which means less oil spills, less acid rain, less cars being built, etc.

High oil prices means it becomes unnecessary to drill in Alaska because no one is reliant on the automobile for transportation anymore!

I just hate this argument that high gas prices are good. Tell it to all the people who are going to lose their jobs over it. Tell it to all the people who live in places with lousy public transportation.

Low gas prices only encourage the use of gas. It's like giving out free crack to the public, and once the price goes up everyone is hooked. The price will have to go up sometime. There is no avoiding that.

Raise taxes?

Makes sense when gas prices are so high :eyes:

And in the long run, it would save the town money. Bus driving jobs would open up, and people could pay more in taxes because they no longer have to spend so much on a car. And the town's income would no longer go to oil companies, except for what the busses use, which would be substantially LESS than if they all had cars.

As idealistic as this is, it just isn't feasible especially for working families who are struggling hard as it is. That's not counting fixed income folks and others who make practically nothing.

Hurt the public because it's good for them. :eyes:

Town governments can borrow money. Within a few years the savings of their inhabitants will pay it off, and THEN you raise taxes.

Big corporations who are in bed with automakers and oil companies? Aren't a lot of banks in bed with big business?

I can see how that meeting would go.

"We'd like to borrow a ton of money so we can have our own public transport and not rely on gas stations and buy cars."

That is so NOT going to happen.

The longer it is put off, the more the oil companies will control.

As I said in another post, there are far better and more effective ways to make this happen without having high gas prices.

Let's start with good leadership.

n/t

When socialistic europe can (+ free health care bonus) ?

Don't say but we have to drive long distance, average european car does 15.000km/year, US car does 19.000Km.They paid 5$ or 6 per gallon and they earn less than us.
Don't say but they get a good mass transit system, when it's only partially true and more importantly they use the tax on gas to pay the mass transit system.

So what's the reason we can't pay more tax ?

We don't pay things as a country, we duke it out regionally.

Unfortunately, the simple fact of the matter is, it's hard as hell to sail bonds through due to the fact Americans receive so little from the government for what they give out now. It's one foot forward, one step back.

Every culture has its drawbacks. That's one of ours.

Why does it work for EU then ,they don't pay things as a country either?

Do you think they are no poor and rich in Europe ? Granted the gap may be bigger here but it doesn't change the fact we could pay more tax.

"If the European Union were a state in the USA it would belong to the poorest group of states. France, Italy, Great Britain and Germany have lower GDP per capita than all but four of the states in the United States."

http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/

How come the most rich country in europe France,germany can afford higher tax up to 6$ a gallon ,when our richest states cannot ?

One, they have more social safety nets than we do, as well as far better public transportation (don't try to insist otherwise, I've been through Europe and I live in California). Incidentally, you have the syntax of a non-native English speaker, so I'd imagine you're from another country, even if you do live here, so it may not be as clear to you as it is to others who've been here longer.

Our average commute to *anywhere* is much longer, too. Germany would fit inside one of our smaller states.

There are at least fifty more reasons I might go into. But the answer you want is the one at which you've already arrived - you're really not looking for answers, but just targets at which to aim. If you need to believe the whole of Europe is superior, by all means do so. It means nothing in terms of reality, it is just your opinion. I have my own (which is we've all got equal problems).

Every country get bad and good part,EU are worse than the US for many things,however when it come to energy they are better.
I'm naive enough to believe fuel efficiency should concern everyone.
Rioting happen in indonesia this week cause of gas price.
I'm sure you know how important oil is geopolitically.

About the average commute : car in europe = 15000km a year, in US = 19000Km it's not that much (80%)

Morgan Stanley : Oil : The Optimists vs the Pessimists

"Few candidates in US elections dare to propose higher gasoline taxes. The unfortunate conclusion is that changes in energy policy will require a crisis large enough to give politicians cover. Even 9/11 in the US did not have this result. Advantage pessimists."

http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/latest-digest.html#anchor2

Sorry for my bad english :)

However, I think that's a superficial understanding of the situation. It's more complicated than that here. The mechanics of dealing with such matters in a nation of fifty million are vastly less complex than those of dealing with a nation of 300 million.

I apologize for e-chomping your head off, but you did seem to be tilting at windmills a little (either that or I'm too sensitive these days).

one of the most egregious boo-boos in the United States: how we allowed ourselves to get suckered into these huge SUV's, when the products are in place to do otherwise.

It's just that simple, in my view. Machismo and fear have built our transportation system, and now it's going to hurt to change it.

I see them, I have neighbors with them, but none of my friends drive them. However, when you pound a society with stress the way Americans are, it's small wonder they'll reach for any task-easing machine or etc.

The problem isn't SUVs...the problem is big business, imho.

Mindless consumers are fuel for abusive businesses. And TV breeds mindless consumers.

I don't know any "mindless consumers", either.

TV is an easy thing to blame. I think our cultural addiction to junk food and soda pop spurring us into a faux-Crack state is more of a factor. We are fiercely nomadic as a culture.

Everything - including TV - can be a valuable resource. It's how it is used. And the "how" is a pre-existing condition not attributable to the "what" - in other words, not TV.

Consumers can choose to buy or not to buy pretty much anything they want besides food and health coverage. Unfortunately, one of those sectors is run totally by Republicans. But consumers can choose to buy or not buy anything else. Even if there is a monopoly in one area and consumers are getting screwed, they can choose to stop buying something altogether.

Consumers have a dependency on corporations now to survive. That is a reason, not a slogan.

enslavement of the masses. By getting everyone hooked on private and wasteful transportation over the decades, Big Oil, the auto industry, the developers, the consumer-products companies and so on have helped us build a society of consumers rather than citizens, and it's now biting us in the ass. We have 40 different kinds of toothpaste, and 2 political parties. WTF? We define ourselves by what we can buy and how comfortable and convenient are lives are, all the while isolating ourselves from the realities of love, sex, pain, aging and death. I simply see the SUV as a symptom of our own failure to operate more from the ego and less from the id, to use Freud's terms. Big business feeds only the id, 'cause that's what does the silly spending.

We all know where the money is. Oh, and it's not with the "working singles", who are human beings too.

Tax windfall profits. Tax estates. Tax luxury homes. Tax unearned income. Tax corporations.In other words, TAX BUSH'S FRIENDS once again. They sure as hell ain't carryin' their weight these days.

what you are suggesting, as you say, is in the long run.

People have to pay rent and buy groceries and gas in the short run.

If high gas prices motivate someone who's driving an SUV or other gas hog to go out and buy a more fuel-efficient vehicle, that's good.
But what about those for whom this just isn't an option? Someone who's driving a Caprice classic or other big (and old) car who has to struggle just to pay the rent and buy groceries? He/she is between a rock and a hard place.

As others have said, in most of the US, public transportation is minimal or nonexistent. For most people it just isn't an option.

Also, high gas prices have a ripple effect, driving up the cost of many other things. Making it even harder for those who are struggling to make it.

That's the kind of mindset that got us in the pickle we're in with the defunded FEMA, and defunded CDC, and defunded USDA.

Of course it would help if we weren't wasting how many billions a day in Iraq. But you can't get something for nothing. If you want a service provided, somebody has to pay for it (I know full well the somebodies I have in mind have plenty of money to spare, we just have to work up the courage to go after it). Make the people who profit from the petroleum culture pay for its replacement.

I mean, no matter what this guy says, oil is a FINITE RESOURCE.

Hey.

Let me say that again.

Oil is a FINITE RESOURCE.

Why people act so shocked, much less indignant, when the price goes up on a finite resource.. is baffling to me.

But, one more time, in case you're not clear on the concept...

Oil. is. a. Finite. Resource.

So, sooner or later, the shale, gas, tar sands, and appalachian tops are going to be up for grabs, ANYWAY- and they, too will run out.

UNLESS people wise the fuck up, as opposed to grumbling about their god-given Merkin right to cheap gas every time they have to fill up the Land Destroyer.

its all about energy density. The oil companies are making huge profits... so what... There are much bigger things to worry about. This world runs on energy and fossil fuels, oil, coal, tar sands, oil shale, etc., have higher energy densities than anything else. and dont forget uranium. They will ALL get consumed. I dont like it any better than you but it's going to happen in one form or another and there's no stopping it. Our best hope is that high prices and public awareness will serve to slow the process down somewhat so that technology can blunt the tremendous damage that releasing this much carbon into the atmosphere is going to cause.

My husband is a truck driver and high gas prices hurt him plus every other one out on the road. Not just company drivers, but also owner operators, too.

Trucking is what gets products to consumers. That's just one example.

If gas prices continue to rise more companies will struggle to stay in business. They'll have to demand higher rates from the brokers and other companies in order to pay the bills so they can continue to move frieght.

When the costs go up so do consumer prices. Also, if the costs go up it can cost trucking jobs, too. Less truckers equals more difficulty in getting product to consumers.

Think about this. What you are hoping for may be good for the environment, but will have a devestating impact on the economy...including you.

All we need is leadership. Right now we are getting screwed.

They are for what's cheaper and can help them run better which includes environmentally safe.

He knows drivers that have already shut down their trucks and have had them repossessed.

I'm just wondering about our oil reserves that we have for just these situations, has anyone heard about Bush opening them? Or has he just decided to save them so his big oil buddies can make more money? Am I out of the loop or what?

in fact, we will be forced to, like it or not

This is not about environment.What you did describe is exactly what will happen if tax are not INCREASED.

We are closing to peak oil,production will not be able to continue growing for long, when the world demand will exceed the world production price will skyrocket.(400$ a barrel is quite possible, around 12$ per gallon, it's a very likely scenario in the next decade).If we don't start to reduce our consumption NOW it will be too late when peak happen ,most of us won't literally be able to survive.

Read what Volvo one of the biggest trucks and car company in the world has to said about this :

"Most stakeholders – vehicle manufacturers, fuel producers, politicians and researchers – agree about the problems.

Our current use of fossil energy types is not sustainable in the longer term. In overall terms, almost three billion tonnes of crude oil are consumed every year and 60% of it is used by the transport sector. Most people also agree that time is a critical factor.

The measures that are being suggested differ, however. The time has therefore come for us to join forces and produce a picture and a vision of the possible routes and the action we should take.

Transforming an energy system comprising vehicles, fuel and infrastructures takes a long time and requires extensive resources from everyone involved – from producers to consumers. There is no question that the need to transport food, people and goods is going to increase. For many years now, Volvo has been working to fi nd the best solutions for the future. Our starting point is that every decision and action should be based on scientific data and have a holistic perspective that includes all energy-using sectors. This provides a platform for sustainable long-term decisions.

...

Global oil production will probably peak within a decade and the time of cheap and abundant crude oil will be over.
(September 2005)"

http://www.volvo.com/NR/rdonlyres/A9A59F6A-AA6F-4F8E-A048-BF9D6DE505DB/0/future_fuels_large.pdf

http://www.energybulletin.net/9302.html

If you read the whole pdf , Volvo said they won't produce any truck based on gas after 2009, they know they won't be able to sell them ,what does that tell you ?

Gas is cheap at the moment, it's time everyone realize that very soon it will be unfordable.
The sooner we reduce our dependencies on oil the less painful the peak will be (make no mistake it will still be very painful) therefore increasing tax on gas is the only solution.

As I've said in other posts there are viable alternatives that won't kick people in the teeth and cost them dearly.

Realize this isn't just about driving less. Raising gas prices have already had a negative impact on the economy. Doing it more will make it worse and the effects more profound.

The transportation industry would be severely hurt if not crippled. Given that most of the product and services in this country comes by way of transportation the impact will hit everyone except maybe the rich.

Groceries, medical supplies, construction, and just about everything else is transported by way of truck. There is some rail, but to rely more on it is not feasible for a variety of reasons. For one thing rail can't get to the places trucks can. We're talking Walmart type stores, markets, hospitals and just about every other large business there is. Also, rail does not have the capabilities to take on the burden when trucking companies and owner operators go under because gas prices are too high.

All of this would be passed onto the consumer not just in gas prices for their vehicles, but also in everything they buy, including food, medical care, and most other services.

There is a much larger picture here that keeps getting missed. The middle class and those below would get hit hard. Wages continue to remain the same and this would drive up prices to the point of where people couldn't afford necessities like food, utilities, home, etc.

If there is to be a plan, the first place to start with is good strong leadership. Good strong leadership can go aggressively after fuel alternatives, a national public transport system and educating the public.

It doesn't have to be a choice of hurting the little guy. Some of the responses here are truly disturbing because they are predicated on hurting people for their own good. That notion just twists my guts inside out.

Do you think they don't need truck in Europe and japan ? Do you think they don't need car to go to work ? Of course they do and they can handle 6$ a gallon when gaining way less money than us.So Why ? The only explanation i can see is because they are not wasteful and have been clever enought to choose fuel efficient cars/home since the 70'.

Now back to the main question whats the alternative then ? I'm really curious to know which alternative you suggest will be cheaper than oil is at the moment.(Hint : Bio fuel ,ethanol, Coal liquefaction ,Thermal depolarization none of these will never been cheaper than 3$/gal)

You also seem to want next election to start making change, do you realize that in 2008 we will be 1 or 2 years before peak oil ? We could get the best president we ever had, it will be too late by then.He won't be able to do change anything.

Btw funny stat, in europe gas when from 1.00€/liter (4.5$/gal) to 1.5€/liter (6$/gal) in the last 2 years, during that time we went from 1.8$/gal to 3$/gal.Their tax protected them against huge price increase...(only +50% when we get almost a +100%)

The only way out of this is to reduce our consumption,what's the best way than higher tax ? You use a fuel efficient car you won't notice the increase You use a gas guzzler you will have to pay the price.Its not like we get choice anyways, we can go for the next 5 years with 3$ per gallon but when oil will peak in 2010 our country will totally collapse.If we start now we get a chance to survive...

I kind of agree with you, but if we wanted higher prices we could do that with fuel taxes. In the past I would not have been opposed to a gas tax if spending were capped by government and it reduced another taxing vehicle.

Every increase in gas prices lowers people's standard of living and these prices inflict a lot of pain and not all of it is from their driving. But if you are happy that is good for you. You should really be estatic in about 10 years.

will cost more.

I would like to see folks in the cities feed themselves if the truck lines decided it was too expensive to ship food.

In this country, the negatives of high gas prices far outweigh any benefit.

Just think of how much oil energy it takes to produce a new fuel efficient vehicle.

There are a multitude of ways to approach the situation we're in. Communal farming is one. Without a doubt, lifestyles will be altered. If not temporarily. Chances are, slower will be better.

Not many people think about the whole picture. How much energy does it take to build that new vehicle...

I honestly think that the worst damage that we have done was to be lazy, and just use gas frivolously. We relaxed CAFE standards just when we were becoming independent of foreign oil.

The bottom line is higher prices was the crisis that was needed to wake people up. Now we need to make sure that the transition is done as harmlessly as possible.

There is 100% demand for food, so someone will figure out how to ship it at a lower price. Maybe it will have to be shipped by rail. Maybe someone will develop a truck that is twice as energy efficient. Maybe supermarkets will jsut be encouraged more to buy from local vendors and farmers.

And we will be producing less vehicles, anyways, because many people will decide to walk or ride bikes instead of buying a car. Higer gas will force energy consumption down.

I've worked as a shipper, my father-in-law worked for Burlington Northern and hubby is a trucker.

I can tell you for a fact, this country does not have the rail nor the cars. Plus they run too slow and don't go to enough places. Many times they are sent to a shipyard and can wait days until it's shipped. Some are refridgerated, but not nearly enough to make it possible to feed this country.

You also have to keep in mind family farms have been disappearing for years. Our food supply is not what it once was.

on edit: Trucking is the only major way to adequately supply this country for what it needs to operate.

Rail is far more energy efficient than trucking. It is not as flexible, which is why trucking has become the main method of transportation. With cheap gas, flexibility, not efficiency takes prescidence.

But who knows. Maybe hybrid trucks will have to start being produced. It is going to take adjusting, no doubt.

Rail is not realistic or feasible. Rail can't get to the food markets or to the Walmarts of this country. There are so many places rail CAN'T get to that only a truck can go.

Hybrid trucks...maybe...if they are affordable for trucking companies and independent drivers. Considering a brand new truck as it is can caust upwards of 150K. A decent used one will run 75K. That's not counting insurance, operating authority and everything else associated.

and benefit the local economy. We should be doing that anyway.

The current picture of agriculture here in the USA is not one like as seen in say Central or South America. We just don't have many small farms dotting the countryside around the cities, transporting their produce in an oxen drawn wagon to a local market once a day to sell in a Farmers Market.

Currently large operations produce huge quanities of food that is then transported nationally and internationally to be sold to consumers. All of this take fuel and lots of it. This is what has allowed so many people to live in todays world. Without this, then the people will disappear. It doesn't take long for people to starve to death when the shelves in the markets become bare.

To suggest any interference in the delivery of food is beyond the pale in reasoning and seeing reality.

It will become something like Mad Max. Be assured though, in that oh so beautiful world of the past that hasn't existed for a very long time and wasn't all that beautiful and had far fewer people, those that couldn't see reality had a way of becoming flower food. Think of it in terms of Darwin Awards.

If it gets worse or even stays the same, fuel cost wise, it won't be the young healthy poor people that will bite the bullet. It will at first the elderly, then the poor very young children and then the medium income and wealthy drones in society. Those young healthy poor people will survive, you can take that to the bank.

And those that survive will not love riding bikes to 'local' work on those well groomed trails through a park. They won't get-up and run 5 kilometers, take a shower and sit down to bowl of Wheaties and skim milk then off to work on their 10 speed bikes. They will spend their entire waking periods just trying to exist. That is the reality of those beautiful days of old.

Gas prices are not going to cause massive starvation here.

You just brought up a good point, though. Another good implication of this is that it will bring back the family farm. No longer can one corpration afford to have tons of food shipped all over the country. It will be more profitable to rely on smaller, local farms.

If we had real leadership, it wouldn't take a crisis to make changes before they become painful experiences. Thirty years ago we should have begun our serious withdrawal from petroleum, at least for personal transportation. And so three decades later, I'm not totally unhappy to see pressure to make the change. That pressure is in the form of higher prices. Note that the price of gas is still far less than that in Europe. And they're still functioning. I'm fully aware that some people depend upon fuel for their livelyhood. I think there should be some serious discussion about how to manage the damage to these people due to higher prices. We can't just mow people's lives down with abrupt changes. But this problem is far greater than economic hardship. There is real damage being done to the invironment due to combustion of petroleum products. Now there is virtually no way to completely extinguish internal combustion. Not for quite a while will we be able to transport heavy loads without it. America has been lazy. For that, we're going to pay a price.

We need to change. And we need to do it with the least amount of damage to people's lives.

And we need to work concurrently on alternatives, so we have a planet to live on.

The high gas prices has been a real strain not just budget wise for us, but also for survival.

We've known this for years. We need alternatives and this has not been pressed until recently. Hybrids are only recently getting real attention and now are taken more seriously than I recall.

You are so right about leadership. We need someone who can take the manufacturers and oil companies to task for not doing what they should be doing. It's frustrating to look back on the wasted years when viable alternatives could have been aggressively researched.

By now we could have more fuel efficient vehicles that are safer for the environment, built a solid national transport system and done more to not live off oil.

My hubby loves his job and will always drive truck, but he hates that this country is so dependent on oil when it doesn't have to be that way.

who must heat their homes and get to work on subsistant wages. Look for more people to go bankrupt, lose their homes and the rich to snatch up property at bargain prices.

During the first Depression people like the Mellons wanted the government to be hands off and the rich to buy up everything. That is what they dream will happen this time.

I guess those of us in the rural land of no public transportation should just suck it up then right? Maybe the happy ones can help out those of us that are getting screwed. Care to donate? Ill be pretty tapped out with my $500 a month heat bill anyway. But Ill try to remember your joy as Im filling my shopping cart with Ramen. Nice.

But other than transportation, they are my hardships, too. My cupboards are already stocked with Ramen, and my heating bills will be similar to yours.

If you need cheap transportation and have the money, buy a hybrid. If you can't do that, then carpool. What kind of car do you have now?

Im a photographer... I own my own business. I must travel. Carpooling is not an option for me since the one employee I had, I was recently forced to let go. Right about the time gas prices went up $1.00 at once, lots of people stopped doing things like having photos taken. Raising my prices would mean Im no longer competitive with those larger organizations that arent as affected by the economy.. then I lose even more business. Ive already gotten calls from yearly clients who will be foregoing portraits this year due to the impending heating crisis. These are people who's photos Ive taken every year for 5 years... sometimes more. Some of them call me crying.

My car is 10 years old now... almost 11. Gets about 25mpg & leaks oil like a sieve. But since my nat gas rate is already higher than last winters highest rate... buying a new car is out of the question. An extra $250+ for heat... an extra $50+ for electricity (thats gone up too) and an extra $300 a month for a car? Cant happen. Ive already lost more than $1000. in my usual November clients alone.

But my point is, theres a large percentage of people in this country that get by from paycheck to paycheck. So any sort of thing like this puts them, us, in financial danger. And believe it or not there are millions of people who are screwed just because they werent expecting this. People that have to save up for things like going to the doctors office. And they are the ones who cant simply adjust in the manners youve proposed here. So.. Im ALL FOR saving the Earth man... but not like this, not right now.

Remember, it's not just gas for cars that'll go up: It's food, it's heating.

And again, anybody not rich will be screwed so somebody else can make a profit.

The reports out today indicate that "demand" was only down by 2% and already major companies are revising q4 forecasts downward. Higher gas prices will have a far larger impact on consumers in general, even those that never or rarely drive.

That aside, true environmental help will not come from conservation alone. We are going to have to replace current petroleum based energy generation with clean alternatives, while continuing to add additional energy generation capacity from these same sources as well.

MZr7

That means that they are not particularly price sensitive and high prices just kind of hit people in the nuts rather than driving demand down by much. People generally can't afford to buy a new car to replace their inefficient one.

What I am talking about IS a long term solution, and yes, that does mean temporary hardships while people adjust their lifestyles. The drop in demand will lag a few years behind the higher cost, but I'm no economist.

Either way, it will put immense pressure on our governing officials to develop alternative energy sources, and increase efficiency of the vehicles used in transportation. Everyone, from consumers to businesses will be lobbying to make this happen. We're going to have to start sometime.

That's not counting everyone else who has 'adjust' as well such as those on fixed incomes and working below poverty level.

What you are advocating here is the gas prices being so high that it will force the government to do something. Sure, it might work...but that's after people have lost their jobs, kicked out of their homes, freeze during the winter and in general suffer.

That's what will happen. Not everyone lives in a large city that has easy access to public transportation and not everyone makes enough money where the higher prices wouldn't significantly impact their lives.

Sure, let's start, but be smart about it.

For the middle class, it may be spending less on home entertainment systems. For the lower income people, there has to be increased government assistance for heat.

I really doubt that any job loss due to high energy prices will be permanant. People will find other ways to streamline energy consumption to compensate. My university is working on a project to increase the efficiency and decrease the production cost of solar panels. Soon that may become a better source of energy. And people will just have to learn to use less. Then cost will go down again, because demand is down and supply is no longer finite. The sun will always shine.

seems we're short on both right now. Even with a change in the WH, we might have the compassionate government, but probably not the money.

I say keep working on it. Change will be gradual, but it should NOT be at the expense of the public. This is something that effects EVERYONE in a major way.

This isn't just about not going to the movies or putting off a vacation. There are people whose livelihoods depend on the transportation industry and not only that...whatever impact is made goes directly to the public at large.

Any change, no matter how gradual, will have an immediate impact on them.

High gas prices is not the way to do it. Government regulation, investing more money into alternatives, working on a viable solid national transport system and educating the public is what would work, IMO.

The effort has to be real and not some photo-op sounding good rhetoric with nothing to back it up.

but not everyone lives in Chicago and New York. Not everyone lives close enough to work and shopping to walk or bike. Not everyone has access to public transportation.

Generalizing your own experience to the entire world is seldom smart.

Rent and home prices are literally unaffordable in the city I work in, so those of us who make less than $40,000 a Year (and I make far less than that) HAVE to live out of town in a rural area. Even with the price of gas going up, it's still cheaper. I have a car that get 45 mph, I carpool, and I still have cut out all discretionary driving and eating out. All because of PROFITEERING oil companies.

Not everyone can afford to move closer to a job, take public transportation, ride a bike to work, or quit their job and get one closer toward home. ALL of which have been suggested to me before by DUers who don't seem to understand we can't all do this.

I agree we all need public transportation and alternative fuel (which I often use), but that does NOT cancel out the illegal greed and econom,ic reality of these false gas prices.

My husband needs his car when he's AT work, and of course we are not independently wealthy, so he has a few more years until he can retire.. We have seen our gas expense go from under $200 a month up to $405 last month..

We do NOT drive any more than we absolutely HAVE to..

People in California have to commute, because that's they way we are set up here.. We have no state money or federal moeny to change things..

afford it.

Think about low-income wage earners who live in small or rural towns and commute to cities or urban areas (the only places they can find work). The incomes of these people are not increasing with the rise in gas prices. Families will be forced to choose between gas or less food, fuel or no new shoes from Walmart for the growing kids.

It's not really practical to walk or bike 25-50 miles each day when it's pouring rain or hailing or snowing.

Yes, I have cut back on my driving. But oftentimes that is not an option for commuting low-income workers. These people often don't have the best vehicles, so they aren't making too many road trips.

That has already happened here. And then those families would actually SAVE money because the high gas prices forced communities to provide bus lines, and they no longer need to pay for a car, repairs, insurance, etc... The bus would be cheaper than a car. And the more expensive gas gets, the more people would use it and demand more routes.

In my community the school busing system is struggling with the costs as it is. The prices have really hit them hard.

Should they raise taxes even though gas prices are as high as they are? Should they do it if the prices are even higher?

You're not considering how devestating this would be to people.

Eventually, it would be cheaper for all people if the bussing was done effeciently.

In our school system, they are operating what they can barely afford which is less buses. I have to drive my kids to the bus stop. One is at 6am and the other at 7:30am.

This is to the bus stop.

Bussing people is more efficient, hands down. So eventually, everyone saves money. The more people that use it, the more people that can get rid of their cars, or only use them occasionally. Then they have more money to pay in taxes for the bus system.

In the end, it hurts the big guy, because he is paying for his expensive car and paying taxes for the bus system.

Shit rolls downhill and the little guy will get rolled down almost every time.

Busing is only efficient when there is enough buses. There isn't and most towns can't afford to invest in them.

Look at it this way. If gas prices were to go higher the cost would hit the consumer more than just at the pump. It would also hit them at the grocery store and most other services. It would hit them almost everywhere.

While wages stay the same, costs go up. Using the car less isn't going to make a difference. The cost of goods will make up for that in spades. While they are paying more for goods and services, you expect them to pay higher taxes, too.

See how unfeasible and unfair it is?

Mass transportation costs. In a metropolitan area (i.e. Chicago or New York), you have enough consumers to finance it. In rural areas, the money is not there. It would have to be subsidized. And who will pick up the tab?

Can you imagine a city bus going through Central Illinois? Do you realize Greyhound and other bus lines are CLOSING their stations in smaller towns?

No way. And yeah, cities and towns all over the country are cutting out bus routes and lines because not enough people ride them, and because of fuel costs.

Man, you're talking about a "what if," we're talking about our families' survival.

(and yeah, I wrote it that way on purpose)

Communities can't or won't pay for this, they WON'T. Even if they taxed the hell out of us. And, even if they did, that reality would be years away. What tatiana said up thread IS the reality for many of us, no matter how many people just seem to thrive on thinking we are being "difficult" by not wanting to cram five people in a one-bedroom apartment, or eat Ramen noodles 24/7. Our quality of life has suffered greatly the last six months.

or something and you can't afford it.

What about contractors? Ever think of that? Do you wanna carry a ladder on a fucking bicycle? NEWS FLASH Alot of us don't work in and office. We work construction thats how you have a roof over your fucking head. We work when it's hot we work when it's 20 below zero. How do you think that magic building was built that you go to work in? Live closer to where we work? How the hell do we do that? Better start thinking beyond your fucking bicycle and think how this all works.

People take the subway, the train, or ride bikes. Oh fucking please tell me how to do that? I am a construction worker did you forget about us? Do you also believe in the easter bunny?

If gas prices are higher for you, they are higher for everyone. So you are not at a competitive disadvantage.

That's all. :eyes:

that means they won't have enough which means wages will not rise.

and that 200 billion in Iraq was put toward a national transportation efficiency bill. I believe we could bus the entire unbussed population of this country for half that.

In the long term, bussing will be cheaper for everyone, even with higher energy prices. The problem is making the initial investment.

Yes, we need a responsible government and good strong leadership.

I'm all for a good public transportation system. I would love to have it where I live. I would use it, but I'm against making it happen by way of higher gas prices.

No one gave a shit about public transportation when the were low. Look what happened...people bought LESS efficient transportation. Reason and prudent planning only have a small effect on the average American. They won't reason or plan for the future unless they are forced to do it. Otherewise, they will continue down the road of self-gratification and selfishness.

It hurts mostly the ones who are just trying to get by.

on inefficient transportation? Either we get used to it gradually, or we hit a wall eventually. Even with gas prices where they are now, we still have it better off than most of the world.

And the more people that need to use a bus, the more profitable it will be, and the more they can expand, and the more everyone SAVES money.

The initial impact will always effect the poorest the most, no matter what social change comes about. But it will help them in the long run.

with a supportive house and senate.

The rich and well-to-do don't care for the most part. There are a few, but not enough to make a difference.

Looking at who runs the country and who they're in bed with, this won't be changing anytime soon and high gas prices will do far more harm than good, IMO.

Aggressive research into alternatives and implementing them, a good solid national transport system, stronger regulations on oil companies and automakers and educating the public is the way to do it. As I've said before, using this along with good strong leadership can make this realistic and attainable.

It can happen without having to make the little guy suffer because that's who will suffer first. They'll suffer the worst, too. Saying it'll be good for them really twists my gut.

Because what you're saying is nonsensical in a real-world sense.

I agree with you 100% on gas prices because America has not learned one fucking thing since the 70s. We need to take action and change things but you also have to remember that alot of us do not work in and office and can ride bicycles to work. 30 fucking years and nothing has changed if that is what you mean then I agree with you. But you also must agree it's not as simple as you try to project with riding bicycles to work.

Living closer to work is one thing. Biking is one thing. Getting a hybrid car is one thing. More efficient bussing is one thing. Car-pooling is one thing. In concert, we should be able to come up with a solution until alternative, non-polluting, renewable resource energy is developed for mass-consumption.

Even those in rural areas, a hybrid car will cut your gas costs in half. So even if gas prices doubled, you would still be paying the same.

I have a 45-mph car, I carpool. I can't fucking LIVE CLOSER TO WORK. Do you get this? Many of us can't afford this. I can't even afford a one-bedroom apartment, basic, in an okay part of town on my salary. Can Five people live in that? NO. And, no, your gas price doesn't suddenly half. You come out about even on gas, but EVERYTHING else has gone up: heat, electric, food, clothing... wages are the same or lower. THIS IS ECON 101. That's how it works. High gas prices screw us over.

Bah! I'm putting this thread on ignore. It's stupid. You refuse to see what reality is to so many of us. I agree with all the points you make, but it is not practical for most of us. Sorry.

Seriously, do you actually know any poor people? I hear echoes of Marie Antoinette as you tell a single mom of three working night shift waiting tables at the International House of Pancakes that she should just shut up and go buy a $25,000 car.

How about a car pool? A bus? A ride with a friend?

What about a used hybrid? What about a scooter? Can't you see that there is more than one option?

for suburban dwellers driving downtown every day 9-5. Not as practical for people working part time on odd shifts or heading to different worksites every day. Unfortunately smalltown America doesn't have "the bus" and I'm not even going to comment on how you think "get a ride with your friend" is a reliable transportation solution. A scooter. How many carseats fit on the scooter, sport? Can't you see that you need to leave Lincoln Park once in a while and see how people live?

And why would you need carseats to get to work? Are you taking your kids to work with you?

You need to get out of this country and see how the rest of the world lives. No one else has cars that can just drive them wherever they want.

is a rather affluent neighborhood bordering downtown Chicago. I used that as as example, as you obviously live in such a place. And I am glad it has all worked out for you. But yeah, people occasionally have to take their kids places like school and the doctor and yes, drop them off at day-care on the way to work. The scooter is not real practical for a family of four. I have, like you, been lucky enough to see how people in other parts of the world live. Having been to those places I am sure you would agree that comparing Amsterdam to Odessa or Paris France to Paris Kentucky isn't really much help in judging reasonable solutions to current transportation issues in many parts of the United States. You are not wrong to say that in the long run we need to making big changes in public transportation and weening ourselves off the internal combustion engine, I only take issue with the rather cavalier attitude about how the working poor have to deal with your "solution" tomorrow morning.

I certainly don't live in an affluent neighborhood. My definition of "safe" means I haven't gotten shot yet. I am dealing with my own solution as you speak. I live on a food budget of about $5 a day. I share an apartment with 3 other people. I don't have expendable income...that's why I don't drive anymore. I understand that I don't have a family, and it's harder to do public transportation with one. But if you can think of another way to get people to conserve fuel, than let's hear it.

By the way, I did mention that we need to give assistance to the poor to help the ease into this new lifestyle. Please don't ignore that.

by requiring car companies to raise CAFE standards by 10 mpg within 3 years. Then I would regulate the unfettered speculation in oil futures and invest heavily in light rail and public transportation as well as funding r&d in alternative energy production, particularly ethanol and biofuels, and while I am at it I will re-legalize industrial hemp, as it is the cheapest source of biomass fuels.

The newer cars with higher MPG standards would still be new, and too expensive for waitresses at IHOP with kids. These are all solutions that high gas prices would automatically create, anyways. And in our country, the free market is a better regulator than laws. Republicans would never put up with these laws, and would roll them back as soon as they were in power again. But with gas prices high, even the irresponsible Republican constituants would demand hybrids. I would even slap another $1.50 per gallon tax on gas right now to pay for low income transport and food needs.

BTW, I live in Humboldt Park, not Lincoln Park. I knew where LP was, I just don't like it when people make assumptions about my life simply to further their supposed moral high ground in an argument.

the states did not tax fuel heavily from 1973 onward. then they could have made the extra revenue and not the oil companies. instead, we kept artificially low prices in the usa for the past 30 years while europe was paying through the nose and their governments were benefiting from the extra revenues. not many politicians during the past 30 years have had the balls to suggest a 1-2 dollar/gallon gas tax. we're paying the price now and only shareholders are reaping the benefits.

trucks for F-250 four doors, so maybe you all could car pool or something. Or get something that get's better than 12 MPG and can still haul a ladder. Lots of possibilities. Deal.

We all know they never build anything in japan or EU...

You don't need an SUV to carry a ladder that's the kind of excuse i only heard in america.

This is what construction worker use in Europe :



2200lbs can load up to 1500lbs 48mpg City, 57mpg highway.



7500lbs can load up to 5000lbs, 30mpg city 38mpg Highway.

So I recently watched a movie, based on Preston Tucker and his innovated Tucker Torpedo which got 20 mpg, had major safety features and was priced for the average American consumer. Guess what the Big 3 did to him? The oil industry has had obscene profits, around 67 billion? over the past six months? Who is really to blame here? Not working class Americans who've been duped by the auto makers and the oil industry, that's for sure. When the Democrats controlled Congress for a short period after Sen Jeffords switched parties, launched investigations into high energy prices, results were favorable to consumers. High gas prices and energy prices hurt the little people. I don't welcome that. You want to level blame, target the corporations who profit from oil and who won't address alternative energy until oil is no longer profitable. That it where the problem lies.

$5/gallon gas (or higher) is the best thing that could happen to this country.

We're great innovators, but only when it's profitable. At $3/gallon, gas is still too cheap. Make it economically advantageous, and we'll find much better ways to do things.

think about how much you love it the next time you go to a grocery store, call a plumber or utilize any other services.

If that means goods and services are slightly more expensive in the short term, so be it. The long-term effect will be overwhelmingly positive.

uh, not hardly.

And, as I said, the long-term benefits will far outweigh the rise in consumer prices.

Honestly, don't you believe that we'd use less petroleum products (and develop alternative energies faster) if gas prices went up markedly?

and for the political party owned by the oil companies, but the people who will be freezing in their homes this winter, and the ones who will no longer be able to get to work, and the ones whose limited incomes cannot absorb rampant inflation in the cost of the necessities of life, well, they might disagree with you.

Every time oil prices go up someone starts this very same thread and other people have to come along and explain that most people in this country don't have access to public transportation and can't afford to have the cost of their groceries go up 50%. They will be devastated, but to the Pollyannas around here, they are apparently just collateral damage.

A little too two dimensional for my taste. It assumes a conservative like "X therefore Y." HIgh gas prices are an economic drag, which will have the net effect of depressing the middle class and working poor's standard of living.

There are simply giant segments of the population for whom there is no viable alternative to driving.

Small towns CANNOT afford public transit that would leave their own boundries. And, Public Transportation is far too often operated to provide as much revenue from rider fees as possible. The borrowing only covers capital in most instances. Therefore, the people with the least disposable income are the ones paying for it. That makes it, effectively, a regressive funding scheme.

I don't think you thought this fully through.
The Professor

America is just not set up correctly to weather this without a lot of pain. This may drive us into recession. People will cut back on discretionary spending first before cutting back on energy. Geography, long distances, our car culture, major lack of long term planning that should have started in earnest in the '70's, CAFE standards, public transit, etc. And we may never have the Euro type political system that could tax energy and roll that capital into alternatives.

The only silver lining I see is that high prices will make alternative technologies more economic and will speed up development. Potential breakthru's in nanotech photovoltaics are very exciting. We're probably screwed but in a hundred years people will be living in small houses that are mostly energy independent and driving cars that get 200 mpg on ethanol or maybe practical electric cars... who knows. I wish I could jump ahead 300 years and get a glimpse of the post fossil fuel world.

That's long haul development so i can't quite call it silver. I know what you mean, though.
The Professor

did nothing. Why not try a different method? High energy prices should have been a fact not only 30 years ago, but 60. Johnny C. has taken lots of flak in this thread from folks who consider only the pain of the short term. But short-term thinking is what got us into this mess, and only enduring the pain of real change will give us a chance for survival. I think $5.00 a gallon might tip the scales, if some politician will stand up and tell the truth, which is "Our way of life is unsustainable, and has been for a long time."

And, JC and i are pals. So, he's taking no flak from me at all. Just constructive criticism. There's a difference, no?

My concern is that the greatest "pain" in the short term hits those with the least power to change anything. Solutions that cause the greatest harm to those with the greatest need are not valid solutions, at all.
The Professor

being forced into poverty? Is the government prepaired to help those people? People arent even being helped now. What about that part of the big picture?

During any major social change, it will always be the poor and the middle class that have trouble adjusting. There is no getting around that. But we have to make this change...for the environment and because we have to do it eventually. Being reliant upon oil means oil wars. It means the oil companies get to screw us because we have no alternatives, which makes them rich, which makes them politically powerful, which makes it possible for a clown like Bush to get elected....

Somebody's going to have to break the cycle. I think all people should be able to buy hybrid cars tax free. The government can implement some programs to help the adjustment. But we have to adjust.

My uncle is a traveling salesman, and he drives like 40,000 miles a year. He has a Saab that probably gets him 30 mpg. If gas prices double, he will just have to get a hybrid that gets 60 mpg, and gas costs will not rise for him. I know many are not so lucky as to be able to afford a hybrid car or increased heating costs. But high costs will force people to build energy-efficcient homes and to conserve. Federal assistance has to be directed towards those people who can't afford it, but everyone is going to have to make sacrifices. We really don't have a choice. Theo only think I believe that will force everyone to care about conservation is their bank accounts.

We can see a fly taking a dump from outer space.

We can clone any number of species

We can split a beam of light so that it appears in two separate places at once

SO WHERE IS MY HYDROGEN CAR?

I'm a college student going full time and working 3 jobs. One of my jobs is process serving and I have to drive around one of the biggest counties in the country (Marquette County, MI), another of my jobs is working for an Audio Visual company and I have to have a big vehicle so I can move professional audio equipment around, and I bounce at a club (which doesn't really matter in the context of this discussion). I live in a town 15 miles from my school and jobs. Even if I wasn't putting on an average of 600 miles a week on my vehicle I would still be putting near $100 a week in the gas tank. The gas prices are completely crushing me, I can't move closer to my jobs and school since I currently have a free living siutation (well I pay the cable bill), and I would still end up spending more on gas than I did on rent when I lived in Buffalo, NY.

You could say public transportation, but I live in a rural area and buses start running at 7 am and stop at 6 pm.

You cannot compare the United States to Europe when it comes to the needs of fuel consumption. We are simply far too spread out, leading to our dependence on the fuel.

Most of the arguments I see generally only apply to those living in developed/metro areas, but when you people get your way its not as much of an adjustment because there are other solutions. In the rural areas policies like that rape our asses without lube.

be fun in the snow there? You could slide into town! That would save even more gas.

Even in Lansing public transportation doesn't get you to the county seat or to many jobs or shopping areas that are considered part of Lansing. The schedules are bad, the transfers times poorly coordinated and they end too early.

We are not Europe. Not everything is manufactured in every area, trucks need to go a long way. We don't have great train systems Europe does.

It is true that low prices for gas didn't bring the public outcry for solutions. It shouldn't have needed to. We knew and the government knew better answers had to be developed. But our incentives started going the wrong way.(Huge SUVs for ANY business, unrelated to need for it, could be fully written off the first year and so on)

It's easy to just say "Raise prices" but the wrong people are hurt by that. The low prices did get way more people get SUVs (and people said there are so many on road they wouldn't feel safe in a small car).
But the working class and working poor who eke by week to week often don't have options, don't have room in their budget.

And heat is a whole other issue. Right now they say there is no plan to increase heating aid and you don't have to be poor to really be hit hard by a 70+ increase. You can only turn the heat down so far.

I know where you are there are long cold winters and many of the people are of moderate income. This is going to hurt a lot of people.

Really, I know plenty of people with little cars and they handle fine. I just can't make it in one because of the jaws I do.

Yeah, I know in a lot of metros the public transportation systems sucks too. I lived in Buffalo, NY for a year and I didn't have a vehicle and I would have had to leave earlier from my apartment to catch a bus than I did when I walked to work 5 miles away.

As for the whole heat thing, yeah, I'm not looking forward to this winter for a lot of people's sake. Lots of people think I'm crazy, even for a Yooper, and I don't use a lot of heat. Of course, even keeping a house at 60 will be damn expensive. This area is in a lot of trouble this year.

Here in DC mass transit costs as much as it does to drive to work unless you already live close to the heart of the city. The reality is that it is getting too expensive to get to work.

I really wish that I could move closer to work, but I can't afford a house in the city. I can't afford to pay a private school tuition since the school system in DC is broken. My husband and I work in different parts of the area, so whose job would we move closer to. How would you fit all 5 million people who work downtown into housing in the heart of the city?

No matter what way you look at it we in the middle are getting screwed by high gas prices. I don't welcome this at all.

Your not taking into effect the spiderweb of our lives that high oil/gas prices play a part in. Its not just cars, its food, clothing etc. Its farmers having to spend more on diesel to sell 2 buck corn in 2006 when my father use to only get 2 buck corn in the 80s except now everything costs twice as much.

Itsconstruction, think houses are overpriced now.. wait till the materials to build them goes up 40%. Those increases in costs hammers the middle and lower class into dust because they are not getting raises to match... we are starting to enter stagflation.

Hybrid cars selling yeah but for someone like myself who has their current car paid off(not an SUV fyi) I'm not getting one. Once I figure in sales tax, interest on a loan etc I'm better off staying put and what about those who can't afford to walk in a lay down a pretty damn steep non negotiated price for a prius which is a SMALL car to boot.

All this means is that gas money gets taken directly away from any discrecinary spending which of course means I buy less just like millions of americans are starting to do. Then profits are down so people get fired, which means less consumers.. so on and so forth.

where local manufacturing is encouraged because it becomes more expensive to ship stuff all over the country than it does to make it locally. Alternative fuels become practical. Gonna crank up my grandad's corn still and become an energy magnate myself. A hybrid may not make sense now, but wait until gas hits $6 gallon, and it'll make more sense. Or a bio-diesel, or ethanol-fuel conversion, or something. People thought that the oil shortages in the 1970's were the end of the world, and I was there, we ain't seen nothing like that yet -- gas prices roughly tripled, and stations were out anyway... but within 5 years, we had a generation of more fuel efficient cars and everyone knew what an R-value was. Rock On!

... he basically said the best way to respond to high gas prices was conservation and the development of alternate energy sources. And yeah...with China and India coming on line as global economies, we were never going to see Oil below $40.00 bbl again.

All that you say is true, high oil prices will force people to change their driving and their overall energy consumption pattern.

Howver this is going to come at a huge price, one that is going to be borne by those most unable to handle an additional burden in our society, the poor and those on fixed income. While you have the means to buy a bike, or buy a hybrid, and you have the location to take advantage of your local public transport, the poor cannot afford to make these sorts of changes. People constantly gripe about the large gas guzzling cars they see in poor urban areas, well there is a reason why people are driving those cars, they are very cheap to buy. While a new hybrid costs from the mid $20,000 and up, a used large car can be had for a few hundred dollars. While you live in an area replete with mass transit, many many people, especially the rural poor have absolutely no access to any form of public transportation. The only change that these folks can make is the change that they're always forced to make, get by on even less. Turn the thermostat to fifty, eat every other day in order to have gas money, skip those medications for a couple of weeks in order to pay the electric bill.

In a society like ours, that is an ongoing crime. While the rich and even middle class live comfy lives, the poor are living on the edge between life and death. Any sort of additional monetary burden, such as a rise in energy prices, will start to tip hundreds and thousands and hundreds of thousands right over that line, and we will see these people start to die. Even a moderate winter this year is going to either directly or indirectly kill many many people.

And while you have the money to move, these folks don't. They don't have the extra cash for deposits, they don't even have the extra cash to rent a moving van. What makes you think that they can also afford the exorbitant rent that is charged in an inner city?

I agree with you, and have also made the arguement, that high energy prices will be a great thing in the long run for all of the reasons that you enumerated and more. However if we don't couple this with an energy assitance program for the poor and needy amongst us, then people will die and innocent blood will be on our hands. The poor cannot continue to have an inordinate amount of our society's put on their back. Rather, while we are reconstructing our energy model into a more sensible, sustainable construct, let us offer a helping hand to those most in need in our society rather than simply letting the cold hand of social Darwinism decide who lives and dies. We are supposed to be a civilized society, a kind, caring compassionate society. We need to start acting like one again.

Especially for heating costs. But this IS going to happen. We either finance cheap gas through wars, or we bite the bullet readjust. And hybrids are in their 5th year or so of development, so soon it will be possible to buy used, cheaper hybrids.

The thing is, if all the money we spent on Iraq went to improving public transportation even in small towns, this wouldn't be a problem.

It's everybody who isn't rich who will be screwed over.

There are many ways you can save money, save energy, and with time convert over to alternative fuels. I am in the process of this now, and my wife and I, while middle class, are nowhere near well off.

I haven't sold my truck, for having a farm I need a truck. But I no longer use it for my daily commute to work(26 miles one way) Instead I invested in a Bajaj scooter, goes 55-60 mph, gets 100 mpg. I will be riding this everyday that it isn't wet or slick on the roads, unless it is just absolutely brrr cold. Money and gas saved right there, all for the price of $2700

In fact I will be taking some of that money that I save and next summer I will be purchasing an external wood stove(with catalytic converter) for aprox $2000-$4000. It will be paying for itself within three years, even if propane(our current heating fuel) remains steady at $1.60/gal. For really, after you've purchase the wood stove, your only real outlay is for the wood to burn in it, and in most areas of the country you can find places that will let you cut all you want just for the price of your gas.

Take the money that I'm now saving in fuel and heating costs, and roll it over into either a wind turbine(you can get a complete 3Kw set up for $11,000) or a couple of kilowatts worth of solar panels($15,000 and dropping), or both.

And by that time I will need either a new car, a new truck or both. And that is a real simple solution, get a diesel vehicle, and then start making your own biodiesel. It costs $.70-$1.25/gal to make, and you can take your lone waste product, glycerin, and sell that off to soapmakers. And if you want to go the easy way, you can get biodiesel manufacturing kits for $1100-$2000, which will crank out fifty to one hundred gallons/day.

One more thing, start growing at least some of your own food. Food costs are going to continue to escalate, simply due to the fact that most of our food is trucked in. Grow it yourself, or buy from local growers and you cut out the transportation costs(and it is much tastier to boot)

Granted, not all of these things will fit your situation, but surely you can undertake some of them. They can't all be done at once, but over a period of four or five year, you can accomplish a lot. It helps if you own your own residence, but even if you don't you can either talk your landlord into investing in alternative energy solutions, or you do what you can(or move to your own place).

Is this costly? Yes, the initial cash lay out can be expensive. But if you start with one item on this list, and continue to roll those savings over into other projects, soon you will be set up and energy independent. Yes, it take disipline and some sacrifice(it is going to be one cold mofo motoring into town this winter on that scooter). But in the end it is all well worth doing.

But whatever you do, don't throw up your hands in despair and start getting ready for your own demise. That's when you've already lost the battle. Rather you should plan ahead, dig in and fight back. My wife and I make aprox. $60,000 between the two of us, with the usual fistful of bills(excepting credit card bill, hate those things). Yet these series of projects are quite do-able for us, and for most of the rest of middle class America. But you need to start now before it is too late. Otherwise you're going to get caught in that energy inflation spiraling upwards, and won't have any cash savings left to implement what you need to do.

common if laws, incentives and policies are established BY THE GOVERNMENT to encourage them. I congratulate you on what you're doing, and I'll be doing some of the same things.

:yourock:

Another question to the whiners on this thread: If cheap energy has brought us to this point, how will continuing cheap energy solve the problem?

Mainly I'm concerned about the poor and those on fixed incomes. The coming transition of our energy economy is going to be drastic, and sadly these people do not have the means with which to survive them. An ever increasing energy price burden is going to literally start killing people, probably by the end of this winter. I would be willing to forego tax credits and other such incentives if the government would help these people

Sadly though, none of this is going to happen under this misadministration. We've already seen with Hurricane Katrina that Bushco is willing to let the poor die off, even when it is live on TV. How much more willing will they be when those deaths occur behind closed doors in the privacy of some walk-up flat that is freezing? Yeah.

And I'm really not sure that a Democratic administration will do much better, at least not with these corporate whores we've got running the show right now. They are as much in the pockets of Big Oil as Bushco is, and thus have just about as much incentive to implement an effective alternate energy strategy, ie almost none.

I wish you good luck on your change over. We're all going to have to buck up and do this if we wish to survive. Sadly, everybody but the rich and the power elite are being left to hang in the wind, so we've got to do for ourselves and each other.

PS, I highly recommend the Bajaj scooter. Great gas mileage and it is a blast to ride around on:evilgrin:

My view has long been that energy prices needed to be higher in the face of global climate change.

I would have rather seen it accomplished through targeted taxation - the addition of the external cost of energy + administrative fees to the pump price. Still the effect of conservation, however it comes, is needed and urgent. Our atmosphere is collapsing.

to public transportation; however, there are people in the world who MUST commute and have jobs where they cannot "carpool."

Futhermore, it isn't just gas that'll go through the roof; heating will also rise.

This is just another way to screw working people and the poor who do have cars.

How about tax breaks for lower and middle income folks to defray the rising cost of fuel and also tax breaks for folks who use alternative sources of energy and tax breaks for companies that develop them...


The positive thing about higher gas prices is they will encourage companies to make more fuel efficient cars and come up with alternative sources of energy....


The era of cheap oil is over...

are thinking strictly short-term. Fascism and democracy have ebbed and flowed over centuries, but the one thing that's different now is that the fuel is RUNNING OUT! This has never happened before, throughout all the pendulum swings of slavery and freedom, superstition and enlightenment.

The whole "terrorism" thing is just a diversion from this most fundamental issue of Peak Oil, and our very "lifestyle" which is built upon cheap fossil fuel.

Yes, poor people will suffer the most; what the hell else is new? When have they NOT suffered the most? I can't understand all the short-term "but I have to drive my underpaid ass to work through the rural area in my old gas-guzzler that's all I can afford" nay-saying in this thread. To your great credit, you have been optimistic and reasonable, and have offered many positive suggestions and scenarios to support this INEVITABLE change to life on earth.

have to face the fact that our fossil fuel consumption is unsustainable. The sooner we confront this fact and set about developing alternatives, better public transportation, etc, the better. Sure they'll be some pain now, but greater pain (and even death) awaits us in the near future if we don't start being honest with ourselves about the situation.

"us vs. them" rhetoric about how the poor and moderate-income folks will be negatively affected. This is surely true, but what a short-sighted argument from so-called "progressives," who, more than anyone, must be aware of this approaching sea change.

The fact is a better world for more people MUST include sustainable systems, and we'd better get to building them, no matter who gets rich in the short term.

Look at the entire transportation industry as a whole. They get hit and so will most of the country. The impact will be enough to cost jobs, put people out of their homes and onto the street.

My husband is a trucker and not only will this cost us dearly, it will everyone else. Take a good look at what trucks haul in this country. It's not just money, either.

There will be food shortages, medical supply shortages, construction and every other thing you can think of that came by a truck. That's just about everything.

in the "short term". You might want to venture out of Starbucks now and then and maybe you could understand the "I have to drive to work through a rural area" point of view, because I assure you, you have no clue about how people are living day to day right now.

the "Starbucks" business. You don't know what I know about how people live day to day right now. I work every single day with people on TANF, on food stamps, homeless, with no transportation.

I assure you, I have some clues about some of these things. I do what I can every day to ease the pain brought about by the Free Market. If it were up to me, I would ration fossil fuel, and prohibit the private use of any vehicle over 3500 pounds. But failing that, we have to radically change the way this nation uses non-renewable resources, and make the big shift to other resources. If you can't stand the pain, keep voting for the "cheap gas" candidates.

...bear most of the hardship. The wealthy will continue their profligate ways, and will never put their resources to use in developing alternatives.

Rationing, on the other hand, could be the weapon that forces the richest Americans to change their ways. This could move us away from petroleum dependence.

I suppose you also think that high healthcare costs area good thing, because they prevent people from frivolous medical care. :eyes:

Look, it is obvious that we have to chart a different course for energy. But punishing the poor and middle class and destroying the economy is not the way to do it.

That's a lot of hyperbole. No one is trying to punish anyone here. And the economy will live on. I don't see the economies of Europe destroyed because their gas costs twice as much as ours.

The burden on the poor is nothing government subsidies can't fix. But even government subsidies will not help encourage people to conserve unless they are subsidies in other areas, such as food money. People are going to have to learn to get by without cars. Less people will be able to afford them. That is the only way we will be able to really conserve.

Their society has a different composition, both physically and socially.

The attitude you areendorsing WILL wreack the economy, and will punish the middle class. People and businesses are looking at massive increwases in heating costs on top of massive gas costs simultaneously.

Sorry but it is neither practical nor humane to think that we should be sacrificed to make some SUDDEN transition to a better system.

If high gas is good then I'm Bin Laden and I'm chillin at the holiday inn.

That is all.

The working poor have to get to work tomorrow, making 6 or 7 dollars and hour and paying 3 of that for a gallon of gas. They are not going shopping in their Hummers, they are getting there in an old pick-up or a 12 year old cavalier that requires prayer just to start every morning. They have to get to work tomorrow, and every dollar that they make is already spent on rent and food and clothes for their kids. Guess what, if the working poor have to pay twice as much for gas they will be going without one of the other necessities, because on 7 bucks an hour there isn't any cushion. they can't move closer to their work tomorrow, they can't ride a bike tomorrow, they have to go to work, in their cars, using gasoline. Period. Your vision is of the future is not wrong, but we shouldn't have to get to a cleaner environment on the backs of the working poor, which in the short run is what surging gas prices are doing.

Fuel cost is imbedded in the cost of practically everything. Gone shopping for food lately? For some, high food cost can mean not being able to eat.

It's not winter yet. Wait until those on limited incomes get hit with a 70% increase in heating bills. Maybe they can cut back on some non-essencial, like medical care.

You know, lots of people have to commute to get to work. What will they do if the cost to get there goes-up. That means they have less to spend on other things. Maybe they can ride bikes on those bike lanes you love so much, all 30 miles, one way.

I'm sorry, but I cannot see any good from the prices we are paying for fuel.

This has got to be one of the dummest positions I have seen on this board, that high fuel prices are a 'good thing'.

Sorry about any spelling errors, spell check doesn't seem to work.

Instead of calling my post "dumb," why don't you come up with some sort of solution. Gas prices are not going down, anyways, so you might as well think of one.

Does anybody else see a relationship between Enroning California and Enroning the whole world?

How exactly does it happen that we go from about $1.15/gallon in Nov 2000 to more that $3.00/gallon in Oct 2005?

Why is it that Ken Lay has not been brought to justice and exactly where are those Enron energy traders now? Could they be working oil spot markets now, or maybe punching their cards on lots of oil from Saudi Arabia? Where are those people that joked about bending Granny over and screwing her with electricity bill? Have they been brought to justice? Nope, they are still out there. Yep. Do I think Bu$h is part of it? You bet.

What about the Bu$h ties to Saudi Arabia and how is it we believe the Saudi talks of how they are pumping all they can. Who was it in the mid 70's that brought about the oil embargo, who organized the OPEC cartel? Do you believe anything that comes out of the House of Saud. I don't.

Were you around in the mid 70's oil embargo? Do you remember how much prices went-up as the increased fuel costs rippled through all products. Here is the clue. The cost of fuel went from about 20 cent/gallon to about 90 cents/gallon. What was the CPI? I remember it as being around 12-15% each year. But that was before the republicans learned how to fix the inflation figures. I know at that time I was in a union job, and we got on that average of those years about 15% a year. I wouldn't have wanted to be an independent trucker in those years, or these years either. Unless you have 'market position' and can force your customers to pay your increased costs, you have to eat them. Many times without 'market position' you go under. That is why large corporations make out like bandits during high inflation, it runs their competitors out of business.

If you cannot see the relationship between the very high inflation going on right now and the gouging going on with fuel prices, what more can I say? Do you really believe the inflation figures coming from the labor department, or do you think that maybe, just maybe the numbers are being cooked? Oh, thats right, they weigh the numbers now. Another republican invention from Reagan. In some cases, they do not even include certain product prices in the CPI. Why is that? Because Social Security is pegged to the CPI. Thus the government can screw the people recieving SS by falsifying the CPI from a 'true' CPI.

The cost to transport products, all products, are buried inside the the sales of those products. The tooth fairy does not transport those goods or pay for the fuel. The final user of that product always, always pays all the costs to produce that product. And you want to raise the cost of everything because you think it's a good idea, you know to force people to conserve oil.

What about those that do not have the price flexibility that the oil industry seems to have. Those that have been abandoned by both the political party's. Those that work at a rate of pay, that because they do not posses 'market position' they cannot get more money to cover their higher costs. I think peak oil is real. However, I can remember in the mid 90's when the oil industry shut down the Blue Island Refinery south of Chicago. When they were asked why they had done this, the reply was it's more profitable for them to shut down this refinery. And they got away with it, even in the Clinton Administration, that great bastion of populous causes. Nuck the DLC and the horse they rode in on. But I digress.

All this brings-up the issue of Sherman Anti-Trust laws and why somehow the government has refused to prosecute the oil industry and it's political face the API. Why is that? We have major airlines declaring bankruptcy because their fuel costs are astronomical, the airline workers having their pension funds raided to pay for this fuel, and you say the high fuel costs are a good thing. What will you say next, "Fly SW, I own stock in SW and they are really super".

I stand by what I said, your post is one the fucking dummest I have seen on this board.

A national transportation system that depends on cheap oil is STUPID. We should have built rapid rail, and still can, if we don't wait until ALL the right-of-way is gone. Jesus, what the OP is talking about is MAJOR SYSTEMIC CHANGE, which must happen if our species is to survive. High fuel prices are just ONE of the necessary and PAINFUL steps to be taken. OF COURSE food prices will rise. OF COURSE all goods that move by truck will jump in cost. We will have to do many things differently. But for you to dismiss this post as "dumb" just because the short term will be painful (and more so for poor people), while so many people think only of what they will have to pay to drive, is unfair.

Let me give some background first.

My friend is exteremly intelligent. He built his own house from scratch, and did it in the most energy efficient way he could. It is insulated to something like r-30 (whatever that means). Put in ground water heat exchangers that he built from 2 $200 window air conditioners. I could go on and on about what this guys has done and some of the ideas he has com up with.

But one thing he did was sign up for a solar grant: http://www.trfund.com/sdf/index.htm

We are located in PA, and he has solar panels on his roof that rather than being "off the grid" and charging batteries, instead he sells the power generated back to the grid: http://www.theenergy.coop/solar_buy.htm

They actually buy the power back from him at a higher rate than they sell it to him, so he makes approx. $90/month AND HAS NO POWER BILL.

I know we were talking about fuel effiecient cars and I'm getting to that.

Anyway, it makes one wonder why not all houses built today have this technology. If every single house in this country had solar panels on them and we shared the power by selling it back to the grid. We would not need nearly as much power generating stations (i.e. Nuclear , oil, coal power plants).

This was where his idea began.

Now consider instead, or in addition to, of solar panels on homes, how about putting them on all the cars?

There are 80 million (roughly) cars in the USA. Imagine if they were little mini-power plants that had hi-efficiency batteries (with a small gas or better yet deisel engine backup for long distance travel).

Then when you drive say to the mall. You park your car. And plug into the power charging station. Each car could have a special code so you could be billed on whatever power you took from the chargrer. Kind of like they way computers have IP addresses.

Now, the charger would charge your batteries, while your car sat in the sun shine. Once the batteries were fully charged, the solar panels would start feeding the grid with the excess power.

Only about 10% of the cars in this country are active at any given time. The rest are parked.

I think there is something very poetic about taking these dirty environment destroying things that we drive and turning them into our energy saviors. I don't know, but it seems feasible to me.

90 mpg! Just got it a couple of weeks ago.