Americans Rejoice At Lower Gas Prices 334
HughPickens.com writes Drivers across America are rejoicing at falling gasoline prices as pumps across the country dip below $3 a gallon. According to Sharon E. Burke while it's nice to get the break at the gas pump and the economic benefits of an energy boom at home, the national security price of oil remains high and the United States should be doing everything it can to diversify global energy suppliers. Ultimately, the only way to solve our long term energy problem is to make a sustained, long-term investment in the alternatives to petroleum. But October saw a 52 percent jump in Jeep SUV sales and a 36 percent rise in Ram trucks while some hybrid and electric vehicle sales fell at the same time. "This is like putting a Big Mac in front of people who need to diet or watch their cholesterol," says Anthony Perl. "Some people might have the willpower to stick with their program, and some people will wait until their first heart attack before committing to a diet—but if we do that at a planetary scale it will be pretty traumatic."
Nicholas St. Fleur writes at The Atlantic that low oil prices may also undermine the message from the UN's climate panel. The price drop comes after the UN declared earlier this week that fossil fuel emissions must drop to zero by the end of the century in order to keep global temperatures in check. "I don't think people will see the urgency of dealing with fossil fuels today," says Perl. Falling oil prices may also deter businesses from switching to energy-saving technology, as a 2006 study in the Energy Journal suggested. Saving several pennies at the pump, Perl says, may tempt Americans away from actions that can lead to a sustainable, post-carbon future.
Nicholas St. Fleur writes at The Atlantic that low oil prices may also undermine the message from the UN's climate panel. The price drop comes after the UN declared earlier this week that fossil fuel emissions must drop to zero by the end of the century in order to keep global temperatures in check. "I don't think people will see the urgency of dealing with fossil fuels today," says Perl. Falling oil prices may also deter businesses from switching to energy-saving technology, as a 2006 study in the Energy Journal suggested. Saving several pennies at the pump, Perl says, may tempt Americans away from actions that can lead to a sustainable, post-carbon future.
nice stats (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
Maybe if there were talking about full size SUV sales in general they would have a point. With cheap gas, buying a gas guzzler makes more sense.
Of course, the number of miles Americans have been driving have been falling for the past 5 years. Partly this is due to the internet which allows people to schedule themselves more efficiently, making few trips.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be striking quite wide of my mark.
First, the point that I was trying to make is that the type of car – in and by itself - does not necessarily change the amount of gas being consumed. People could buy a big car but make fewer trips, resulting in lower gas consumption. With more efficient cars, longer commutes are possible for the same amount of gas, so less efficient ex burbs flourish.
We should have a tax on fossil fuels which would make green energy cheaper...
How do you figure? How does higher gas make my solar panels more efficient? Maybe relativity cheaper, but
Re:nice stats (Score:4, Insightful)
A fossil fuel tax (assuming it worked as advertised to bring consumption down) would have the added benefit of keeping oil prices down. When you spike consumption in response to lower prices, the prices just go back up. A well-designed ff tax would hold the prices steady at a level high enough to encourage conservation, but hopefully low enough to not be onerous. And the difference between the target price and the actual price is money that could be put to good use - or even simply returned to the public in the form of a rebate if politics dictate that's the only way. The point is to use less fossil fuels, not necessarily to make driving expensive.
Re: (Score:3)
When you spike consumption in response to lower prices, the prices just go back up.
As with any commodity, this is only true if supply is static or falling while demand rises. The reason gas prices are currently falling is because supply of available oil is rising, largely due to new sources being made available.
or even simply returned to the public in the form of a rebate
Can you provide any evidence of when this has ever happened with a tax was applied to a commodity? In reality, any surplus will be
Re: (Score:3)
Do you believe that the US federal government (or any government, really) would honestly, fairly and judiciously distribute these subsidies? It would just become a political fundraising scheme. How is their track record so far? Personally, I think it would become a tremendous waste.
Re: (Score:3)
"I'm gonna raise your taxes."
Obama got re-elected with his party having promised to do that, and indeed having done that (the large tax increase that is ObamaCare). Once people who are actually burdened with PAYING those taxes (about half of the country's incoming earners, and those who have to pay full boat for buy-it-or-hear-from-the-IRS new insurance that is a transfer tax) had some time to digest it, the baked-in loserness of the position became clear. And manifested itself in this recent election.
Re: (Score:2)
add in the new cherokee is new and of course their numbers will be higher now
I miss the good ole' days (Score:5, Insightful)
I miss the good ole' days when Slashdot was about technology, not navel-gazing bullshit about American politics and policy. :(
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I...I agree. There is so much derp here today that I feel /. is in contest with CNN for most yawns per minute.
Uh, this is about tech. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Technology News for Nerds? Not so much.
Lately its more like "Generic News for Americans". Let the standard news channels flog this crap out, i dont come to /. to read CNN.
Re:I miss the good ole' days (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that the politics of climate change denial have a definite scientific/technological angle. So do the potential solutions to the problem. It's not as if Slashdot were covering abortion politics - or gun politics. This is about science folks - much as those who want to deny the problem don't want it to be...
For what it's worth, there's a lot of math/science in economics too. The much vaunted Laffer curve, for example, explicitly postulates that when taxes are too low, lowering them further just reduces revenue. Yet the right-wing think tanks that promoted the supply-side 'ideas' behind that curve only ever talk about the paradoxical part of the curve where raising taxes theoretically reduces revenue. What they don't say is that experience has shown that that part of the curve occurs with marginal rates north of the 70% range they were in when Reagan lowered taxes. Seems those tax cuts didn't pay for themselves - yet Republican pols almost unanimously assert that lowering taxes from today's much lower rates would pay for themselves - or create jobs - or make Jesus happy. There's a trade off between evidence-based policy and ideology-based politics, and that subject is perfectly appropriate for a science/tech site.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because so many people left Slashdot during Betageddon that it's mostly just raving lefties here now.
OMG! Gas is cheap! Poor people can afford to drive! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!
BBC Fuel Price Calculator (Score:3)
Recently I tried the BBC Fuel Price Calculator [bbc.com], which for where I am at $2.55/Gallon indicates that the only place I can get gas cheaper is either Nigeria or Venezuela.
Much cheaper than in the UK (Score:3, Interesting)
Where petrol costs ~£4.60 per US gallon =~ $7.30. About 60% of that price is tax, take away that tax you get about $3.
I do not like expensive petrol, but I do realise that we need to cut the amount of carbon based energy that we use - climate change might not affect me, but it will my kids.
Too narrow in focus (Score:4, Insightful)
You need to look at industry-wide sales stats to have a sense of what the sales numbers are doing. You need to also look at it against annual averages, as a sales uptick in the fall is not unusual when businesses are looking to finish their fiscal years.
Re: (Score:2)
Screw Jeeps. I want a Mercedes G63 AMG 6x6.
Rejoice? (Score:2)
Maybe in California. We're a little less exuberant on the East coast.
"like putting a Big Mac in front of people" (Score:3)
"This is like putting a Big Mac in front of people who need to diet or watch their cholesterol," says Anthony Perl.
Should Big Macs cost more to dissuade their use? What about the people who couldn't afford better than a Big Mac? Switching away from the analogy: inexpensive energy is the biggest benefit to poorer members of society. It means cheaper food, cheaper heating/cooling, cheaper transportation. When someone says "make energy source X cost more than energy Y because Y needs a chance to succeed", they're not thinking about all the costs associated with the rise in energy costs.
true. Big Macs are expensive (Score:2)
Your point is certainly correct. Almost everything you buy, from food to medicine, to clothing is carried in trucks, so high gas taxes increase the cost of all goods. A minor nitpick:
> What about the people who couldn't afford better than a Big Mac?
A Big Mac costs $4 and weighs half a pound, so it's $8 per pound. Fruits and vegetables run about $1 per pound. Junk food is expensive, so the oft-expressed claim that Americans eat junk because they can't afford nutritious food is silly. Our neighbors t
I'm talking about healthy, not similar to Big Mac (Score:3)
Cooking for one CAN be a hassle, for sure. I find it often works well to do a middle ground- microwave a frozen burrito, and toss fresh cheese, onions and tomato on top, or whatever I have on hand. I always have cheese on hand because it goes on so many things and is much better fresh than frozen. Similarly, I'll take 30 seconds to toss some ramen in water, then add whatever to make it good. That takes less time than going to McDonald's and costs $300/month less.
> to get something even mildly simi
ps - learn to cook, you won't eat alone :) (Score:2)
> optionally learning to cook ... pointless to cook only for themselves.
It's been my experience that if you can cook a few things well, attractive members of the opposite sex will eat with you. :)
Re:"like putting a Big Mac in front of people" (Score:5, Insightful)
We had inexpensive energy for a long time and it didn't fix all of society, so it's only one factor. And if every poor person could drive a car, traffic would be so slow that it would be quicker to walk.
Raise the cost or taxes on fuel and use it to build much better mass transit and subsidize the price of fruit & veggies, milk & meat produced domestically.
That will do more for the poor - with universal, single-payer, healthcare than simply having cheap gasoline.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you.
A killer attitude (Score:3)
More than 250,000 UK citizens have been killed by cold temperatures [telegraph.co.uk], despite how inexpensive energy is. To the extent people advocate against inexpensive energy, the death rate will increase, and the victims' [frozen] blood will on he hands of the advocates.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So add subsidies for the needy - and use some fucking decent building standards, for fuck's sake.
I've never lived in the UK but I do have many friends who have or grew up there - far too many homes are drafty and leaky beyond description.
Building better homes or patching up the crappy ones would be a great infrastructure project with lots of local employment, something Britain needs.
In civilized countries, you're not allowed to cut off someone's electricity during the winter months.
I'm not opposed to "inexp
But deflation is bad!!! (Score:5, Funny)
According to most economists people are going to stop driving and wait for gas prices to get even cheaper.
Prices are because OPEC (Score:2)
What the article fails to address is that the Saudis have flooded the market with cheap oil that they can make money on at 30 dollars a barrel while tar sands require about 93 dollars a barrel and fraccing requires about 83 dollars a barrel to remain viable. These groups have already cut back and started layoffs.
Re:Prices are because of the market (Score:3)
If by "flooded" you mean "failed to artificially restrict" then, yes. It's interesting in that the oil producing nations have, at times, been able to collectively meter their output to keep the money flowing in. Of course, at $100 a bbl there's no need to cut back, and several states are strapped for cash so they're less interested in putting the screws to the non-oil producing nations as they are putting cash in their pockets, rockets in their launchers, and food on the table. As a result, the market is fl
Re: (Score:2)
What the article fails to address is that the Saudis have flooded the market with cheap oil that they can make money on at 30 dollars a barrel while tar sands require about 93 dollars a barrel and fraccing requires about 83 dollars a barrel to remain viable. These groups have already cut back and started layoffs.
If I remember right, Hybernia, off of the coast of Newfoundland, needs about $75 a barrel to make money.
Love Is Still Free, I Guess (Score:2)
2) I still believe population is generally the key factor. Although it will never happen, without population control the hole in the bottom of the energy bucket will just keep getting wider and wider.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you think population control is necessary? It already happens on its own. There's a very strong inverse correlation between a country's economic development and population growth. Most developed countries are at or close to zero population growth [wikipedia.org]. A few like Japan and Germany are even shrinking in p
To those who want $7/gal tax (Score:2)
Every time you fill your gas, please write a check for twice as much and make it payable to the U.S. Treasury. Until you are willing to put your money where your mouth is, shut up.
Re:To those who want a standing army... (Score:3, Interesting)
To those who want a standing army of over 4 million active service and support staff rather than a domestic defense force, please get out your checkbooks and send your portion of the 1.2 Trillion Dollars we spend on the military every year. I, personally, think we should be able to defend the 4M sq miles of land we have with the same money that Russia spends on its 7M square miles. And that means those few who want all that extra military need to cough up the 90% of that 1.2 Trillion that we're over spendin
Re: (Score:2)
Is this just a lame rhetorical device, or are you not aware of the difference that scale makes?
That is, it's probably worth destroying 99.99% of the salmonella on that chicken, but not 0.01%
Re: (Score:2)
Car reliability and mandated fleet mileage (Score:2)
Drilling end up moving us toward energy independence, all gains we had in fuel economy (not an insubstantial amount) are dwarfed by increase in oil and gas production. At the same time, cars did not end up more expensive. Instead manufacturers made a decision to compromise
Re: (Score:3)
Well, duh. WTF did you think would happen? People don't want to pay more for cars they buy today to save a few bucks in gas at some point in the future; particularly if they're leasing.
The fuel economy mandate is just another lame attempt by the left to force people to buy crappy little econocars that they don't want to buy. Because the left know what's good for them better than they do.
useful indicator of socioeconomic class: (Score:2)
If you're too poor to own a car and, hence, don't care about gas prices, then you're not middle class. If you're someone to whom a $1/gal delta in the price of gas is more-or-less meaningless then you're not middle class. If you're someone who lives in a dense, urban environment and doesn't own a car by choice then you're probably also not "m
Re: (Score:3)
Your definition of "middle class" is probably a bit too broad on the low end. Outside major cities, and even within many of them (such as Philadelphia), many of the poor own cars. And to them, price of gas is very significant.
Enjoy it while you can (Score:3)
Many geologists claim that the amount of oil recoverable from shale deposits is vastly overestimated by shale oil entrepreneurs. Early this year the EIA decreased their estimate of the oil recoverable from the Monterey shale formation by 96 percent. Certainly there is a large discrepancy between reserves claimed in SEC filings vs. that claimed in public statements.
I wonder if there is a self-interest in operation here?
If the SEC filings are correct we only have a few years of oil from shale in our future. Production will be well into decline by the end of the decade.
If you have a long term market outlook it's something to think about....
Nothing new here-Election Year "Bargain" (Score:2)
Wonderful news (Score:2)
I just bought a new premium-requiring gas-guzzling machine. And now gas prices fall dramatically. First time I've ever had such good luck.
Meanwhile, electricity prices go up. Sucks to be a new Tesla owner.
Re: (Score:3)
Enjoy your tax freedom now, because if electrics really catch on they'll figure a way to tax you for it. Hopefully something simple and mileage-based rather than something requiring a government GPS unit in the car. In my area electricity is over 18c per kW, so you'd be paying more here.
Until then, hey, I don't mind. If there were charging stations around here I'd have considered the Tesla.
Reality check (Score:5, Interesting)
Hi there, reality check here.
This is how petroleum prices are managed:
When the oil and gas industry wants fuel prices to be low they optimize the fuel supply chain and keep petroleum flowing so the supply meets demand.
When they want fuel prices to go up, they burden the supply chain to increase demand. One of their favorite tricks is to pilot their fuel container ships to about 20 miles off the coast of port and park them there, waiting for fuel prices to go up.
Fuel prices are managed much like department store sales.
Department stores gradually increase the price of popular items until customers stop buying, then they have a "sale" where they reduce the price of those items to the normal retail price.
Then they start to gradually drive up the prices again.
The petroleum industry does something similar; gradually drives prices up until consumers start to look into alternative fuel measures by stifling the supply of petroleum. Then when that point is reached they have a "sale" where they optimize the supply chain.
Your average consumer sees this as a modern miracle instead of researching to find out why the price went down, and they celebrate by driving, flying and using power sports vehicles more than ever.
Every time the supply chain is stifled the lowest price for petroleum notches upward a little bit to prevent customers from dumping petroleum but raise the overall price at the same time.
Wrong Argument for Renewables! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In UK, the gas taxes pay for the roads. In the USA, gas taxes cover less than half, with the rest coming out of general taxes. And the US has about four times the length of road per capita than the UK does. It is not that UK gas taxes are low, it is that US separates tax source from target to avoid discouraging driving. Remember, what's good for GM is good for America.
Re:Lucky sods (Score:4, Informative)
In UK, the gas taxes pay for the roads. In the USA, gas taxes cover less than half, with the rest coming out of general taxes. And the US has about four times the length of road per capita than the UK does. It is not that UK gas taxes are low, it is that US separates tax source from target to avoid discouraging driving. Remember, what's good for GM is good for America.
No, in the UK, the petrol taxes go into a large pool of money called the treasury, which is used to fund all the things the country does. This is true of pretty much all national taxes. The same is notably true of "Vehicle Excise Duty" (note, *not* road tax), which contrary to popular belief, does not give you more right to use a road than someone who hasn't paid VED, nor does it mean that you have "paid for the road".
Re: (Score:2)
I stand corrected. However, does gas tax and VED revenue match or exceed road construction and maintenance expenditure in the UK?
Re: (Score:2)
The UK road system is subsidised by general taxation, ie. gas tax + road tax + VED + VAT on vehicles sales < cost of UK road network.
It depends a bit what you count as the road network: just the national highway system, or highways plus major roads, do you include roads paid for by local authorities etc. etc.
Re: (Score:2)
That's only the figure for the national road network, ie. motorways and some A roads (but not all, I think?). Local authorities spend bucketloads of money maintaining minor roads, more than enough to wipe out the direct taxes motorists pay.
Or that was all true last time I looked into it, perhaps things have shifted since.
Re: (Score:2)
Last I looked, road and fuel taxes were about five times the amount that's spent on roads in the UK. It's a cash grab, and a stupid one, because that fuel tax ends up increasing the cost of everything Britons buy.
It's one of the reasons my standard of living is much better since i moved across the Atlantic, even though i don't earn much more.
Re: (Score:2)
In UK, the gas taxes pay for the roads.
Do they cover all the road costs?
In the USA, gas taxes cover less than half, with the rest coming out of general taxes.
Correct, depending on the type of road. The interstate highway system is paid for out of gas taxes. Local roads are paid out of local tax reciepts from sales, property, income, vehicle licensing and fuel. Because many people who do not drive their own cars still derive benefits from the roads (roads include associated sidewalks and bicycle lanes). And those groceries you walk home with from the corner store were delivered by a truck.
Re: (Score:2)
No one claimed it was free - we claimed it was 4 times cheaper than yours.
Re:Thanks fracking (Score:5, Insightful)
The world has gotten a bailout due to trillions spent on military forced stabilization.
I for one am boggled why some think they can change human nature. We consume. Start looking at how to adapt to climate change instead of some fantasy of avoiding it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Start looking at how to adapt to climate change instead of some fantasy of avoiding it.
The way to adapt is by retiring the internal combustion engine.
Re:Thanks fracking (Score:4, Informative)
The way to adapt is by retiring the internal combustion engine.
People driving around in cars is only a tiny part of it. You could stop everyone from driving a petroleum fueled car right now, and it would make little or no difference. Heavy industry, HVAC in homes and businesses - that's what does it. The solution is nukes or one form or another. Solar and wind can't put a dent in it, and China's not going to stop putting a new coal-fired power plant online EVERY WEEK any time soon. Cars have got almost nothing to do with it.
Re: (Score:3)
Start looking at how to adapt to climate change instead of some fantasy of avoiding it.
The way to adapt is by retiring the internal combustion engine.
Yes, then we can charge up our poisonous battery powered cars from coal.
But we are also supposed to stop burning coal, so I guess we will charge them from nuclear power.
But Congress shut down Yucca Mountain, so now nuclear power is not sustainable as we cannot safely store the radioactive waste. Instead, we should use wind, water, and solar power to charge them.
But wind, water, and molten-salt solar generators kill animals, require toxic emissions to mine the necessary rare earth metals, and don't generate
Re: (Score:2)
That's like arguing that we should just accept obesity as human nature, and figure out how to adapt to it.
Climate change is impossible to stop now, but at least we can try to limit the damage AND improve our quality of life in the process. Consuming fossil fuels aggravates my allergies. It makes me spend more time cleaning. I'd rather have clean energy.
Re:Pot, meet the Fat Kettle (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that the price of an SUV does not reflect the cost of you owning one. Petrol prices go some small way to correcting that, so it's bad when the correction factor is reduced.
It's a real cognitive problem. It seems like you personally buying an inefficient vehicle has little overall effect, but collectively it massively increases healthcare, cleaning and military costs.
Re:Pot, meet the Fat Kettle (Score:5, Interesting)
but collectively it massively increases healthcare, cleaning and military costs.
The United States sources the lion's share of her crude oil from western hemisphere sources. Most of these have friendly relations (Canada, Mexico) with the United States, are domestic (off shore) resources, or come from countries (Venezuela) that talk a big game about how horrible the Yankees are but continue to do business with them.
China, Japan, and the EU are the major economies that are dependent on Middle Eastern oil, which begs the question of why they aren't the ones spending their blood and treasure to try and stabilize the region. In the case of the EU and Japan it's an unwillingness on the part of their populations to engage in such adventures, combined with the fact that they have no need, since the United States is willing to do it for them. In the case of China it's a lack of power projection ability combined with the trepidation the West and Japan would feel if China started intervening in the region. Personally I think we should let them have a go at it; it would give the radicalized elements in the Middle East someone new to hate, at least for a little while.
Re: (Score:3)
I had a quick search to fact check your post, and it doesn't really seem accurate. It seems 12.9% of oil comes from Persian Gulf countries (i.e. the Middle Eastern nations where war is a problem), whilst 14% of European oil comes from the same place, so there's little in it:
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/... [npr.org]
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/art... [sbs.com.au]
The gulf is bigger for Africa (US 5%, EU 21%) but apart from a temporary foray into Libya for a few months the nations in question aren't nations where there has been any
Re: (Score:2)
The motivation to get an SUV may be different from the motivation to get a burger, but willpower is a good word in both cases.
In some circles, an SUV is a status symbol. The people who buy them as a status symbol don't actually need an SUV, but they buy them because they think that an SUV reflects who they are or who they want to be. Well, they probably don't think in exactly those terms. They probably think of what they can do with it, just like I think of what I can do with a new computer. Either way
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think that maybe Global Cooling has anything to do with it? I was just out driving in the first snow storm of the winter, and I was freaking glad I had my SUV and snow tires while other vehicles were sliding around the road in front of me.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because it's colder where you are, doesn't mean the difference is not more than made up somewhere else. By which I mean, the earth is warming, even if from your limited perspective you don't see it.
Re:Pot, meet the Fat Kettle (Score:4, Informative)
Next time try a front wheel drive with decent tires. Safer and better than a 4wd in anything other than steep / deep (ie, on roads).
4WD vehicles have this funny habit of breaking all four tires loose at the same time. Front wheel drive vehicles tend to break the rear tires first, allowing you to control the vehicle with the fronts. Anyhow, it's mostly tires and driver.
4WD SUVs are fun to watch flip over. The combination of an icy road, a 4WD, a bad driver, some speed and the laws of physics can be pretty entertaining.
Re: (Score:3)
Which part? The part where he disagrees that buying a vehicle one can barely afford and has no practical use for can be equated with hunger, satiety, and metabolic levels, which are driven by instincts and at least 25 different chemicals in complex feedback reactions?
Re: (Score:2)
It's a matter of taking the analogy too far, as you have. The point as I've understood it is that the US in general needs to reduce its consumption of and dependence on fossil fuels, and lower gas prices are making this even more difficult than it already was. It is further extended to the planetary scale, the need for human societies to move toward more sustainable practices being hindered by the low prices of fossil fuels. The misunderstanding arises from looking at individuals when the diet analogy was referring to American society as a whole.
It's hilarious we want to drawl parallels to the American diet in society, as if the statistics surrounding obesity and heart disease don't paint a clear picture as to just how much people don't give a shit anyway.
Epidemic on a societal level? Like we don't have that now when it comes to the average McMerican waddling around.
Here's the weird part though. We tax and penalize the shit out of the new SUV owner with a $10 - $15K price premium, shitty gas mileage, and in some cases (diesel) you will pay more
Re: (Score:3)
Whenever I buy a car, I build a spreadsheet to compare Total Cost of Ownership for several different models. One of the inputs, of course, is the price of fuel.
If that variable goes up, I am steered toward a more fuel-efficient vehicle, and according to Anthony Perl, I "have the willpower to stick with the program." But apparently I should banish that factor from my spreadsheet if the price of fuel goes down, lest I be steered toward a less fuel-efficient vehicle, and become guilty of a huge characater flaw.
In the overall total cost of ownership, you will blow more money buying that car brand new than you will likely ever spend on fuel for it, so if you're buying new, you're already throwing away thousands.
Secondly, I hate to say this, but fuel economy should not be a factor in buying or NOT buying an SUV or truck. That should solely depend on your needs. Period. You either need a gas-guzzling SUV or truck, or you don't. It's that simple.
I mean, an addiction to large overpriced SUVs that never touch dirt or mud is clearly an addiction spiraling out of control that we should probably earmark billions in taxpayer money.
You're being sarcastic, but Dubya took real action toward that end [wikipedia.org].
You misspelled accurate.
Most people who own high-end off road capab
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately it also punishes the economy. It's a democratic republic so if you go to pissing off the electorate there will be a backlash. The Democratic party just rediscovered this effect recently.
Re:Bizarre (Score:5, Insightful)
The Saudis are bottoming-out the price of oil to punish marginal north American oil producers, and the Russians
Partly. But their main target is Iran. Iran is hurting under the sanctions, and is under a lot of economic pressure to cut a deal on their uranium enrichment. The oil price drop is turning up the pressure big time. Nobody fears a nuclear Iran more than the Saudis, not even the Israelis.
If Iran reaches an agreement with the P5+1 on uranium, then expect the price of oil to rebound quickly as the Saudis shut off the spigot.
Re:Bizarre (Score:5, Interesting)
Is that a rational fear; is an Iranian nuke more likely to be detonated in Riyadh than Tel Aviv?
It is unlikely to be detonated in either place. Iranians don't want nukes to attack their neighbors, they want them as a defensive deterrent. Once they have nukes, they will have more freedom of action to push their interests in other areas, such as backing Syria, and promoting Shiite unrest in the Western Gulf (Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Gulf Provinces), etc. Most countries that have developed nukes in violation of the NPT have been richly rewarded. India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, all have security, respect, and deterrence. The guys who cooperated, and gave up their nuke programs (Saddam Hussein, Muammar Qaddafi), are dead.
Re: (Score:3)
The guys who cooperated, and gave up their nuke programs (Saddam Hussein, Muammar Qaddafi), are dead.
Or not doing too well, esp. the Ukraine.
They even got US and Russian promises that "nothing bad will happen, we promise. Cross our hearts and hope to die" and all that...
Re:Bizarre (Score:5, Informative)
2 minor nits.
1. Hummers are no long being made.
2. Most F-150s are sold as work trucks. Also, F-150 is one of the more efficient work trucks out there.
lacking any facts, post an opinion (Score:4, Insightful)
> Perhaps all the morons buying hummers and F-150s
Wven the four-door SuperCab version of the F-150 gets real- world 23.5 in road tests. Do you have a more efficient way to haul things, or are you spouting off without having any idea what you're talking about?
You can base your opinions on facts, or you can base them on what a Comedy Central comedian tells you to think. Your choice.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah your enemies are selling you cheap oil to fuck you up!
oh wait.. what?
just take it and stockpile it, like you're doing with all the merchandise from china.
anyhow, where the fuck are all the peak oil theorists now?
Re: (Score:2)
The middle east has the lowest overhead for oil production. If they decide to bottom out prices the wells in the US get capped again.
Re: (Score:2)
It coincides with the event of a major country, that is almost completely dependent on oil exports for its economy, invading part of Europe.
This may or may not be a coincidence. At any rate, this is very bad news for the Russian economy. It remains to be seen if Putin can generate a strong enough RDF to keep the Russian people in line with his foreign policy.
Re:Let's have a $7/gallon fuel tax (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Let's have a $7/gallon fuel tax (Score:4, Informative)
You realise that this is pretty much exactly the policy that most of the prosperous areas of Europe use, right? This is why US fuel costs about 2/5 of what UK/French/German fuel costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You mean, the ones that are back into a recession with no sign of how they're ever going to get out?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not inaccessibly. I lean towards libertarianism and believe in global warming.
The answer is to cut the tax rate and impose a carbon tax. If structured correctly, the average individual wouldn't pay higher taxes. Unless, that is, they decided that they should start conserving energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Our (Denmark) gas price is somewhere along the lines of DKR 11/L (DKR 6.23 = $1) so $1.77/L ~ $6.68/gallon (3.78541 L = 1 US gallon). Very few of us are on rafts. High taxation as a cause of the fall of civilization is a myth.
Re: (Score:3)
High taxation as a cause of the fall of civilization is a myth.
Not a myth at all. True, it's not a certainty, but high taxes have often caused societies to fall to civil wars, outside invaders, or simply to decline relative to lower-taxing societies. I highly recommend For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization by Charles Adams [amazon.com] for an overview of this.
Re: (Score:3)
Here is a map of the countries that subsidize fossil fuels:
http://www.iea.org/subsidy/index.html [iea.org]
They tend to be oil-producing countries with otherwise-weak economies.
Prices determine resource allocation. If you increase gasoline taxes, you discourage gasoline use. This has a variety of ripple effects, including to increase the value of urban relative to suburban real estate (and increase urban rents), and encourage investment in wind, solar, etc. There are winners and losers.
(I believe we should increase
Re:Let's have a $7/gallon fuel tax (Score:5, Insightful)
How about the effects of such a tax on, say, diesel fuel for the carriers to bring stuff from west coast ports to this side of the country. None of this deals with the serious problems we have in this country with rampant abuse of tax money. $7 per gallon worth of fuel tax that the corrupt politicians get to freely play around with? No thank you. Perhaps if our election cycles were not so widely spaced out so that we could throw the bums out faster, it'd be different.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany is not the United States. Everyone pointing at Europe seems to miss one large difference: there's a whole hell of a lot more room between people and places they need to go in most the United States than in Europe. If you live in Massachusetts, half an hour is a "long drive,"
Obviously, you have never lived or talked to anyone who lives and commutes in Massachusetts. 30 minutes is a short drive. The average commute for my colleagues is between 30 minutes and 60 minutes. Yes, there are people who live and work in Boston/Cambridge and who take public transportation or even walk/bike. But a large number of people who work in Boston live well outside due to sky-high housing costs. Plus, a large majority of employers have offices along or outside of the i95 belt.
Yes, one benefit
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Check a map.
Re: (Score:3)
You make a convincing argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Would never work (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Won't fly.
It is a free country and high fuel taxes will take away your freedom of movement. Surely the US supreme court will support this when the democrats sue after the republican congress raises fuel taxes to save the environment.
Nice try
Re: (Score:2)
+5 Insightful. /. headline today : "When We Don't Like the Solution, We Deny the Problem"
But to quote another
Re: (Score:2)
Short of state ownership of the oil production industry and/or draconian restrictions on exports and imports the U.S. won't ever be "independent" in the sense that it is unaffected by the global price of petroleum. And that price is only influenced to a small degree by U.S. production.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know about that. Have you seen Canadian Bacon?