[The Godfather]

I just bought gas for $2.69/gallon in Tampa, Florida. It hasn't been this low since 2004! How's the rest of the world?

[stevesnj]

2.40 here in Jersey

[olePigeon]

$2.89 in Sacramento.

[storer]

$1.26 per litre here in Australia.

[El Gato]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

$2.89 in Sacramento.

$2.83 to around $3.10 in Monterey, depending on where you go.

[Doofy]

$6 (US) per (US) gallon here in Blighty.

[ghporter]

$2.49 in San Antonio is the lowest it's been in a while-and I'm not sure that's the lowest it is in town.

I believe that the refiners can make it go lower, and that speculators in particular can grow a bit of spine (as in they ARE gambling on prices after all) and make the price go a LOT lower. As far as I can see, except for nervous nellies wetting themselves over a) a change of leadership in Saudi Arabia, b) the latest vitriol from Venesula (which has been markedly absent since Katrina-anyone else notice this?), and c) the phase of the moon and what constelation it's in, gas should be down near the $1.50 mark or even less (here in San Antonio, anyway). That would put it back to where it was around the end of last year or begining of this year.

And has anyone else noticed how much MORE diesel costs now? I'm afraid that's going to hit all of us in the wallet more than gasoline prices do-EVERYTHING we get is delivered by trucks that use diesel fuel. Locomotives run on diesel, machinery that moves freight at ports runs on it, and just about all large cargo and merchandise handling machines (fork lifts, etc.) in warehouses run on diesel (though some run on gas or propane). Expensive diesel WILL make EVERYTHING cost more. This is "so not good on so many not good levels."

[gumby5647]

$2.46 Bloomington, IL

[deej5871]

According to the Gas Widget the lowest price in my area is $2.37 (Toledo, OH), but most of them are about $2.38-$2.41.

[Gator Lager]

$2.77 in cocoa beach

[rickey939]

$2.61 in the Chicago burbs...w00t!

[lothar56]

haha...$2.05 here in Ames, Iowa
wow...did i actually imply that's a good price?

[OldManMac]

$2.49 - $2.59 in Metro Detroit, with the higher price in the wealthier suburbs (surprise, surprise).

[iMOTOR]

$2.85 here in north county San Diego.

[scaught]

im more worried about the price of diesel. i see $3.50 per gallon. if the trucking industry starts getting hit too hard, **** will hit the fan.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by storer

$1.26 per litre here in Australia.

Hehe 89 cents per litre here in Vancouver

[Azzgunther]

$2.55/gallon in Madison.

$2.57/gallon in Milwaukee. Heheh.

[11011001]

Originally Posted by Athens

Hehe 89 cents per litre here in Vancouver

94 cents / Litre here (Calgary).

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by scaught

im more worried about the price of diesel. i see $3.50 per gallon. if the trucking industry starts getting hit too hard, **** will hit the fan.

Exactly. People don't realize that these costs are going to be passed along in the products we purchase.

[nredman]

its like 2.39 here i think - i was talking to a friend about how cheap gas is...its pretty sad when we think 2.39 is a good deal

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by scaught

im more worried about the price of diesel. i see $3.50 per gallon. if the trucking industry starts getting hit too hard, **** will hit the fan.

Diesel that's more expensive than petrol. Imagine.

I filled her up yesterday with euro 95. Paid €1.22/litre. That's USD5,55/USgallon. Euro 98 was something like €1.32/litre

[ajprice]

91 pence per litre around here, some places are 99p per litre.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by ghporter

$2.49 in San Antonio is the lowest it's been in a while-and I'm not sure that's the lowest it is in town.

I believe that the refiners can make it go lower, and that speculators in particular can grow a bit of spine (as in they ARE gambling on prices after all) and make the price go a LOT lower. As far as I can see, except for nervous nellies wetting themselves over a) a change of leadership in Saudi Arabia, b) the latest vitriol from Venesula (which has been markedly absent since Katrina-anyone else notice this?), and c) the phase of the moon and what constelation it's in, gas should be down near the $1.50 mark or even less (here in San Antonio, anyway). That would put it back to where it was around the end of last year or begining of this year.

And has anyone else noticed how much MORE diesel costs now? I'm afraid that's going to hit all of us in the wallet more than gasoline prices do-EVERYTHING we get is delivered by trucks that use diesel fuel. Locomotives run on diesel, machinery that moves freight at ports runs on it, and just about all large cargo and merchandise handling machines (fork lifts, etc.) in warehouses run on diesel (though some run on gas or propane). Expensive diesel WILL make EVERYTHING cost more. This is "so not good on so many not good levels."

That is the way we need to start thinking if we are to make any progress.

Cheap gas encourages us to use more of it and encourages us to PLAN on using more of it. Our need, desire and expectation that we'll have cheap gas contributes to our dependence on foreign oil.

If in the 1990's gasoline had been taxed such that the price per gallon at the pump were $5.00 we would have altered our consumption and cut waaay back on our useage/waste.

Then we MIGHT not have had to invade Iraq.

How the decline and eventual depletion of oil, and its close associate, natural gas, will affect world food production is of vital importance. Bartlett (1978) succinctly makes the point: "Modern agriculture is the use of land to convert petroleum into food" (p. 880).

Oil and Natural Gas, More Than Energy

For most people, their chief relationships to oil and natural gas are as a source of energy for home heating and cooking, and fuel for personal vehicles. The very important roll of oil and natural gas in agriculture, beyond the obvious fueling of agricultural machinery, is often unknown. But these raw materials are the base for fertilizers by which to increase crop yields and for pesticides to protect crops from insects and diseases and to control weeds that compete with food plants. The most widely used fertilizers are compounds of ammonia, made from natural gas.

"Ghost Acres"

The "green revolution," which has enabled the Earth to support so many more people now than in the past, is a combination of genetic engineering in plants, mechanization, and the petrochemicals provided by oil and natural gas.
Emphasizing the importance of petrochemicals, Pimentel (1998a), states:

"If the fertilizers, partial irrigation [in part provided by oil energy], and pesticides were withdrawn, corn yields, for example, would drop from 130 bushels per acre to about 30 bushels."

However, this is assuming legumes can also be used to provide a little nitrogen. Without the use of legumes, yields would decline to about 16 bushels per acre. This is about the corn yield in developing countries.

The additional hundred bushels has been produced from "ghost acres" which do not exist except in the form of the fertilizers, largely made with natural gas, and oil for pesticides. When the "ghost acres" provided by oil and natural gas no longer exist, the agricultural productivity will be dramatically reduced.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by mojo2

That is the way we need to start thinking if we are to make any progress.

Cheap gas encourages us to use more of it and encourages us to PLAN on using more of it. Our need, desire and expectation that we'll have cheap gas contributes to our dependence on foreign oil.

If in the 1990's gasoline had been taxed such that the price per gallon at the pump were $5.00 we would have altered our consumption and cut waaay back on our useage/waste.

Then we MIGHT not have had to invade Iraq.

I have said this here before on the forums: tax the hell out of gasoline, and then pass the money back to consumers in a fixed amount. It will discourage people from being wasteful.

As much as I hated paying extra money for gas at the pump for my own car, it did have some positive effects.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

I have said this here before on the forums: tax the hell out of gasoline, and then pass the money back to consumers in a fixed amount. It will discourage people from being wasteful.

As much as I hated paying extra money for gas at the pump for my own car, it did have some positive effects.

I hope when you said this before that I didn't call you a bad name or anything. Because this idea is sounding better and better. Although it MIGHT be a bit late in one way and just in time in another way.

Can I be more vague?

No.



We should use the tax $ to fund research for alternatives.

However, there is NO alternative in sight that will replace oil for our agricultural needs.

We'll have to start talking about some SERIOUS measures. I'll save that for a different time and another thread.

[The Godfather]

Originally Posted by mojo2

We should use the tax $ to fund research for alternatives.

However, there is NO alternative in sight that will replace oil for our agricultural needs.

The personal transportation/commuting system can be made much more efficiently very easily. No reason to shy away from researching alternatives if there is no sight of a solution to ALL our problems now.

[Fyre4ce]

Eh, many people called me bad names, but it was because I don't like SUV's. Actually, very few people (if any) reacted to my proposed fuel tax.

The great irony of the whole situation is that the technology to make 100+ mpg cars has existed for decades. The problem is simply that there is not enough of a market demand to justify production. The bottom line is that most people want big, heavy, fast, powerful vehicles, and all those qualities necessarily make a car burn more gas. Artificially raise the price of fuel and that will change.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

Eh, many people called me bad names, but it was because I don't like SUV's.

Dude, form a club with Rob or something.

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

Actually, very few people (if any) reacted to my proposed fuel tax.

Communism. Avoid.

Come back and whine when you hit $6 a gallon.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

Eh, many people called me bad names, but it was because I don't like SUV's. Actually, very few people (if any) reacted to my proposed fuel tax.

The great irony of the whole situation is that the technology to make 100+ mpg cars has existed for decades. The problem is simply that there is not enough of a market demand to justify production. The bottom line is that most people want big, heavy, fast, powerful vehicles, and all those qualities necessarily make a car burn more gas. Artificially raise the price of fuel and that will change.

We must do something quickly.

We ARE making strides towards producing electrical energy from alternative sources but none of them will keep our agricultural system as efficient as it is. The fertilizers and pesticides and partial irrigation systems all are fossil fuel based and NOTHING can replace fossil fuels for agriculture. Without fossil fuels we drop to ABOUT one tenth of our current productivity and then NATURE will cull our herd. Massive die-offs due to starvation.

So, as quickly as possible we should begin switching over to alternative energy sources and conserving oil and gas for food production.

We should reduce our meat consumption by 50% to start with and then go lower with time. Why, because it takes more oil and more water and more land to produce a pound of beef than it takes to produce a pound of wheat.

And bio-fuels are taking precious fossil fuels to create but giving us less in return than if we simply burned the fossil fuel directly.

I think there may be two or three wild cards in this scenario, however.

1. There MAY be a technology all ready on a shelf waiting for the right time to unveil. But we can't count on this being the case.

2. Some terrorist attack might change ALL of history tomorrow, in which case oil will still be important but secondary in importance and if there's a great loss of life then the oil consumption would automatically be less.

4. Judgment Day.

If any of the above were to occur then it would all be sorta kinda academic.

[scaught]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

Diesel that's more expensive than petrol. Imagine.

right. it used to ALWAYS be cheaper than the cheapest unleaded gas. now its over a dollar per gallon more than regular unleaded.

i used to want a Golf TDI too. that would be costly. haha.

[Eug Wanker]

Dammit. My oil stocks have dropped something like 20% since a couple of weeks ago.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Communism. Avoid.

Do you even know what communism is? It doesn't sound like it. In this country, at least, our economy is a far cry from a free market. The government plays all sorts of games with taxes and subsides and price floors and such. Look at the agricultural industry.

You can't argue against my proposal by arguing against regulation itself, unless you are a proponent of anarchy or are a libertarian.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Come back and whine when you hit $6 a gallon.

You don't get what I'm saying, do you? I'm not complaining that gas is too expensive. I'm complaining that it's too cheap! Higher gas prices would do some good things for this country's energy consumption.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

You don't get what I'm saying, do you? I'm not complaining that gas is too expensive. I'm complaining that it's too cheap! Higher gas prices would do some good things for this country's energy consumption.

I understand perfectly what you're saying. And you're wrong in wanting this type of thing to happen in your country. Try $6 a gallon for a while, see how fast your economy goes belly up - if you paid the same prices for gas as we do here your economy would simply stop, because you're not equipped to handle it. Period.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by mojo2

1. There MAY be a technology all ready on a shelf waiting for the right time to unveil. But we can't count on this being the case.

2. Some terrorist attack might change ALL of history tomorrow, in which case oil will still be important but secondary in importance and if there's a great loss of life then the oil consumption would automatically be less.

4. Judgment Day.

There's no step three!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

There's no step three!

Of course you are correct. That's as gentle and pleasant a chiding as I've ever had. Thank you.

So that others might witness your creativity as it was when you made it, I will not edit me post.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I understand perfectly what you're saying. And you're wrong in wanting this type of thing to happen in your country. Try $6 a gallon for a while, see how fast your economy goes belly up - if you paid the same prices for gas as we do here your economy would simply stop, because you're not equipped to handle it. Period.

Certainly that's a concern. However, economists say the magic number that will get Americans to change our consumption patterns is $4/gal. I wonder if we levied a series of small gradual taxes on gas that it would achieve the good with minimal danger.

Must Google it.

Easterbrook, on the other hand, wants to increase the gasoline tax to help consumers. In an article that appeared in The New York Times on May 25, Easterbrook said he would like to see the government implement the 50-cent increase in the federal gasoline tax that John Kerry supported a decade ago. Easterbrook wrote: "Ideally, proceeds from a revenue-neutral gasoline tax could be used to reduce income taxes and payroll taxes of the poor and lower middle class. Gasoline prices affect this group regressively."

Maybe THIS explains the Communism remark, eh Doofy?

But this article outline ANOTHER US Gas Tax proposal that doesn't redistribute the $$ in that way. I'm still in the middle of reading it meself, in fact.

http://www.aim.org/briefing/A1660_0_5_0_C/

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I understand perfectly what you're saying. And you're wrong in wanting this type of thing to happen in your country. Try $6 a gallon for a while, see how fast your economy goes belly up - if you paid the same prices for gas as we do here your economy would simply stop, because you're not equipped to handle it. Period.

You bring up an interesting point. I'm no economist but I would imagine the effect on the economy would be strongly dependent on where the tax revenue goes. The trick, I think, is to give it back to consumers in such a way that recreational uses of fuel are effectively taxed (like, going for a cruise around the harbor in your 28-footer, and towing the 28-footer to and from the harbor with an SUV) but let economically essential uses (like driving to work) go untaxed. I think that giving families a fixed fuel allowance per year, taken from the tax revenue, would accomplish this.

[OldManMac]

Do we then lay off those who make 28 foot boats, and RVs? The RV industry, the health of which is one of the signs of an impending recession/recovery, is starting to show signs of weakness, after only a couple of years of rebound.

The trucking industry, which delivers everything we own, is reeling from the price of diesel fuel, and it's not going to be much longer, if it stays high, that we will start paying more for the products we purchase, which means we'll purchase less, in order to keep the treadmill from throwing us off.

These are scary times.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by KarlG

Do we then lay off those who make 28 foot boats, and RVs? The RV industry, the health of which is one of the signs of an impending recession/recovery, is starting to show signs of weakness, after only a couple of years of rebound.

The trucking industry, which delivers everything we own, is reeling from the price of diesel fuel, and it's not going to be much longer, if it stays high, that we will start paying more for the products we purchase, which means we'll purchase less, in order to keep the treadmill from throwing us off.

These are scary times.

You are right KarlG. That's why I scream so loudly, so MacNNers can get a head's up to what's coming.

The same way the Blacksmith, the Elevator Operator or the TV Repairman had to read the writing on the wall or else be caught up in the wave headed for them, the RV industry and the boating industry and many OTHER industries as well had better take a look at what's coming our way.

What OBL wants is to attack America to make oil prices SHOOT UP to $200/bbl and $9/gal at the pump, overnight.

HE HAS SAID SO.

THAT is one of the big reasons we can't leave Iraq until the Iraqi military can safeguard the oil supplies as well as WE have.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by KarlG

Do we then lay off those who make 28 foot boats, and RVs? The RV industry, the health of which is one of the signs of an impending recession/recovery, is starting to show signs of weakness, after only a couple of years of rebound.

The trucking industry, which delivers everything we own, is reeling from the price of diesel fuel, and it's not going to be much longer, if it stays high, that we will start paying more for the products we purchase, which means we'll purchase less, in order to keep the treadmill from throwing us off.

These are scary times.

You bring up an excellent point. It's true, it would hurt those industries that make fuel-consuming leisure products (jet skis, ATV's, boats, etc.). But, these industries are basically doomed as of right now anyway, at least until someone invents a long-term solution to our energy problem. That type of tax would merely hasten the process.

From an economic standpoint, the people who work in those industries will be re-hired into other engineering-type fields that make more economically-necessary products, like fuel-efficient commuter vehicles.

[mydog8mymac]

Even though this thread has taken a turn to a deeper note, it's $2.16 a gallon here in Oklahoma.

[Cipher13]

$1.35 per L.

You guys have it so ****ing easy.

1 L = 0.264 Gallons (US/Liquid).

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

You bring up an interesting point. I'm no economist but I would imagine the effect on the economy would be strongly dependent on where the tax revenue goes. The trick, I think, is to give it back to consumers in such a way that recreational uses of fuel are effectively taxed (like, going for a cruise around the harbor in your 28-footer, and towing the 28-footer to and from the harbor with an SUV) but let economically essential uses (like driving to work) go untaxed. I think that giving families a fixed fuel allowance per year, taken from the tax revenue, would accomplish this.

Oh no no no. It's way way deeper than that.
Less recreational use = less ability for people to go have fun = less people hooking up (romantically) = more people living apart = more housing required = house prices rocketing = less money to go have fun = less people hooking up (romantically) = more people living apart = greater strain on the environment. Yadda yadda yadda.

I ain't joking. This is happening here right now (we're about two million houses short of requirements and the house prices are such that many people can't afford their first starter home). And that's only one aspect.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Maybe THIS explains the Communism remark, eh Doofy?

Any time the government decides to take your money and redistribute it on the basis of need it's verging on communism. It's especially communistic if they're specifically taxing you on your "unnecessary" recreational activities.

[frido:mac]

We are at $5.95/gallon at the moment over here... (for regular fuel). I´m pretty happy to drive a car that gets 60 mpg....

Bye, Frido.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Any time the government decides to take your money and redistribute it on the basis of need it's verging on communism. It's especially communistic if they're specifically taxing you on your "unnecessary" recreational activities.

Yeah, I know that. I'm just impressed you knew of this proposal and recognized it immediately when the subject of a gas tax was mentioned. Whereas, I LIVE HERE and had to GOOGLE it to know there was a gas tax plan that sought to redistribute the tax money.

Good for you!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Yeah, I know that. I'm just impressed you knew of this proposal and recognized it immediately when the subject of a gas tax was mentioned. Whereas, I LIVE HERE and had to GOOGLE it to know there was a gas tax plan that sought to redistribute the tax money.

Arh. I think we have crossed wires Moje.

I wasn't aware of any specific proposal as such - I just know how the lefties tend to work in their march towards their global utopia. It's almost guaranteed that in any country anywhere some leftie has come up with a proposal to remove people's fun and personal freedom under the guise of helping the environment or "the poor".
I don't believe our boy Fyre4ce is a commie, but he seems to have been taking notice of their propaganda... ...easily done, because that's how the commies work and what they count on, subtle persuasion wrapped inside "doing good", smoke and mirrors, sleight of hand.

Now, what I would support in this case would not be substantially taxing the gas and giving to the poor but slightly taxing the gas and funding alternative resource research with the proceeds. Better all round.

But then again, I don't believe we're running out of oil. I also don't believe that exhaust gases are to blame for global warming. What I do believe is that a population is easier to control if it's forced to use public transport and/or prevented from having fun. There's all sorts of factors involved. For example, rural societies require personal transport and independence from the state. Removal of personal transportation creates the need to clump, creating urban environments where the population is more likely to vote "left" and a lot easier to control. You're much easier to control if you're sitting home watching TV rather than out on the hills wheeling.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Doofy

But then again, I don't believe we're running out of oil.

http://dieoff.org/

EDIT: I recognize the validity of your argument. I know it could very well be true but at a certain point you have to look at the variety of voices, their orientations, their country, their organizations, what they would have to gain and the span of time when they were saying what they are and ask yourself, "does this seem like a government plan based on how you've seen the Government work and the things they've done before?"

This has a much more organic look and feel to it. It started before ANYONE was thinking about controlling the country or populations, right after WWII. The message has been echoed by more and more people from different disciplines and various other factors and it has been steady and gradual and has spanned many different Presidential administrations. It is explainable and reasonable.

If you have a swimming pool and took ONE DROP out of the pool every day, it might take a lifetime, but EVENTUALLY you will run out of water. So, isn't it reasonable to expect that the millions and billions of barrels that we've pumped out of the ground would eventually lead to a point where the most of the oil that was has been pumped and that the oil that remains is less than what's already been taken?

http://dieoff.org/page171.htm

Peak of Oil Production and Significance
It is not when the last drop of oil is pumped, but rather the peak of production (maximum daily amount) after which there is an irreversible decline in oil production, which is important. Then all social and economic programs based on oil income will have to be curtailed. Countries, such as Kuwait, which have been investing some of their oil income abroad may be able to sustain their social programs to a modest degree, but if the growth rate of population continues, it is very doubtful that the income on a per capita basis can equal the income now received from oil. Most countries now are consuming their oil income as it comes in.

Or do you think oil just is always regenerating? You know there were earthquakes in Long Beach CA caused by oil pumping. There were Colorado earthquakes due to oil pumping.
The oil kept the earth in place. When the pumping removed the oil the earth became unst
able. Sounds like it was running out, not regenerating.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mojo2

http://dieoff.org/

Moje, we shouldn't really get into this here as it's not the Pol Lounge, but I'm still not seeing any evidence of the oil companies falling over themselves to find alternative energy products in order to ensure their own continued existence. I'm seeing a lot of car-hating lefties with half-accurate data, a copy of Dreamweaver, $10 to register a domain and a cause to spend their spare time on.

Remember, lefites hate cars because they're objects of freedom which create right-wing voters.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Arh. I think we have crossed wires Moje.

I wasn't aware of any specific proposal as such - I just know how the lefties tend to work in their march towards their global utopia. It's almost guaranteed that in any country anywhere some leftie has come up with a proposal to remove people's fun and personal freedom under the guise of helping the environment or "the poor".
I don't believe our boy Fyre4ce is a commie, but he seems to have been taking notice of their propaganda... ...easily done, because that's how the commies work and what they count on, subtle persuasion wrapped inside "doing good", smoke and mirrors, sleight of hand.

Now, what I would support in this case would not be substantially taxing the gas and giving to the poor but slightly taxing the gas and funding alternative resource research with the proceeds. Better all round.

But then again, I don't believe we're running out of oil. I also don't believe that exhaust gases are to blame for global warming. What I do believe is that a population is easier to control if it's forced to use public transport and/or prevented from having fun. There's all sorts of factors involved. For example, rural societies require personal transport and independence from the state. Removal of personal transportation creates the need to clump, creating urban environments where the population is more likely to vote "left" and a lot easier to control. You're much easier to control if you're sitting home watching TV rather than out on the hills wheeling.

Thanks for the humor on a cold, drizzly Sunday.