home

$4.00 a Gallon and Rising

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:10:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Gas is $4.00 across the country. Driving to Aspen this weekend, I paid $4.27 a gallon. I knew better than to wait to refill until reaching Aspen, where everything costs more. Sure enough, one station in town was charging $4.65.

It's going to keep rising. I think we'll see $5.00 across the country in July. The New York Times says rural residents are being hit the hardest.

Across broad swaths of the South, Southwest and the upper Great Plains, the combination of low incomes, high gas prices and heavy dependence on pickup trucks and vans is putting an even tighter squeeze on family budgets.

Here in the Mississippi Delta, some farm workers are borrowing money from their bosses so they can fill their tanks and get to work. Some are switching jobs for shorter commutes. People are giving up meat so they can buy fuel. Gasoline theft is rising. And drivers are running out of gas more often, leaving their cars by the side of the road until they can scrape together gas money.

The Democrats need to reach out these rural voters on the gas issue. They make up 26% of the voting public. [More...]

A year ago, NPR reported on a poll saying the Republicans could no longer take rural voters for granted.

Three weeks ago, Rural Strategies reported McCain leads Obama by 9 points in the rural battleground states, although they preferred Obama to McCain on economic issues.

There aren't many needs more basic than food and fuel. Rural voters are a critical voting block in November. I really don't think they care about lobbyists and oil company profits -- or mass transit or carpooling or electric bicycles -- as much as they do about what they pay at the pump.

< Sunday Late Night Open Thread | A New Version Of The Malign Acceptance of Sexism >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    $4.00 a Gallon and Rising | 198 comments (198 topical)
    VDH appears (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:24:23 AM EST
    to be telegraphing what the GOP will do.  Blame drill restrictions for both the lack of domstic production and the spiraling tarde deficit ( and therefore the dropping Dollar).

    I'd love to see BTD and VDH go fist to fist on this. See the fight leave the bar and then roll out into the street and then see the town get involved in some sort of massed ruck.

    Nope, the new GOP theme is (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:00:40 AM EST
    going Green.  Yes, you read that correctly.

    Not as promoting environmental concerns, or as a progressive restructuring of our energy policy, but to end our dependence on foreign oil sources.

    McCain alluded to this in his speech, and an acquaintance who I generally consider a fair Republican bellwether on where their policy is going is really into this now.

    I doubt it will get a huge amount of traction this campaign but it could break the near-monopoly Dems have had on environmental issues wrt oil in the future.

    Parent

    I find it very interesting (none / 0) (#163)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:20:56 AM EST
    that evangelical voters are now starting to get on board with the climate change issue. Pat Robertson and Al Sharpton even did a commercial together about it.

    If McCain gives them a reason to believe that the GOP will take the issue on, that could make evangelicals feel better about voting (R).

    Parent

    Yep. Green is past being a Dem issue - which is (none / 0) (#171)
    by chrisblask on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:52:58 AM EST
    good for the cause if not for the party.

    Parent
    Is it foolish? (none / 0) (#159)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:38:14 AM EST

    Is it foolish to believe that increased production will lower the price?  If so, why beg OPEC to increase production?  If not, why is 85% of coastal US off limits to drilling?

    Parent
    Increased supply should lower cost, in a sane (none / 0) (#170)
    by chrisblask on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:50:37 AM EST
    market.

    Unfortunately, oil is not a sane market.  OPEC is one big - accepted - anti-trust operation.  Not that increased production wouldn't have a lowering effect on gas prices, it might, but the real way out of this is alternative energy.

    Parent

    Do you mean (none / 0) (#173)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:01:39 AM EST

    Do you mean replace low cost petroleum based energy with higher cost alternatives?  The reason they are "alternative" is they are more costly.  If they cost less, they would be dominant and petroleum would be alternative.

    Whats good for Archer Daniels Midland is not necessarily good for the US or your wallet.

    Parent

    I don't mean "make the problem worse", (none / 0) (#179)
    by chrisblask on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:48:25 AM EST
    that would be silly.

    I mean that for a wide range of reasons we need to swap out our energy sources.  Oil is only "cheap" due to economies of scale - there is no reason to believe other sources cannot be cheaper with similar scale and process improvements.

    I'm as Green as a frog, but not to the point that I'd say we should all stay home and crush our cars.  First and foremost I am a pragmatist and I would rather see improvements in a bad situation than futile efforts to fix it all at once (which I think plays a large part in our past failure to address the problem, and blame myself and other progressives for pursuing exciting and unattainable goals).

    What we need to do is move to more improved solutions, and those are imo likely to include all sorts of things.  Oil is not going away next year, or next decade.  Efficiencies in use must play a very large part in dealing with energy problems, both economic and environmental.

    Nuclear needs to be a large part as well.  It is the only source with a near-zero environmental impact that can scale to replace significant hydrocarbon use.

    Coal needs to be cleaned up and used.  It is the most available source, and if/when it can be used without the massive negative environmental impact, it could play a large economic and enviromental positive role.

    Biofuel needs to be developed further.  Food-based biofuel is a terrible half-step, cellusotic biofuel using advanced production methods (which are being engineered now) could end up being a huge benefit - or not.

    Wind/solar/tidal/geothermal could all play huge huge roles.  Lots of improvements in efficiencies and economics need to be made to scale these to a level where they can dent existing and growing power needs.  I think geothermal could end up being the big play - we are sitting on an energy source of literally unexpendable magnitude and we already know how to drill holes in the groudnd.

    Parent

    Not accurate (none / 0) (#187)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:04:02 PM EST
    Oil is only "cheap" due to economies of scale - there is no reason to believe other sources cannot be cheaper with similar scale and process improvements.

    Scale is only a small part of the issue.  We have been distilling for millenia.  Alcohol is still more costly than petroleum.  The big factor is that a pound of petroleum contains more energy than say a pound of alcohol.  In addition, the energy required to process petroleum is small buy comparison.  Thats all true regardless of scale.

    Hydrogen powered vehicles make some sense if the hydeogen is produced by splitting water with nuke power, but gets nutty to use diesel or coal.

    Parent

    It's that balance of cost/Joule that determines (none / 0) (#194)
    by chrisblask on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:24:53 PM EST
    the economics.  In a strawman argument you could presuppose that it cost $1K to distill a gallon of gas, in which case alcohol would clearly be more economical per Joule.  Currently that is not the case, but in the unlikely case that oil dries up much faster than anyone assumes it will, some price per gallon of distilled gas could be reached which tips the scale in favor of alcohol (and/or combined with lowered cost of distilling alcohol).

    Agreed on hydrogen. The best fuel cycle would have many fewer steps, and cracking H2O to make H2 by way of electricity generated from clean sources would seem to be an easy trump for distilling burnable fuel at all.

    Parent

    It's about balancing priorities (none / 0) (#176)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:37:55 AM EST
    First, the U.S. simply doesn't have much oil. We have some, but we are just not geologically suited to being an oil producing powerhouse. Second, the price of oil is determined by a simple supply/demand formula in which supply and demand are not both regulated by the free market. In this case, the supply is being limited by aritificial means while the demand is fairly fixed, leading to inequalities which allow producer's to charge more money and make more profit for selling less product. OPEC can limit production (although some think they are not limitign production, but are actually reaching a point at which they cannot produce as well becasuse the best oil sources have been tapped out).  Speculator's can run prices up. Processing facilities can go down for planned maintenance or for recovery from accidents. Heck... corporations can simply not build new processing facilities, which means that the older ones will be guaranteed to be down more often. They have found that they make MORE profit with fewer gasoline production facilities, not less.

    The market is not regulated, which means that there are about a thousand ways for thep people making profits to game the system to make more profits and very little that we can do to stop them, except use less fuel, which the American people are doing. But that takes a while to implement. People move and buy homes closer to their jobs, buy more economical cars, establish car pools. It takes time, but it is happening.

    But don't assume that the U.S. has untapped reserves of oil which can cheaply be tapped to dramatically reduce our need for foreign oil. We don't, and even if we did it would not effect the prices - the players would simply drop production somewhere along the line to keep their profits up.

    Parent

    Untapped reserves (none / 0) (#185)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:54:53 AM EST

    But don't assume that the U.S. has untapped reserves of oil which can cheaply be tapped to dramatically reduce our need for foreign oil.

    But we do have enough to lower the price.  With gas down to $2.00 or so, it would not matter much what percent is domestic.

    Parent

    Probably not (none / 0) (#192)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:19:34 PM EST
    First, it would take years to develop the areas we have oil. We have coastal and Alaskan oil which is relatively easy to access (a few years away), but a lot of our oil is tied up in shale in the West and it can only be accessed economically if oil prices get even higher than they are now.

    Second, in a rigged system, increased supply is not based on real supply, but on how much of that supply is released and how quickly. Oil producers and refineries are for profit enterprises that can control their production in order to maximize profit. If we get more supply from somewhere else, they will restrict supply elsewhere to ensure that prices remain high. In a non-regulated corporate environment, they are responsible only to their shareholders, not to the general public. Heck - Saudi Arabia doens't even have shareholders.

    Finally, much of our oil is now coming from the Alberta tar sands in Canada. This oil is only economically viable if oil prices remain high. If prices drop even close to the point where we can get $2/gallon gas, this source will no longer be available and oil prices will go up even without market manipulation.

    Parent

    Stooopid is as stoopid does (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by DoggieDaddy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:26:26 AM EST
    Dig - the head of my company was presented with an informal proposal by us working class slobs about going from a 5 day work week to 4 days work week in order for us blue collar peons to save on gas prices.
    The dummy figured we wanted to cut our total hours and thought we had no work to do and not that we would work 5 days condenced into 4.
    Well even after it was explained to him the exact reason - the cost of fule DUH - he said no.
    He only pays 3.19 per gallon and he can get to work so why shouldn't we....totaly, well, unaware of the real world and what's going on in it.
    I should note that as a union shop we forgo our cost of living increases for 5 years because he con-vinced us the economy was stagnant and we all need to pitch in to help the company survive. Of course he gave himself and his exuctives a raise but I digress. Totaly out of touch or just an eleatist or maybe just a jerk...what was the point?
    Oh yeah, the shape of things to come.
    Stoopid decision makers.

    I live in Western NC (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by ap in avl on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:48:52 AM EST
    (Appalachia if our nominee wants to visit).

    Gas prices are one of the many concerns in this area.  Asheville itself is a tourist destination and second-home market for a lot of people who live in Atlanta/Florida.  Median income is in the low/mid $30,000 range.  Home prices/rental fees are inflated to the point that people who work in the area cannot afford to live here.  So many live in several counties over and commute over an hour each way to their jobs.

    That is no longer a viable option.  I hear stories on a daily basis now from people who are squeezed to the point of breaking.  When 1) people can't afford to live where they work and/or 2) they can't find a livable wage close to where they live.....what can they do?

    Add to that the fact that most of them work for small businesses that can no longer afford to provide health insurance for them.

    I'm sure the problems we have here are similar to the ones facing many, many communities throughout our country.

    Western NC voted strongly for Hillary.  The Clintons made several visits here and impressed so many with their compassion and promise to fight for us.

    Our presumptive nominee did not spend any time in our region.  I hope he will now turn his attention to these types of problems.  

    My neighbors feel invisible.  We need change we can believe in. desperately. now.

    Housing prices (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:04:27 AM EST
    including rents, will take the first hits with a bad economy.  

    That's because, as much as everybody says "Well, you have to live somewhere" a lot of people will choose to live in their cars when they can't afford regular housing anymore.  

    Back in the early '80s, there were tons and tons of homeless people.  I used to think that every freeway offramp seemed to feature people begging for money.  

    I remember going to downtown LA late at night to pickup a friend who worked there and seeing a man with a wife and two little kids walking down Broadway -- and this was near midnight.  And the streets of downtown LA were littered with homeless people sleeping on whatever slab of sidewalk they could claim as their own.

    Anyway, it's easier to give up housing before one gives up food.  

    Parent

    Local newspaper had story of suffering of animals (none / 0) (#195)
    by jawbone on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:25:37 PM EST
    during the 80's downturn. Featured one woman who slept in her car to be able to keep her dog. Life of finding gas stations where she could sponge bathe, etc. Now, with water prices so much higher, that kind of thing will not be much tolerated.

    Main point of story was huge increase in pets dropped off at shelters in NJ bcz people could no longer afford them. Feed the kids or feed the pets, medical for kids or medical for pets? Tough decision to make, but, really, no choice at all.

    Still terrifies me.

    Parent

    i miss NC (none / 0) (#112)
    by boredmpa on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:32:31 AM EST
    but i'm glad i'm not living there with high gas prices (they beat out my street-cleaning "taxes" by far).

    And I certainly wouldn't be taking joy rides on the blue ridge parkway in this environment.

    Parent

    Grapes of Wrath time.... (none / 0) (#193)
    by jawbone on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:21:00 PM EST


    Parent
    Why not try some new solutions to... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by EL seattle on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:55:16 AM EST
    ...parts of the problem?

    I mean, what about that "Web 2.0" thing I keep hearing about?  

    You'd think that the sort of software that makes Craig's List and Ebay and Facebook so useful for certain things could be applied to organized ride sharing.  ( Sort of a "Flash Mob" meets "Car Pool" ).  It could be based on the average bus fare price, but would often be faster and get right to your door.

    One thing that strikes me is the (for want of a better word) pride that people take in driving alone.  Their daily commute is not just a way of getting from point "A" to point "B" but is a sort of declaration of their own personal independece from the rest of the crowd.  Gas prices will have to go pretty high to break that mindset.  

    it will require higher density (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:02:27 AM EST
    urban planning. But still--That would require a sociological revolution in the US.

    Parent
    Does your city have casual commute? (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jerry on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:06:14 AM EST
    In the Bay Area there is a casual commute, a group of locations where drivers and riders just show up during rush hours to share rides.  It's a real win-win since by filling your car up with riders you can avoid the tolls AND use the carpool lanes AND feel nice about the environment AND get to work quicker than the rapid transit alternatives.

    It's even encouraged by area officials.

    Google has transit maps.  And I am pretty sure google had some service showing where buses or cabs were in the area.

    And there is this service, I know nothing about it: carpoolconnect.

    Parent

    I did that for years (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:16:48 AM EST
    you pick up two strangers and drive in, or you can wait in line and get into a car with two strangers.  Whenever I told people I did that, they thought I was nuts.  Most of the time we did not talk.  After a while you got to know the regulars.  

    Parent
    way back when I lived in thhe East Bay (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:04:03 AM EST
    I used to commute in by bus. It was common for drives to offer rides to folks waiting at bus stops to meet commuter requirements at the bridge. I started out commuting in with my dad and he taught me all the tricks. Several days a week I could count on the same ride.

    Parent
    I've never heard of anyone having a problem on it (none / 0) (#78)
    by jerry on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:20:30 AM EST
    I don't live there now (sniff), but I never heard of a single problem with casual commute -- strength in numbers?

    Parent
    I would (none / 0) (#149)
    by Nadai on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:31:01 AM EST
    only do this if I could specify that the other people in "my" car were women.  I'm not getting into a car with two men I don't know.

    Parent
    barney frank (5.00 / 8) (#70)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:11:00 AM EST
    on bill maher he made it clear the middle class should not be asked to be the only ones to bear the burden of this transformation our society must go through.  I'm with him.

    I regard it as a complete and total failure of the progressive community that they can not figure out a way to create a progressive solution to a global crisis without imposing a regressive set of economic conditions on the middle class.

    Gas was $4.05 last nite and down to $3.99 tonite (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by Amiss on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:26:17 AM EST
    I live 10 miles outside of Tallahassee in a small town where my husband works. Something I would like to see make a big comeback are trainss. From something I saw on the tube, a train can go around 400 miles on a gallon of gas. Why are we not investing in repairing and building new railway systems?

    Because we are building bridges (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:50:43 AM EST
    to nowhere in Alaska

    Parent
    and it's especially difficult if (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by boredmpa on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:26:24 AM EST
    you're working poor, underemployed, or unemployed.

    I couldn't sell my car because I was looking for work anywhere in the bay area.  I couldn't pay tickets immediately (20 day window before 25$ bump) cause I had to eat and pay rent.  And I wasn't getting enough work so I had to make tough decisions and pray I'd get a job before DMV renewal when I'd have to pay off my tickets.

    Sigh, so finally i get a paid internship in the city, the same day my car gets towed for 5 unpaid tickets over the past 10 months (which more than doubled because I couldn't pay).  So I have to beg for money to get the car out (cause otherwise they keep it for 30 days, then sell it, and then bill me for their loss).  Not fun.

    Anyway, now I get to sell my car, and pray my internship leads to a job.  If it doesn't then interviewing/working anywhere else could be hell.

    I live on Long Island (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:04:41 AM EST
    where the local gas prices are somewhere around $4.23-4.35. Sadly, there is next to no public transportation around here so if you want to do anything, you need a car. You can't walk to the grocery store or a fast food place or the dry cleaners or pretty much anywhere, let alone jobs. If you work in NYC, you have to drive to a train station and depending on which line you're on, they may not run more than every 90-120 minutes.

    If you want to go anywhere but Manhattan, you're pretty much screwed -- when I was a teenager and had friends elsewhere, I would have had to take a train all the way into Manhattan and then switch and go back out again to where they lived which would've been an all day proposition.

    I own my own business and work from home but it also means I have to travel long distances at times. There's no public transportation that will get me from here to Upstate New York (even if I take Amtrak, I'd need a car to get from the train station to where I need to go) or New England. It's awful.

    My European friends do pay more for gas but they also have great public transportation to almost anywhere. Plus the thought of a 6 hour drive for business to them is unbelievable -- in 6 hours, you could be in 3 other countries.

    Wow! That's wild! (none / 0) (#140)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:09:26 AM EST
    I would have thought that transportation on Long Island would have been a breeze.  NYC certainly has good transit.  How did you guys get left out of it?  

    Parent
    Urban fright (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by ineedalife on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:47:06 AM EST
    Most of the development of Long Island only makes sense if you look at it as an attempt to hold back the unwashed masses from moving East. That attitude is in the past, but we are burdened with the infrastructure, and lack of it.

    Parent
    And a lot of corporate b.s. (none / 0) (#191)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:19:30 PM EST
    The Long Island Railroad has been promising to upgrade the commuter line I live on for 40 years. It used to be all diesel trains for years and years, even when other lines had gone electric, and we had to switch trains at one of several given stops west of us. Then they went to electric trains past that stop -- again, switching. A few years ago, they invested in these expensive trains that could run on both diesel and electric tracks. And what did they do? Run ONE of them in each direction during peak commutation hours. They're still doing that.

    It takes me 90 minutes to get into Manhattan. The trains only run every 90-120 minutes. I cannot go north or south on the LIRR. I can't go to any points west other than Jamaica, Queens or Manhattan. If I am in Manhattan, I have to leave by 11 pm or be forced to wait until 1 am for the next train (getting home close to 3 am). The train after that is around 5 am. It's insanity.

    We have a culture of driving here -- kids get their licenses at 16/17. Any time I have had a job out here, I've had to drive to it. There are a few local commuter buses which will take you to a few of the local strip malls/shopping centers, but the stops are few and far between and the service erratic. There is no way I could have taken a commuter bus to any job (especially when I was a temp during and after college). There's literally no other way to get to these places.

    Parent

    This is great discussion. Don't blame us,however. (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by SamJohnson on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:05:51 AM EST

    I really feel like I'm in my living room talking with friends about things that really matter. Since I'm both the doctor and the cook for my family (which includes an extremely diverse lot of people we have made lasting and meaningful friendships with) I've seen the real trauma that rising fuel prices have already caused.

    The cost of oil has very much affected every aspect of our lives. We talk a lot now about how to get by with the increased cost of food. We buy things in cases when they are on sale because we know the price of food isn't going to go down anytime soon either.

    Taking subways and buses to work typically ends up taking at least an extra hour each way to go a distance we could reach in 15 minutes if they are not holding up cars at tunnels and bridges to screen for something, but we're doing our part to not use cars that cost a fortune to own and run in a city anyway. What about those of us who can't afford a car anyway?

    . Don't lecture me on changing where I live or work to help the environment when I wasn't the one who borrowed all the money from other countries which started the whole downward spiral of the economy just to pay for tax cuts for people who make more money than 95% of the rest of us.

    Did I mention that someone started a war through lies and deception and which has led to horrific borrowing of money from other countries as well? Now, based on the devaluation of the dollar people from around the world are buying properties in the US while people in the US haven't really been built affordable housing in a very long time and because we have been turned into a theocracy that worships corporate profit and cheap labor while it profits the corporations they have interests in we should move?

    If dollars are so worthless, why don't we tax people from other countries who buy property to make up for the greed of the elites running this country? Why do only Americans workers and the middle class have to suffer? As if not taking lobbyists' money is going to change corporate behavior. Politicians will find a way around it anyway.

    Global warming and the price of oil and the cost of health care reflect very bad financial management of this country tied to belief in a very market biased, corporate profits will lift us all to prosperity philosophy that didn't have a chance to work for us when corporate profits depended on selling things we really don't need or that we really do need therefore are victimized by a marketplace strategy.

    I suppose the answer is making people suffer so badly that the next time they vote they will rid the country of those who are in power.  So we have Presidential candidates who appeal to voter's fear or machismo, or berate them for being bitter and stupid for who they are: old or white or female or non-college educated or living in a rural area where the price of gas is way more important than gaming any Party's primary rules for delegates.

    We're supposed to vote for a candidate who inspires his supporters to be offended if we should ask that he work for our votes with spin-free solutions to at least some of our problems, or an old soldier who thinks we just need to tough it out while we win the Vietnam War by following financial policies that haven't worked for the last 8 years. Even he is smart enough to be pandering to those whose main concern in life is global warming. It's become like a get out of responsibility free card.  

    I'm amazed (5.00 / 5) (#130)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:23:32 AM EST
    At how annoyed I get at this discussion.  It almost transcends this whole Clinton/Obama thing, I mean, it's larger than that.  It speaks to the real differences in how people think about progress and regress in our society.

    The reason why I'm replying here is you bring up a good point.  In a lot of cases, public transportation doesn't add that much to commute time because of traffic.

    But in many other cases, it does.

    Time adds up.  I just wish more people would look at this issue and realize that taking 500 hours away from a family per year isn't just an inconvenience.  It degrades society.  It's a pretty giant step backwards.


    Parent

    What's really dangerous here is that (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:15:35 AM EST
    every aspect of our infrastructure in the US is based on the assumption of cheap gas. We're all spread out, we have little or no mass transit, we're the ultimate car culture. I mean, we have zillions of houses where the most prominent front facing aspect is the garage -- that is, our houses are really for our cars, and we're an afterthought.

    So if oil goes through the roof as it's now looking, we're in deep sneakers (as an old texas teacher used to say). We're hosed. I don't know if there are any solutions except to just hope we survive a massive depression and somehow come out the other end.

    Wow, this is a very depressing post. Let's make the next one about something fun please.

    Bitter question -- (5.00 / 6) (#132)
    by FemB4dem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:39:43 AM EST
    "Democrats need to reach out to these rural voters on the gas issue. They make up 26% of the voting public."

    Umm, how exactly do the Democrats reach out to rural voters when their chosen standard bearer has called us all bitter, bible-thumping xenophobes, clinging to our guns?

    Just asking.

    For A Start (none / 0) (#180)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:51:17 AM EST
    Not repeating what are now GOP talking points, that is if you have not already migrated to the GOP.

    Parent
    Reaching out... (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by lentinel on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:26:09 AM EST
    Yeah, the democrats should reach out to voters on the issue of the unconscionable price of fuel.

    They should represent some other issues of interest to the voters.

    The first half of this campaign has been concentrating on destroying Hillary Clinton.

    Obama had better take some positions that are progressive and clearly distinguishable from McCain. So far, I see Obama as being reactionary. His votes for the patriot act, support for Lieberman (sullying his reputation as someone against the war in Iraq), his indefinite health plan, his opposition to gay marriage (which I consider an issue of civil and human rights), his backtracking on the idea of negotiating with adversaries without preconditions (now he has a basketful), are all things that make me disinterested in his political future.

    Add to that the disappointing behavior, betrayal really, by the democratic congress and we have a real problem.

    Let's focus on ending the war in Iraq.

    McCain has been pilloried for his "hundred years" comment.
    But do Obama and the democrats really have an alternative to propose? Talking about a withdrawal "maybe" by 2012 - and leaving "residual forces" to supposedly defend our embassy...
    well - that's a ton of commitment. Not much different in my view.

    So - I wouldn't mind being reached out to - but at this point I think it ain't gonna happen.

    As much as $4 a gallon pains me, (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:47:32 AM EST
    $10 a gallon pains me more.  I fear a huge disruption in lifestyle -- really something catacylsmic (probably spelled wrong).  Anyway, I fear something really awful if gasoline goes to $10 a gallon.   As much as rural lifestyles get disrupted at $4 a gallon, imagine everyone's lifestyle getting blown out at $10 a gallon.  

    And that scares me.  

    Retarded Progressives (5.00 / 4) (#162)
    by Dave B on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:20:45 AM EST
    I have seen so many comments on progressive blogs about what a great thing that the high gas prices are.  They are just pleased as punch that this will force a change of habits, encourage public transportation, get rid of those nasty SUV's and trucks, force people to stop driving, force higher density urban living, etc.

    I live in South Dakota.  I could not function in my live with out a pick-up truck.  Neither could the construction and agriculture workers here.  To rural folks, this type of talk from progressives sounds elitist and brain dead, and it will definitely not translate into support for progressives from rural Americans.

    Now, if we want to talk about fools in big cities driving big trucks and SUV's to the corner store or to work, yes there is a lot of merit to that discussion.

    Exactly right (none / 0) (#178)
    by DFLer on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:43:12 AM EST
    Farmers don't have the option, as my farming friends have explained to me, because there are no fuel efficient trucks and machinery available. Believe me, they would love to take advantage of fuel efficiency.

    BTW re diesel fuel...it is now more expensive than reg gas, right?

    Parent

    Rising fuel costs = (4.83 / 6) (#11)
    by JustJennifer on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:23:39 AM EST
    rising food prices as well.  Even if you don't drive you will be affected.

    My Mom was just saying last night she (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:26:33 AM EST
    paid 4 something for a loaf of bread. Here in NY, they do keep tabs on milk prices. Our news follows to make sure they stay under the cap. Organic dairies are taking a hit, I believe. I checked last years price from the dairy I get my milk from and the price is the same.

    What they don't talk about enough and they should everytime they say the latest gas price, is the diesel increase. I did some math back when the 1/2 tank of gas joke was big re gas tax. $1100 a month, iirc, was the avg savings for a trucker. I also think on the gas tax, they really underestimated people's neccessary driving. Which doesn't help for furthering discussion of ideas, imo.

    Oh, and I just took a loaf of bread out of the oven :)

    Parent

    I was in one of my favorite grocery (none / 0) (#138)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:50:48 AM EST
    stores last week, where they bake their own bread.  You used to be able to get a bag of small rolls for $1.  Last week?  $2.69.  Seriously.  They used to sell loaves of French Bread for $1.  Now it's $2.69.  All of their bread was marked up to $2.69.  

    That's huge.  That's like a 200% increase on bread.  The government says baked goods went up 9%.  Well not where I am shopping!!

    A lot of other things were up too so I keep trying to snag all the big bargains at the old prices but it's hard!  


    Parent

    The 9% (none / 0) (#148)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:29:41 AM EST
    was probably an average. But just wow on what happened in your area.

    Parent
    Anyway you cut it, it is disgusting. I hope (4.75 / 4) (#2)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:14:44 AM EST
    things get turned around soon.  It is criminal that some people are actually having to choose between food and gas.

    I've seen reports that it could go to $10-15 (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:59:08 AM EST
    By this time next year.

    It feels to me like a plan to force pumping oil in the Alaska reserves, and I hear South Dakota.


    Parent

    Java....you could be right, but by the time (none / 0) (#79)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:22:02 AM EST
    the drilling is complete, and the amount of oil they might get from it, you would have to wonder if it would be worth doing.  How about more electric cars?  

    Earlier when referring to the $6/gal Europeans pay for gasoline, I said so what...meaning just because they do, doesn't mean we want that.  Something has got to give...

    Parent

    It's an additional nightmare to think (none / 0) (#90)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:30:53 AM EST
    of where all these gas burning vehicles are going to go.

    I hope there will be a conversion kit available so we can just replace our engines when the time comes.

    Is everyone hearing that the fast food restaurants in your areas are having their cooking oil barrels stolen?

    Parent

    I haven't heard that, but I am not surprised. (none / 0) (#94)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:45:37 AM EST
    Many diesel engine cars are being run by vegetable oil.  When I lived in the Hollywood area of CA, there was a company doing a land office business converting the cars so they could run on veggie oil.  There is nothing like following a car that emits a french fry aroma... :)

    Parent
    It's very annoying to the trucks that (none / 0) (#98)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:55:22 AM EST
    drive out to the restaurants to collect the used cooking oil. They are catching the thieves on security cameras and showing them on the news here regularly hoping someone will recognize and turn them in.

    I hadn't heard diesel engines could run on veg oil. I wonder if all the cars started sending out emission odors of french fries, fish & chips, donuts, would the population get fatter, or thinner?

    Parent

    Too funny! (none / 0) (#133)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:17:52 AM EST
    We are all going to get fatter than heck because we are going to think that we are hungry just following that truck spewing Fish & Chips smell!!  

    Thank gawd they don't invent an engine that runs on CHOCOLATE!!!!  :)

    Parent

    thinner....you can imagine you have already (none / 0) (#199)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:29:32 PM EST
    eaten when following one of those cars, which will come in handy especially if you can only afford gas and not food too.

    Parent
    ACK! Don't say that! (none / 0) (#92)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:43:57 AM EST
    I'm moving back to CA next spring and will need to drive for the first time in my life! And I remember when gas was .29 or less a gallon. Have no clue why the .29 sticks in my brain.

    Parent
    nycstray....the good old days will do that to (none / 0) (#95)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:46:12 AM EST
    you.

    Parent
    That they wiil ;) (none / 0) (#103)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:12:56 AM EST
    Luckily, my consumer use in other areas has gone down considerably and now that I know I'm going to CA, I can plan accordingly. And I have the luxury of planning where I want to live with few restrictions. My dog will be pulling a cart with farm goods if I can work it right! And I 'll have to plan the first yr as remote work until I get fully settled there. The rent increase that's gonna hit me will be bad enough, but doable. Gas? Oy.

    Parent
    depends on where in CA (none / 0) (#129)
    by Y Knot on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:22:24 AM EST
    ...you're moving, but there's a lot of talk in L.A. about how to increase mass transit.  Some people are even pushing the streetcar idea again. Luckily, we elected a governor who understands the need to put money into infrastructure.  Unluckily, he's an incompetent boob who has dug us even further into debt.  (It's almost like pretending to be an unstoppable killing machine in movies doesn't actually groom you for politics.  sigh whoops, swerving OT, sorry!)

    Thank god I live near a bus line and I'm only 5 miles from my work.  Filled my tank today, it was 4.35 and that was at Costco.

    My next car is definitely going to need to get at least 40 mph.  I hope Detroit gets with it.  I want to buy an American car if at all possible.

    Parent

    I'm in LA too (none / 0) (#134)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:24:21 AM EST
    but thankfully, I live within walking distance of almost everything I need or want.  My bank is only 2 blocks from my apartment, grocery store is 3 blocks, mall is about 8 blocks, big shopping district is 3 blocks, 7/11 is across the street, the deli/hairdresser/drycleaners is actually on the block where I live.  sigh  It's almost perfect except for the fact that about 10,000 other people are sharing my square mile.  

    Oh!  Did I mention bus and rail?  Bus stops right on my block, and that takes me to the Metrolink depot.  

    I probably could get along without a car except for the fact that I have a Post Office Box that is 7 miles from here.  Well, that and a storage unit.  Fortunately, I don't have to visit those more than once a week.  

    Parent

    I moved from L.A. to Vegas 6 months ago, (none / 0) (#198)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:26:17 PM EST
    and I wouldn't have left save for the traffic.  Of course I miss it, especially when I have to drive 26 miles to the bakery I like...as for mass transportation, L.A. has done a very poor job of planning.  At one time they considered a monorail, but it was shot down because Bev Hills people didn't want it ruining the look of the city...bet they wish they had one now!

    Parent
    I lived in LA in the early 80s (none / 0) (#175)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:35:11 AM EST
    without driving  ;)  Now there's a city that should have continued their mass transit plan YEARS ago!

    I won't be doing city living this time around. I'm hoping to be more small town/rural. I think I can still get away without driving a lot and it will be a matter of finding a place that does have the basics in reach distance wise. The first several months I'll be living in the mountains, but even there I shouldn't be driving a whole lot because of my lifestyle.  I'm also hoping to buy an American vehicle if possible. Gas prices are still going to suck though ;)

    Parent

    Heating oil (none / 0) (#154)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:13:04 AM EST
    You should be using a heck of a lot less of that in CA.


    Parent
    I have free heat :) (none / 0) (#177)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:41:34 AM EST
    I'm moving from a very sweet deal cost wise. The first place I'm living has a wood burning stove, so I will be able to save on energy there at least. I should also be able to grow come of my food there, which I'm thrilled about.

    Parent
    How will our Dem. nominee reach out (4.66 / 3) (#4)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:16:06 AM EST
    to rural voters re high gas prices after he ridiculed Clinton and McCain re a gas tax holiday?

    Bingo! (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by davnee on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:28:14 AM EST
    Obama already ridiculed the gas tax holiday and he voted for the Bush Cheney energy bill.  If McCain can spin it right, he can really grab this issue from Obama.  

    He's already started with his speech this past week:  (from Reuters on 6/3) "The next president must be willing to break completely with the energy policies not just of the Bush administration, but the administrations that preceded his, and lead a great national campaign to put us on a course to energy independence," McCain said to applause. ...Obama has repeatedly tied McCain to Bush, but the Arizona senator turned the argument around, saying Obama had voted for an energy bill promoted by Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. McCain did not vote for the bill. ..."If America is going to achieve energy independence, we need a president with a record of putting the nation's interests before the special interests of either party," McCain said. "I have that record. Senator Obama does not."

    Parent

    Gas tax pandering... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:22:10 AM EST
    ...really isn't the solution.  It sounds nice, but it is pointless.  

     Right now I am paying 4.50 for a gallon.  I don't want pandering, I want a solution.

    Parent

    ok (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:29:45 AM EST
    whats the solution?

    What the Indiana Illinois cases showed is that the price of gas adjusted somewhat upward, about halfway.  To say a gas tax holiday provides no benefit at all to the consumer iso about as accurate as saying ALL benefits are passed on to the consumer.

    Parent

    The point is (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by mbuchel on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:41:40 AM EST
    that not only do consumers not feel the full benefit, but the state (or federal) government loses millions or billions of dollars of revenue - hurting road repair and costing jobs.
    I don't think those repercussions are worth a couple of pennies per gallon.  That's why it was such a bad idea.

    Parent
    But if they get that revenue (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:44:52 AM EST
    by some other method.....

    Parent
    We need to get our priorities straight (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by otherlisa on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:53:12 AM EST
    and invest in infrastructure projects that actually address the fact that the price of gasoline is going nowhere but up.

    So, let's divert some of that highway work to projects like this one.

    And I thought the gas tax holiday was a good idea, by the way. It's not meant to be a permanent measure, just something to help tide people over while they adjust to the new reality.

    And it puts the onus back on the oil companies, who have been making obscene profits for decades.

    Parent

    But what makes you think (none / 0) (#14)
    by frankly0 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:24:40 AM EST
    there even exists an easy solution?

    Parent
    There isn't one (none / 0) (#16)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:26:29 AM EST
    But I am not in the business of false promises.

    Parent
    A suspension of the gas tax (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:49:34 AM EST
    isn't a false promise, it's real, temporary relief. I want it and I imagine rural voters do too.

    Parent
    It also encourages (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by brad12345 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:09:42 AM EST
    unsustainable behavior (or would if it effectively lowered prices.)  People bought huge cars they couldn't afford and took on long commutes.  So be it.  And I say this as someone with a long commute (though in a tiny hatchback.)

    In the long run, we need to raise CAFE standards dramatically, develop more efficient public transportation, improve infrastructure, make small tweaks like retiming stoplights, develop alternative means of transportation, make mass market electric/alternative powered cars, encourage telecommuting... etc.  It sucks that people are spending a lot on gas and are suffering on food and heat and so on for it.  But if we keep supporting that lifestyle by artificially trying to lower gas prices, we'll get hit much harder later on.

    Parent

    I agree... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:55:32 AM EST
    ...with the fact that it is temporary relief.  You pay for it in the end, though. As Krugman said, it is pointless.

     Maybe rural voters who drive longer distances to work will appreciate it.  But it is temporary relief.  Emphasis on the temporary.  

    Parent

    Temporary relief (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by standingup on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:19:37 AM EST
    when you have children to feed can make a big difference.  Many of these people in rural areas have fewer choices when it comes to jobs and there is no available public transportation.  Twenty dollars may not make sound like much to a lot of people but it will cover a few gallons of milk.  

    Parent
    Temporary relief (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:24:06 AM EST
    is better than no relief.  

    I get it.  Why doesn't Obama get it?  

    Yeah, you can have grand plans but nothing beats having something that helps now, not later.  

    Parent

    State taxes are gas (none / 0) (#61)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:05:32 AM EST
    are more than federal.

    But, at the rate the price is going up, the taxes aren't going to make much of a dent in lowering the prices to affordable levels.

    People around here commute long distances to work. To get affordable housing, it was necessary for many to head way out of town. I know many who travel 80 miles a day (round trip) to work. Two car families almost always include an SUV.

    Who can do anything to stop this? Our Oilmen President & VP?

    Parent

    Durn right we do (none / 0) (#155)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:14:28 AM EST


    Parent
    If you want to offset the price increase of gas (none / 0) (#161)
    by andrewwm on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:52:09 AM EST
    why not just give them a rebate check for the money to buy groceries with then?

    Why do a Rube Goldberg-esque attempt to lower gas prices, but at the same time taxing oil companies (who will eventually pass that tax increase onto consumers), that also has the bad side effect of encouraging more consumption, the last thing we need to do at this point?

    Just give them a check for $400 dollars in the rural areas to buy groceries. They're smart enough to know how to spend it.

    Parent

    There are easy solutions (none / 0) (#58)
    by daryl herbert on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:04:04 AM EST
    domestic drilling would bring prices down and we wouldn't be at the mercy of OPEC.  It would also create jobs.

    Of course, there are trade-offs (namely, damage to the environment), but if you want cheap gas, that's the easy way to get it.  And let's face it: cheap gas, by itself, means more damage to the environment (because more people will be burning it when they drive).

    Parent

    I doubt it (none / 0) (#64)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:08:45 AM EST
    There's no consensus on ANWR.

    Parent
    There has been no consensus (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by magisterludi on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:09:03 AM EST
    on anything relating to the environment and energy for the last several decades. So here we are, at the breaking point. Gas will be 5 bucks a gal nationally by the end of the month. In Memphis people are turning to bikes and, particularly, motor scooters. The suppliers can't keep them in stock. Good news.

    Bad news- rash of gas thefts. Besides siphoning off cars, thieves will puncture high profile SUVs and drain them. The poor are really suffering, it's 10 degrees hotter here than usual. Utilities have increased again and, of course, food staples are spiraling out of sight.

    The very real upshot of this is our crumbling social structure and the mayhem that could occur when desperate people start doing desperate things to survive. Alan Greenspan, obtuse as he is, even acknowledged civil unrest is a very real possibility in this clime.

    While high energy costs may be good in theory, in reality the costs will be unbearable for too many. Something has got to give   and it's not going to be pretty.

    Parent

    Thieves around here (none / 0) (#168)
    by pie on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:22:18 AM EST
    are not only siphoning gas, but they're stealing license plates.  They put them on their cars, fill up at a gas station, and then drive away.  The cameras catch the license plate, but not the thief.

    Someone in a nearby town told told me that it recently happened to a friend of hers.  They took his license plate off while he was in church.  He reported it as soon as he noticed.  On Monday, he went to the license bureau to get a replacement, and there were 14 other people there for the same reason!!

    Signs of the economic times.  :(

    Parent

    Consensus as to what (none / 0) (#80)
    by daryl herbert on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:22:03 AM EST
    That it would provide gas and drive down gas prices?  I think everyone agrees on that.

    As far as I understand it, the only debate is whether we should go ahead or not, and how much damage the environment would take if we do go ahead.

    Parent

    Please be serious (5.00 / 5) (#93)
    by otherlisa on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:45:12 AM EST
    Everything I've read about ANWR indicates that we'd get something like 6 months of oil supplies twelve years from now that aren't even guaranteed to go to US consumers.

    We cannot drill our way out of this problem. We need to make some fundamental, structural changes.

    The changes don't have to be all that painful (though some probably will be). There are a lot of unglamorous, incremental things we can do that will help. I don't have time to google this now, but as an example, California's rate of energy consumption has remained flat since the 70s. Obviously we do drive a lot here so we are getting that savings through conservation measures and stricter regulation.

    We can insist on regulations around energy efficiency and conservation and start putting tax money into better mass transit infrastructure.

    Parent

    Not so much - 75 whooping cents a barrel (none / 0) (#166)
    by DFLer on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:55:56 AM EST
    If Congress were to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, crude oil prices would probably drop by an average of only 75 cents a barrel, according to Department of Energy projections issued Thursday. [May 22].

    McClatchy article

    Parent

    heh (none / 0) (#22)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:30:28 AM EST
    the solution is that you stop driving.  It's a terminal solution.  

    You have not been following the fact that high energy prices are green-Democratic policy.

    Parent

    Well let's see... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:35:15 AM EST
    ...I drive less than five miles to go to work.  I made a choice.  I work one place, live in another place, and I spend relatively less for gas.

     Hard choices.  Fact is, competing demands are not going away.  This was always going to involve a change in lifestyle habits, it was only a question of when.  

    Parent

    I walk a block to work. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:42:34 AM EST
    So it's no skin off my nose. I 've never enjoyed driving to work. I hate commuting.   I grew up in Oxford!

    Parent
    I hope you don't lose your job (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:47:11 AM EST
    and end up working somewhere else farther away.

    Parent
    Pretty dark thing to say... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:49:26 AM EST
    ...and kind of surprised that you would say that, but, if you must say it, my response is that I'll budget for it.  Or try to.

    Parent
    I Only Get The Blowback (4.66 / 3) (#6)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:18:14 AM EST
    Since I have not driven a car in sometime living in an urban center. The europe comparison is not so bad though, some believe that until the price of oil/gas is exorbitant, Americans will not think differently about fuel.

    Most cultures do not conserve until they have to.

    thepeople who now control the party (4.66 / 3) (#8)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:19:42 AM EST
    believe high gas prices are a good thing (yes they do.  Its the only way to force people to stop driving)  so I don't expect much from the party on this issue until they start losing elections.

    Yes, they are a good thing (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by s5 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:31:34 AM EST
    People need to drive less and use less gas, and the only thing that's pushing them to do it has been higher prices. It's funny, after years of trying to sell the benefits of carpooling, mass transit, biking, carpooling, consolidating errands, etc and watching all of that get dismissed as "yeah yeah, I'll do it tomorrow, it's too hard", it's been gratifying to watch people change their behavior overnight as gas prices have gone up. What was too hard at $2.00 / gallon is suddenly common sense at $4.00.

    Of course, that doesn't address the problem of rural needs (you can't plow the fields with a bicycle). So the answer should be subsidies, specifically for rural users and shipping (truck drivers).

    Gas prices just aren't going down, ever, and pretending otherwise or that there's a magic fix is pure fantasyland. That is, unless we start bombing car dealerships in China. So, society needs to acknowledge that gasoline isn't a commodity for most people. Most people use other forms of transportation, like the bus or rail or bicycles or electric cars or etc, while industries with specific needs use gas and diesel, subsidized if necessary so people in cold places can eat food grown in warm places.

    Parent

    It'll be the poor who (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:37:05 AM EST
    lose whatever autonomy they have of course.

    Lower living standards won't hit upper middle class people for years.  

    I tend to think we will have a servant class again if the current trends in food and energy prices are anything to go by.  Say goodbye the the "Working Class Empire" that was once America.

    Parent

    No, they aren't a good thing (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by badger on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:06:26 AM EST
    You're simply looking at the aspects of the problem that interest you, and not viewing the impact of the situation holistically.

    Energy, esp energy from oil, is fundamental to everything that goes on in this country - food, medical care, manufacturing, even electricity generated from coal, nuclear or wind. All of those things have an oil energy component - if energy prices increase, the price of everything increases.

    At the same time, while the declining dollar should make our exports more competitive, it also makes energy more expensive, driving our costs higher. So at the same time everybody is paying more for everything, unemployment is also rising and real wages continue their decades-long decline.

    While you're thinking happy thoughts about buses and trains, you have no solution for the loss of jobs coupled with dramatically increased living costs that are going to cause real, immediate misery for a lot of people. In addition to a long term fix from conservation and alternative energy sources, we - all of us - need to continue eating and working while those conservation measures and alternatives are put in place.

    Have you not noticed that unemployment is rising now, food costs are rising now, stock prices are falling now? Most of that is related to oil prices, and reducing emissions by 80% 30 years from now isn't going to solve the immediate problem, is it?

    Parent

    Golly I never thought of it that way (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by s5 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:40:42 AM EST
    Obviously increasing energy costs affect more than just transportation. But the context of this discussion was gas prices and driving, so that's what I focused on.

    That doesn't change my central thesis, which is that we're going to have to start restructuring our economy and changing how we use energy, what sources of energy we use, and try to accomplish the same tasks in different ways. Any politician who believes otherwise has their head buried deeply in the sand.

    Anyway, the problem with "gas prices" as a political issue is that it presupposes that our politicians have any ability to control them. They really don't. The sooner we face the reality that energy as we're currently using it is going to keep costing more and more, the sooner we can actually do something about it. Our only way out of this is to start building the green economy now.

    If you think the economy is hit hard now by high gas prices, the cost of inaction will be far more devastating. And all these silly ideas like gas tax holidays or fantasizing about bombing OPEC (yes, some people really believe we can "bomb OPEC") aren't going to have any effect at all.

    As for me, I see rising gas prices as an opportunity to build the political will to change how the economy works. As long as we're on the path to changing things, subsidizing gas or tax credits for certain industries or uses seems fair. But until then, I'm thrilled that after decades of inaction, people are finally looking to make changes.

    Parent

    also oil is not just cars (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by bigbay on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:26:17 AM EST
    Oil is used in everything. It's pretty much irreplaceable. That's why the scolds should probably simmer down a bit.

    And high oil prices are really rocking the developing world right now, i.e. poor people. People here will be OK by comparison. Governments will likely fall over the speculation going on in the energy and commodities markets.

    Parent

    Oil is one of the major components in (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:41:33 AM EST
    plastic.  How many items can you think of that don't have any plastic?  

    Plastic wrap?  Plastic bottles?  Plastic everything?  We've got a whole lifestyle built around plastic.  

    Parent

    That's actually the wrong way into a good point (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Y Knot on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:54:51 AM EST
    That people very rarely discuss.  We need oil for lots of things besides fuel, and if we burn it all up, we'll have nothing to make plastic out of.


    Parent
    Medical devices and equipment, some meds not (none / 0) (#197)
    by jawbone on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:40:10 PM EST
    possible without oil.

    Years ago I wrote my CongressCritters that we must not drill in the Arctic, that perhaps when oil became ever more scarce we would have the techniques to drill there very, very safely and would also have a reserve of oil for things which can't be made any other way.

    Now, I may be wrong, maybe we have substitutes now. If so I was quite wrong on that argument.

    But we will have to devise new materials or ways of making things when oil becomes even more scarce and expensive.

    Sooooooo sad we didn't start when Jimmie Carter had at least done some work to get R&D underway. Now, we're the nation having to import tecnology and goods that are energy efficient. Way cool, Repubs...NOT.

    Parent

    No more 80 mile joy rides (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:34:44 AM EST
    for the middle class, eh?

    Parent
    Sure why not. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by s5 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:48:35 AM EST
    Electric cars with 200-300 mile range are definitely possible, and eventually that's what people will drive anyway (rather than their current state as a niche product).

    But if you mean 80 mile joy rides in a gasoline powered car, sorry, no, never again. Those days are nearly over. Give it a decade, two at the most. Civilization is fundamentally changing, which means that we'll either have to get our kicks elsewhere, or develop new products that get us the same kicks in a different way. We really can't live in the past and pretend that if only we yell loud enough about gas prices, that they'll go down.

    Parent

    High energy prices... (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:34:58 AM EST
    ... are good policy in my opinion IF

    (1) the high prices are because of taxes that go to the government, not simply oil company profits.

    (2) the increased taxes on energy above are returned in some other form by lower taxes on the middle/working class.

    (3) something reasonable is done to acknowledge that rural folks need more fuel than urban ones.

    I agree that the Democrats are currently running the risk of appearing to like high energy prices no matter what.

    Where I live, $4 gas is a happy memory.

    Parent

    true (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:39:35 AM EST
    if you want to drop my tax rate to nil so I can afford 5 buck gas, I'll consider it an even trade off.

    Parent
    I, for one, welcome our new (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by mary kate on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:29:29 AM EST
    libertarian overlords.

    If those with the least income have to pay the highest price for our collective oil-dependent folly... well, duh, those people should get higher-paying jobs or move closer to their workplaces, and stop looking for handouts.  We don't pander to poor people anymore. [/snark]

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#18)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:28:02 AM EST
    high energy prices are POLICY now.

    Enough lefty people are saying that they are not high enough yet.

    So what CAN Obama say? Hwe won't even tinker with taxation rates.

    Parent

    Please. (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by s5 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:33:20 AM EST
    High energy prices are REALITY. There's no getting around it.

    Parent
    That and the collapsed dollar of course (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:40:22 AM EST
    However this is a good way to recreate the servant class that used to exist in pre ww2 America.

    Parent
    the tax thing (none / 0) (#131)
    by Y Knot on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:38:22 AM EST
    was a ridiculous proposal.  Cut 18 cents a gallon during the summer of 2009?  That's a serious idea?  

    In the time since McCain first proposed it, gas has gone up more than twice that amount.  At this rate, by 2009 we'll be looking at close to 6.00 a gallon.  If someone said to me then, "good news! For the next three months, it'll only be 5.82!"  I'd probably punch them in the face.  That's even assuming the gas companies wouldn't immediately jack the price up another 18 cents.

    The next president needs to challenge this country to create new energy solutions the way Kennedy challenged us to go to the moon.  It would have to be bigger, because we're going to need to rethink everything.  

    Hey, side question... back in the mid '80s there was all sorts of talk about cold fusion, being the wave of the future.  I remember article after article saying it was 30 years away.  Well, it's been about 20+ years... are we now less than 10 years away?  Something tells me no.

    Parent

    Yes, but it's better than nothing (none / 0) (#136)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:35:18 AM EST
    You can cut the gas tax AND challenge the country to create new energy solutions.  No one said eliminating the gas tax was the "end all/be all."  It was just offering a little help.  

    It seems our politicians want us to believe you have to pick one or the other when realistically, you can HAVE BOTH!!  


    Parent

    Seems like a good way (none / 0) (#147)
    by Y Knot on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:00:00 AM EST
    to decrease the nations revenue, while giving the oil companies another 18 cents per gallon.  Obviously, they'd quickly raise prices to compensate for the loss.  Then, at the end of the summer, the tax would kick back in, and suddenly we're paying more than when we started.

    No, the oil companies might NOT do that... but at this point, I see no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt.

    Parent

    I hope this isn't your way of cheering us (none / 0) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:13:31 AM EST
    up?  This is waaaaay out of control.  And, I especially detest when people say "people in Europe have been paying $6/gallon for years".
    So What!!

    The "so what" is they have better (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:19:02 AM EST
    public transportation, they use them, and they mostly drive more fuel efficient cars than we do.

    Parent
    60% of the cost (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by themomcat on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:24:37 AM EST
    of fuel in Europe is tax. That tax revenue goes back to support infrastructure and mass transit. Also most European cars are 4 cylinder and/or use diesel.

    Parent
    Chicken or Egg (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:28:13 AM EST
    It is because of the high tax that the cars are more fuel efficient.

    Parent
    I have lived (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by themomcat on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:34:27 AM EST
    between Europe and the US since the mid 60's. I can't recall ever needing to have a car in Europe like I need to have one here in the US. I believe it is a trade off that the Europeans accepted for a different way of life.

    Parent
    Also (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:37:44 AM EST
    The distances between destinations here are exponential compared to european countries. Driving more than an hour and a half is exceptional there, while here it is routine.

    Parent
    I live in NYC (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by themomcat on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:02:00 AM EST
    I work the graveyard shift in the central part of Brooklyn. If I took mass transit to work it would take me over 2 hours to get there. That is taking a car to the train (25 min.), then to the ferry (30 min), walk  several blocks to another train (10 min.), wait for train to Brooklyn (10-15 min because of non rush hour service), train to Bk (20 min.), transfer to bus (wait for bus 10-15 min because of non rush hour service), bus to work (20 min. maybe). I did this once to  prove a point to my boss that they needed to provide parking for the night shift employees. I had my husband pick me up in the morning and take me home. Travel time by car 30 min.
    I bought a hybrid to get to work and save my sanity and my patients from me being very grumpy. And the parking, fixed, we have reserved parking for us night shift folks.
    Even for people living in an urban setting where mass transit is available, commuting is a problem. We have never addressed this in the US. Especially cities that are 24/7.

    Parent
    I Can Relate (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:10:09 AM EST
    I used to live in Washington Heights. The A train was really slow  especially late at night so I used a car a lot especially at night. But in many european cities the trains stop at midnight. For what you are describing, even in europe you would need a car.

    Parent
    In Paris (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by themomcat on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:22:39 AM EST
    I can still get to work at night in less time and by the time I get off the Metro is running. It is also cheaper that NYC. A month pass for the Metro and bus costs about $50 a month and is for unlimited rides. In NYC it is almost twice that now and does not allow for unlimited rides. NYC just raised the fare and is now talking about another fair hike by next year. I'm nor sure how the low income and middle class are making it here. If your married both partners must work to live here. It is very sad what is happening to the core of NYC.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:25:52 AM EST
    Thousands of million dollar+++ luxury condos, and pricey luxury rentals, but no new schools.

    Parent
    do you get a travel allowance as an NYC worker? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:05:16 AM EST
    Generally Londoners get a specific compensatory travel budget from their employers.

    Parent
    No. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by themomcat on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:13:28 AM EST
    The only discount I get is reduced toll on the Verrazano-Narrows Bridege. $4.98 instead of #10 because I am a Staten Island resident.

    Parent
    They could make that trade-off because ... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by cymro on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:47:54 AM EST
    ... all the important political decisions are not controlled by the oil and automobile industries. In the US the auto industry systematically destroyed the alternatives.

    Parent
    I have no sympathy (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by themomcat on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:10:36 AM EST
    for US auto makers or consumers who bought into their hype about SUV's. I look at some at some of these hulking vehicles and wonder what these folks for for a living. One of my neighbors has four SUV's. He was moaning the other day that he just had bought the a new one and could not get a decent trade-in for one the other ones. So it now sits in his driveway, taking up space until he can sell it privately. By the way, he's Republican. LOL.

    Parent
    Civilization Seems (none / 0) (#47)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:50:51 AM EST
    Directly proportional to experience. Being uncivilized does have its benefits though. Things are a bit less overdetermined here.

    Parent
    Less overdetermined just means ... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by cymro on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:08:51 AM EST
    ... more opportunity for powerful interests like the oil and auto industries to exploit matters for their own benefit. It's simply another piece of evidence that "civilization" is simply a veneer, and what actually happens conforms to the laws of evolution -- the survival of the fittest.

    And incidentally, this same principle will eventually (and maybe quite soon) result in a massive reduction in the human species, as we suffer the consequences of our inability to live in harmony with nature, and the distribution of the earth's resources returns to a more natural balance.

    Maybe that experience will teach humans that they cannot control the environment without regard to the rest of nature.

    Parent

    hahahahha (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:12:35 AM EST
    Yes, we will learn, even if it kills us all.

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#143)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:36:12 AM EST
    Let me guess, part of the Obama San Francisco reach out speech.  Fell for it, eh?

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#183)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:21:08 AM EST
    Did not hear Obama's speech in SF. The only one I heard was the Wright speech and I thought it was amazing.

    Guess you have not spent much time in Europe, or if you have, it has not been with europeans.

    There is a saying that goes something like this:

    Europeans are trapped by their knowledge of history and Americans are trapped by their historical unawareness.

    Parent

    Most cars sold there get better mileage--but are (none / 0) (#186)
    by jawbone on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:02:50 PM EST
    def'ly smaller.

    However, the good public transit systems are the huge difference, along with shorter distances. Suddenly, "land, lots of land" is going to be very expensive to live in and enjoy.

    I have a great old 10-speed from the 60's, which needs some work (especially the bent wheel, from '72, after a McGovern volunteer party, when I rode home under the influence and hit a parked car's bumper...rubs on the brake pad; I've put up with it, but along with the stretched gear shift cables, it really needs TLC), so I jumped at a well-maintained mixte frame 10-speed Raleigh (with brand new tires) for $10. Has the luggage rack and fenders so I won't get the mud stipe.

    I was bragging about it to my elderly neighbor, who said news reports had said bike shops were selling out as fast as they got bikes in, and that I'd better lock it at the store. I had also bragged that since no one wants 10-speeds anymore, I never locked my bike at the local stores...she's probably right.

    Parent

    Do you always detest it when ... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by cymro on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:27:50 AM EST
    ... the truth is uncomfortable?

    Personally, I always detest it when Americans don't realize how affluent they are and don't understand why they are so disliked around the world.

    Parent

    our urban planning predates (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:33:02 AM EST
    the auto.

    So you might see the suburbs deserted in the very near future.

    I still think it's being played.  They want to rail about drilling restrictions and then you see the price tumble right before the vote after Bush does something theatrical with a Saudi Prince.

    Parent

    Yep, check out (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by otherlisa on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:00:49 AM EST
    this Atlantic article, "The New Slum."

    Parent
    Good article, makes sense (n/t) (none / 0) (#102)
    by cymro on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:10:08 AM EST


    Parent
    And look at (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:15:04 AM EST
    the linked graphic.

    Hillary's best regions and Obama's best regions are equally impacted. (The Mississippi Delta and KY/WV, for example).

    Guess, as a Southern Californian, (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:17:41 AM EST
    I  must stop complaining, eh?

    Parent
    And what could Obama say to address (none / 0) (#10)
    by frankly0 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:23:38 AM EST
    the rising gas prices?

    So far as I can make out, nothing, unless he just makes it up.

    This really isn't a problem a President can easily solve, Democratic or Republican.

    Maybe he can give a Carter malaise speech? I think he'd find that very satisfying.

    The more you know (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:47:54 AM EST
    Turns out someone I used to have a lot of regard for, Hendrick Hertzberg, wrote the malaise speech.  

    Turns out he's also an Obama supporter and thinks Chris Mathews is a great journalist.

    More on the malaise speech:

    link


    On the evening of July 15, 1979, millions of Americans tuned in to hear Jimmy Carter give the most important speech of his presidency. After sharing some of the criticism he had heard at Camp David -- including an unattributed quote from the young governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton -- Carter put his own spin on Caddell's argument. "The solution of our energy crisis can also help us to conquer the crisis of the spirit in our country," the president said, asking Americans to join him in adapting to a new age of limits.

    But he also admonished them, "In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does but by what one owns." Hendrik Hertzberg, who worked on the speech, admits that it "was more like a sermon than a political speech. It had the themes of confession, redemption, and sacrifice. He was bringing the American people into this spiritual process that he had been through, and presenting them with an opportunity for redemption as well as redeeming himself." Though he never used the word -- Caddell had in his memo -- it became known as Carter's "malaise" speech.

    Boomerang Reaction
    Perhaps appreciating the president's astonishing frankness, the public rewarded him with higher approval ratings in the days that followed. But then, as historian Douglas Brinkley notes, "it boomeranged on him. The op-ed pieces started spinning out, 'Why don't you fix something? There's nothing wrong with the American people. We're a great people. Maybe the problem's in the White House, maybe we need new leadership to guide us.'" Historian Roger Wilkins concurs: "When your leadership is demonstrably weaker than it should be, you don't then point at the people and say, 'It's your problem.' If you want the people to move, you move them the way Roosevelt moved them, or you exhort them the way Kennedy or Johnson exhorted them. You don't say, 'It's your fault.'"



    Parent
    Power of MCM and the Big Lie-- word malaise (none / 0) (#196)
    by jawbone on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:35:41 PM EST
    not used, except by MCM--and Carter has "malaise" hung around his neck forever.

    The MCM's manipulation of politics is not totally new--it just has more outlets with fewer means of holding back the outliers, like Tweety, who is now mainstream.

    (Did Caddell leak the thing about "malaise" to curry favor with the MCM? Looking to his next gig even them?)

    Parent

    If you care about the biggest thing the US (none / 0) (#31)
    by Green26 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:37:26 AM EST
    could do to decrease gas prices, then you'd support more drilling in the US and offshore US.

    Gas price is high because of supply and demand of oil--almost nothing else.

    The long-term answer to high gas/oil prices is not just opening up more US areas for drilling, but it's probably the easiest and fastest avenue to lowering or moderating gas prices.

    The slump in the value of the dollar doesn't help. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:45:29 AM EST
    The greenback has been losing it's buying power for so long now.

    Parent
    well, i personally believe (none / 0) (#40)
    by english teacher on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:47:35 AM EST
    the whole thing is an enron style massive rip off scheme.  nothing more, nothing less.   mho.

    The beginning of an Asimov nightmare (none / 0) (#46)
    by jerry on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:50:38 AM EST
    Gas is $4.00 across the country. Driving to Aspen this weekend, I paid $4.27 a gallon. I knew better to wait to refill until reaching Aspen, where everything costs more. Sure enough, one station in town was charging $4.65.

    My first thoughts on reading this were to a science fiction story written by Asimov I think, about a woman facing an earth growing colder, quickly, day by day.  Everyday she wakes up, the earth is colder and colder....

    (Or it could have been someone other than Asimov, and the earth may have been growing warmer and warmer.  Yes, within that story, that could be correct too.  What story am I thinking of?)

    Anyway, your first paragraph sounds like a journal entry in an post apocalypse novel.  It could be the beginning of the Mad Max 2, Road Warrier: Road Warrior trailer.

    so you think (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:05:26 AM EST
    I have a novelist lurking inside me? And a science fiction one at that? I do tend towards short, crisp sentences -- or try to.

    Parent
    With the amount of writing you do.... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by jerry on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:14:35 AM EST
    And um, I gather you know a diverse group of people to base your stories on, from Hunter Thompson, other lawyers, to various defendants.

    But yeah, the first two paragraphs had me thinking "post apocalypse" novel, although having wikiied Max Max now, I see that this might be the pre-apocalypse since in the Mad Max world, the fuel shortage wasn't just bad enough to ruin civilization it also later turned into a nuclear war.

    Keep some gyrocopters, and remember the classic phrase,

    "Hay una tormenta"

    Parent

    No, it is dark (none / 0) (#52)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:57:50 AM EST
    I am sorry, but it is.  Like I said, just kind of surprised.  

    About darkness. (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by LoisInCo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:22:11 AM EST
    It certainly is a dark thought. But I was struck by your previous post :

    ...I drive less than five miles to go to work.  I made a choice.  I work one place, live in another place, and I spend relatively less for gas.

    It may be true that you spend little for gas at this time. But others may not. And perhaps the idea that in this economy you may be part of them at any time is sobering, it is also a reminder that not every policy needs to effect you to help countless others. Just sayin'.

    Parent

    My personal experience... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:29:29 AM EST
    ...is not an invitation to suggest I am on the verge of losing my job.  

     I've lived in rural, suburban and urban environments.  I, yes, did make a choice with where I live.    

     We all (myself included, I am not perfect) need to reform our habits.  But sorry, some things cross the line.  The hysteria that would follow if I did something similar would be a wonder to behold.

    Parent

    I didn't make that suggestion (none / 0) (#113)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:34:30 AM EST
    Actually.


    Parent
    Of course you didn't (none / 0) (#117)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:40:35 AM EST


    Parent
    If I had wanted to say (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:56:14 AM EST
    You're on the verge of losing your job, I would have.

    But if there's anything I've learned in life it's that given that companies now only hold true to a five year business model at best, a smart employee maintains their resume.  If you really had to force the issue, it's not out of bounds to say I think anyone not living off a trust fund is on a verge of losing their job and going through a process I think most of us go through at least once.

    But now I think you're a little pathetic.  Something I attribute to the Obama movement has now transpired.

    I think I expressed some way of looking at the world that doesn't fit yours, and you turned it immediately into a personal attack.

    I'm not attacking you.

    I don't hope you lose your job.  I hope you DON'T lose your job.

    If you can't see that I was just pointing out that not everyone has a life as organized as yours, then I don't know what to say other than it is yet another comfirmation that I can not be a part of this self-victimization movement that is now taking over the party.

    Parent

    You're right (none / 0) (#121)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:01:17 AM EST
    Self-victimizaion hurts the party, to no end.

     But I'm just "a little pathetic." What do I know?

     Quit while you are ahead.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:02:38 AM EST
    You thinking I was personally attacking you was.


    Parent
    In Oakland today I saw (none / 0) (#54)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:00:44 AM EST
    premium at 5.5 and regular at 4.65.  I don't drive much, so I have not felt it and I have public transit options.  But, wowzers.  

    There was a station in Seattle (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:10:39 AM EST
    that posted their gas sign:

    Regular   419.9
    Premium   432.9
    Supreme   LOL.9

    Parent

    The saddest of all things (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:14:48 AM EST
    is that in urban areas, they kept building housing that was "affordable" for homeownership in places that were far out and with little if any public transit choices.  Now these people are being hit by high gas prices and rising interests rates.  

    We have not seen the bottom of this recession.  

    Parent

    Very true (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:24:29 AM EST
    Seattle is planning to build a train system out to some of the north and east areas but that's a long way off, and service will be limited. The train from the south only runs 1 or 2 times during rush hour.

    We do have a fantastic bus system, but the rates are going to start climbing fast for those, too.

    I am always amazed at how heavy traffic is in the whole Seattle area at every hour day and night. No idea why. One would think most people would be at work during the 9-5 hours, but traffic is heavy all day.

    Parent

    Went to grad school in Seattle (none / 0) (#89)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:29:53 AM EST
    from 77-79.  It clogged up back then.  I used to attribute it to the drivers, being a Californian driver,ha..ha.  Now a days, people don't have regular hours anymore, so you can never predict the commutes, here in the Bay Area everything can be clogged any time.  BART has had about a 14% increase in ridership since gas prices started going up.  Actually, for here I think it's good, people have a choice.  

    Parent
    It is much, much worse (none / 0) (#101)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:06:33 AM EST
    now, but I remember those years very well (my daughter was born in 78). Suburbs weren't too far out of the city yet, but rush hour traffic was dreadful.

    UW or SU?

    Parent

    BART (none / 0) (#104)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:13:58 AM EST
    We lived in Lafayette in 83. I thought BART was expensive then, but it was the best way to commute.

    Parent
    it's still expensive (none / 0) (#114)
    by boredmpa on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:36:47 AM EST
    I'm assuming because they don't have enough support for more riders(?).  Up until a few months ago I regularly made the decision to drive because the cost difference (even with the bridge toll) made it not worth the hassle.

    Parent
    What does it cost these days? (none / 0) (#116)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:39:25 AM EST


    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#118)
    by boredmpa on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:48:48 AM EST
    well, i think it's expensive when compared to driving over the bridge + hassle.  It's basically $5.30 to go back and forth under the bay, the tunnel enter/exit san fran fee annoys me...

    However, it's 6.30 round trip from mission 24th to oakland and about 7 to berkeley.

    Parent

    That's not too awful (none / 0) (#120)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:59:52 AM EST
    I can see how it would add up for job hunting though. Or heck, even a daily commute. I can't remember what I used to pay, but it was Walnut Creek into the city. I mostly lived in SF and walked and had the good ol' Fast Pass.

    The subway was pretty darn cheap when I moved here and now it's 2 bucks with a transfer or 2. They have passes, but since I work at home, I never buy them.

    Parent

    MUNI (none / 0) (#128)
    by boredmpa on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:19:47 AM EST
    is now at 1.50, but i expect it to hit 1.75 in a couple years.  50 cents in the past 4-5 years i think.  And they've cut and are cutting more services--some consolidation but I don't think performance has improved as a result and they have cut lines.  

    They always explain the increases with a new york comparison, but somehow i think they have nowhere near the difficulties/issues of new york.  :)  and they keep cutting service...

    I don't suppose you know what portion of NYC's budget comes from parking tickets/tows? It's 1.7 % here now and seems like an ugly cycle (probably due to the difficulty in raising taxes).  Personally, I like to think of the parking folks as our own unity ambassadors who are spreading the esteemed opinion that forcing people onto transit is "good for everyone." :(

    cough is this an open thread? oh well, it's 1 am.

    Parent

    Seattle (none / 0) (#167)
    by JustJennifer on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:00:31 AM EST
    I live in a suburb of Seattle.  The traffic here is horrible.  Even in the suburbs you can count on at least doubling if not tripling your commute time during rush hour.  And you are right, traffic is heavy no matter what time it is.  

    Gas prices jumped .25 in 4 days at the station I drive past every day.

    Parent

    You can't presume.. (none / 0) (#77)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:17:31 AM EST
    ...to know anything about my life.  Kindly stop.  I don't do this kind of thing, I expect that no one else will do it either.

    A few points on gas $ (none / 0) (#105)
    by travc on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:14:48 AM EST
    Those rural voters don't much care about mass transit or bikes, because those are not options for them.  However, there is a good argument they should.  If people in cities and suburbs didn't have to drive everywhere, then there would be less demand for gas.  (Not sure this is precisely true, but plausible enough to make the point.)

    The people most hurt by the gas prices should be pissed that the GOP has blocked higher fuel-efficiency standards for decades.  We could have had cars and even big SUVs and trucks that get much better gas mileage years ago (with the same or better performance).

    The higher the oil (and gas) price, the more profit oil companies make.  A little suspicious maybe?  For Bush and his buddies in Midland TX, the oil crisis of the 70s was "the good old days" (quote from a longtime friend of Bush interviewed in a Frontline eps.)

    The Indy 500 was fueled by ethonal?! (none / 0) (#106)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:18:55 AM EST
    I have the new planet green channel on and they are showing this now. Apparently, the Indy is goin' green! And here I was focusing on the fact 2 women were in the race, sheesh.

    Not uncommon (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by travc on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:29:15 AM EST
    Apparently diesel isn't uncommon in endurance races.  Top Gear (as Neanderthal as they are about anything ecologically sound) actually raced (poorly) a bio-diesel in an endurance race.

    I'd say it is a good thing... but lots of cars driving around in a circle for a day seems pretty dumb regardless of how they are powered.

    Parent

    I was just surprised by the info :) (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:38:21 AM EST
    not really one to watch cars going in circles all day, just keep tabs on the women in the 500. If it hits Nascar though, it would reach a ton of people here. It wasn't just the fuel from what I caught.

    I was at Farm Aide last Sept, and it was all local and mostly organic/green. While the food was more expensive, I don't think I spent anymore than I do at a Yankees game. And it was def tastier. Some folks (including band members) biked out there and public tranist was a well organized breeze.  

    Parent

    OK, now they are showing American Chopper (none / 0) (#124)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:05:18 AM EST
    they're building a bike for the Iowa Farm Bureau run on Ethanol.

    Parent
    To the extent (none / 0) (#169)
    by Landulph on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:37:29 AM EST
    that one considers corn ethanol a "green" fuel. Check out a recent Time cover story on this, if you haven't already. Still, its commendable Indy is making the effort--their heart's in the right place, at least.

    Parent
    Could easily be much worse (none / 0) (#108)
    by travc on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:20:17 AM EST
    "Iran could sink one tanker in the Straits of Hormuz and the insurance companies would take care of the rest."  
    (John Walcott on latest Bill Moyers Journal, from my memory so maybe not exact.)

    Reaching out? (none / 0) (#142)
    by jarober on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:26:42 AM EST
    "The Democrats need to reach out these rural voters on the gas issue. "

    Democrats are reaching out - to slap them.  The "global warming" bill the senate Democrats wanted last week would have given us higher prices and/or rationing - a brilliant plan.  Democrats talk all day about "dependency on foreign oil", and then kowtow to environmental groups to disallow drilling anywhere in the US (not just ANWR) where we could reduce that dependence by some amount.  

    We haven't built a new refinery in the US over the last 20 years due to the same kind of kowtowing.  So sure, Democrats need to "reach out" - but with something other than a face slap.

    Who is looking at the benefits of reducing (none / 0) (#144)
    by hookfan on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:41:21 AM EST
    health care costs for helping people afford transportation and food expenses? I wonder if there is an argument for true universal health care coverage to free up money for the average worker. I know it would really help my budget crunch.
       Second, why not look into military waste (remember we do support all those mercenaries at premium costs) as a possible source for tax savings for the middle income or below families to help lower their expenses further? Bush has thrown so much money toward the pentagon they are having a hard time keeping track of it.
       I think the money is there if our representatives would start requiring some accountability to help Americans with real basic survival issues, and if it were a priority rather than flushing billions and billions in corruption and unaccounted losses in the Iraq rathole.

    Energy Stamps! Transportation Stamps! Better Food (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by jawbone on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:14:32 PM EST
    Stamps program.

    The time for change in NOW, not next January.

    And, Hillary cares.

    Parent

    Jim Cramer, host of "Mad Money" (none / 0) (#151)
    by KristenWinters on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:56:05 AM EST
    and a big Hillary Clinton supporter ("Hillary Clinton would be hands down the best president for our economy"--see below, was on Today Show this morning.  Three major points: 1) Americans have to drop usage by 25%; 2) temporary gas tax suspension is "bad economics" and would be counter productive as it would increase demand and therefore increase prices; 3) we have to start drilling everywhere, both coasts, all seasons; "i am a conservationist and it is ridiculous to stop drilling in certain seasons because of animals." (paraphrased)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pensnsoq-ZM

    Rising (none / 0) (#152)
    by Cal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:58:21 AM EST
    Yes, I paid $4.18 per gallon yesterday only because I have a discount card from a grocery chain that gives a ten cents per gallon discount.  Their regular pump price was $4.28 for premium, and my car requires premium.  

    man this (none / 0) (#153)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:10:56 AM EST
    thread is absolutely depressing to read in one shot.

    and after reading it I almost want to go to washington (if I could afford it) and slap each and EVERY one of those damn politicans and say stop messing around and help us.

    even that said I am still against a gas tax, unless someone can tell me the 67 senators who are against a fillibuster and who would override bushes veto of a windfall tax on oil companies.

    first thing we can do, take way their tax breaks and invest in more mass transit across the country, more buses and more light rail, its time this country got serious about moving into the next generation of transportation

    each state needs to start looking into light rail and buses, I am glad MN is going to extend our light rail out into the suburbs and beyond.

    this recession is just going to hurt no matter what though.

    Better hope it's just a recession (none / 0) (#182)
    by Dadler on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:05:22 AM EST
    In a nation as heavily armed as ours, genuine civil unrest will make the Depression look quaint.  Thankfully, the only thing that gives money any value whatsoever is people's BELIEF it has value, and therefore when we take actions as an organized people that we all know are beneficial to our fellow citizens, positive change and more equitable outcomes return.  However, to really change things in this day and age, much more cemented paradigms must be overcome on a personal and societal basis.  We are a junkie who will either get clean or die.

    Parent
    Refining tar sand oil is a done deal. (none / 0) (#156)
    by ding7777 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:19:26 AM EST
    The White House's 2001 report on national energy policy, spearheaded by Cheney, called Canada's oil sands "a pillar of sustained North American energy and economic security."


    Although a new oil refinery has not been built in the U.S. for over
    30 years, five new refineries are currently under consideration, three of which would process tar sand oil (two in North Dakota and one in South Dakota), and one of which would process oil from U.S. oil shale deposits (North Dakota), which may be as destructive to mine and as dirty to refine as tar sand oil.  (link)

    With gas prices set to hit the $5 plus a gallon, there will be fewer complaints of environmental damage from refining tar sand.

    A new crime will begin. Stealing Gas (none / 0) (#157)
    by Saul on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:26:12 AM EST


    i mentioned gas theft (none / 0) (#164)
    by magisterludi on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:22:04 AM EST
    earlier in the thread. It's been in the news here in Memphis. Consumer info on the best gas cap locks, don't park SUVs on the street (all the easier to just puncture gas tanks and drain them).

    Our car was siphoned off while parked in a church parking lot. We mostly just use our scooters now, but have caught dudes trying to lift our Stella onto a pickup truck in broad daylight!

    It's a scary world.

    Parent

    You got that right... (none / 0) (#165)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:38:06 AM EST
    I don't mind stealing bread
    From the mouths of decadence
    But I can't feed on the powerless
    When my cup's already overfilled
    But it's on the table
    The fires cooking
    And they're farming babies
    While the slaves are all working
    And it's on the table
    The mouths are choking
    But I'm growing hungry
    I'm going hungry

    -Temple of the Dog



    Parent
    There are other options (none / 0) (#160)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:45:03 AM EST
    GM is testing the hydrogen cars right now in NY, LA, and large cities. I live in a rural area in NE Penna. The CFO bought a hybrid. It kicks on when he hits the small town and pulls into work. Gas here is $3.989 but going up today. Ethenol, costly to make. The farmers here were going to open a plant and grow the corn for gas. Not food. Then the natural gas companies came in and are drilling here and offering big big incentives to lease the land. BTW, buses in NYC are run on natural gas. Might be another way to go.

    In the 70's President Carter went on TV and told of  how we had to go 55 and the world was running out of oil. Gas lines, especially in California, high $3 gas and the Japanese car market came to town. Thus the Alaskan Pipe Line. Owned by BP. And the oil did not even go to the USA. It was sold overseas. I heard the Oil Men say 2 weeks ago, well if we opened up the drilling in Alaska and thought, aw, here it comes. The real reason. And if the oil companies opened up more refineries, it would help the consumer. There is just so much going on with this oil right now with the traders and the oil companies that we do not see except at the pumps. People need to really yell about this. As for Europe, they are paying $10 more. They got smaller cars and use a lot less than we do and that is one of the reasons they pay more. Our traders really have a lot to answer for. Remember, when the largest one, Goldman Sach, has a ex-president as a cabinet member, well..........

    And one more thing, our current President is not going to do a thing about this to the guys who were his backers.  

    We are at last year's Canadian gas prices now. (none / 0) (#172)
    by chrisblask on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:55:49 AM EST
    Now it is $5-6/gallon there.

    And they produce a lot of oil, but it doesn't help because it is a global market.  We need green (and I include Nuclear in there, in case I wasn't unpopular enough ;-) power and always have.

    My college rooomate just sent me an email (none / 0) (#174)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:30:28 AM EST
    A new billboard near her home -

    Gasoline is now more expensive than beer. Drink. Don't drive.

    Other than the 18.5 cent tax (none / 0) (#184)
    by halstoon on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:27:20 AM EST
    how much authority does the gov't really have on gas prices? They don't control OPEC, and they have little oversight on the futures market, so how effectively can Obama promise anything? If we cut the fuel tax, our interstates will degrade, and Obama has made it clear that he is committed to infrastructure.

    I think pushing the living wage is more effective. Gas is going to be expensive, but we can make sure people make enough to be able to drive.

    What about people on fixed incomes? With high (none / 0) (#189)
    by jawbone on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:10:15 PM EST
    medical bills?

    Yes, we need a living wage, which, suddenly, will need to be much higher than what has ever been proposed.

    How will that affect the economy? If gradually increased, the lower earners, fixed income, and poor will still suffer greatly.

    The old especially are affected by extremes of temperature. Let us hope for an overall cool summer...this little heatwave in northern Jersey, and pretty far spread, is miserably hot. My house is still bearable, but soon will by unlivable without AC.

    What is a fixed income person just can't afford that?

    Parent

    A caring, smart pol needs to intro Energy Stamps (none / 0) (#188)
    by jawbone on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:06:47 PM EST
    legislation: Similar to Food Stamps, a program which will need to be revamped as well as more and more people fall into the lower standard of living these new higher costs of living are going to create.

    Energy Stamps could be used to buy heating oil, electricity, and transportation (public transit where available, gas where not).

    Hillary cares! She might do this.

    I know, let's start a postcard/email campaign!

    Speeking of aspen (none / 0) (#200)
    by Jgarza on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:01:46 PM EST
    I know this is off topic, but all I could think of after reading you drove to Aspen, was that creepy letter Scooter Libby wrote Judy Miller.  Ahh good times!

    please check out (none / 0) (#201)
    by mightymouse on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:59:52 PM EST
    http://theoildrum.com

    much good info there about this problem, why it exists, what might happen. the writers know their business.

    it will be a severe test for the new president, and for all of us.

    notable that GM closed several SUV/pick-up plants. not just idled, shut down. they would only do this if they think high gas prices are permanent.

    Today Obama took up Hillary's idea of an excess (none / 0) (#202)
    by jawbone on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:14:57 PM EST
    profits tax--but instead of having an immediate effect on consumers, it will be something which comes in some form of tax credit. Or something.

    But, once, "What Hillary said."

    $4.00 a Gallon and Rising | 198 comments (198 topical)