A Bitter Pill ... by Bob Nelson

RED RULES apply:
- Be polite. No insults whatsoever. No insults to particular people, to groups of people, to ideas, ... None!
- Be smart. Contribute substantive thought. Facts and/or reasoning. One-line zingers and bumper-sticker mantras are by definition off-topic.

You obviously had no intention of participating. So... Why did you post? A few days ago, you wrote that the best reaction to my over-controled Red Rules would be to not post at all. So... Why did you post here? 

To be honest with you I felt that you were entitled to some kind of honest response within your RBR since you took a serious amount of time to make such a coherent argument.

Even if said argument is based on a presumption and the only conclusion attainable would be based upon an assumption.

And besides, your article was seen and read, logically analyzed and intelligent opinion rendered.

Isn't that the intent of posting articles?

I wrote 

The reality AGW is not the topic; any posts on that subject will be deleted. If you don't want to accept the premise, at least for the duration of the conversation... then go away!

Isn't that clear enough? 

Ok, thank you for admitting that you wish to discuss a fantasy.

The clarification is appreciated.

Not exactly. I do not want to discuss AGW. You may think we're crazy, but I hope you are aware that vastly more people are convinced that AGW is real. 

So, in fact...  I want to discuss something important (gas prices) without being distracted by the...  fantasy of denialism. Let's be clear, here: AGW is recognized as real all around the world. American conservatives have decided to make denialism an act of faith for their tribe, but you are alone. I do not want to be bothered by people who are perceived as nutzoids by the rest of the world. 

Believe whatever you want. I truly do not care. But please! Don't try to ram your faith down my throat by squatting articles where denialism is not welcome. 

I know that a True Believer is beyond hope of redemption, so I never argue with denialists. But I don't care to have them disrupt conversation among non-fantaisists. 

Therefore 

If you don't want to accept the premise, at least for the duration of the conversation... then go away!

Ok, thank you for admitting that you wish to discuss a fantasy.

The clarification is appreciated.

Are you aware of the fact that your comment is clearly in violation of Red Rules?

I'm still trying to decide whether:

1. You didn't read them,  or:

2. You did read them but choose to ignore them, or:

3. You did read them but don't understand them...or:

4. When you launch a blatant personal attack on someone you are actually not aware that its an attack...???)

The reasoning that goes along with that fact and substantive thought, is that this is a pointless argument for arguments sake and is not worth a rational persons time.

Did you not read the Red Rules?

(Or is it a case of you reading them but not understanding them?)

Especially this part:

- Be polite. No insults whatsoever. No insults to particular people, to groups of people, to ideas, ... None!

Thanks for demonstrating that the Rules are not hard to understand, Krishna... but please leave the Moderation to me. If I think that a "meta" Comment is in fact an attempt to derail, I will request deletion without warning. But I think this was frustration rather than vandalism. 

Does raising gas prices hurt the economy?

This is an economic question, so the answer is - "it depends".

If gas prices rise from here, or some lower level, I'd say probably not. They were much higher 2 years ago. Had they risen from THAT level, I'd have to say "yes". How much more can prices rise before it starts to hurt? I think we could handle another 15-20% before the bitching really begins.

Your article talks about gas prices in Europe and gas mileage in autos in Europe. If we have more efficient and alternate fuel vehicles, we'll definitely cut our fuel bills.

I would prefer to not care at all about the price of something that I would have little use for. Perhaps one day we can get there.

J, 

Your article talks about gas prices in Europe and gas mileage in autos in Europe. If we have more efficient and alternate fuel vehicles, we'll definitely cut our fuel bills.

This is a serpent eating its tail. If fuel prices are low, there's no incentive to limit consumption. Having lived in France for a long time, I'm in the habit of carefully controlling the consumption numbers for any car I'm thinking of buying. When we were about to buy a "stateside car" for Yuma, a few years ago, I asked my son (lives in the US) if he knew anything about the milage achieved by the half-dozen candidates I had in mind. 

"Ummm... Dad? ... Who cares? The difference between the best and worst on your list is maybe five MPG. That's insignificant in your budget."

That's the problem in a nutshell. 

Yes, I agree that the incentive is not enough. That said, there is an ever increasing number of alternate fuel vehicles. It's not being done very quickly, though.

The legislation that's kicking in soon will require 35 mpg. I believe that once this is fully absorbed, they'll go for a higher number a decade later. Much, much slower than Europe, but directionally good.

Too much carrot, not enough stick here.

The legislation that's kicking in soon will require 35 mpg. 

Manufacturers will probably miss this target because customers aren't buying the mix that was planned for, when creating the 35 mpg target. They're buying too many big SUVs and too many trucks. Because gas is cheap. 

Going around in circles..... 

Nah, more of a meander to the finish line. I think we'll get there, but it will take longer than we wanted it to. 

There's no urgency in America for stuff like this, and that's a shame. What chaps my ass more than this is the fact that the government could actually slap a tax on the gas that would go a long way to fixing our crumbling roads. That would serve the dual purpose of encouraging higher mileage vehicles, and at the same time, addressing infrastructure. 

People never vote for higher taxes, regardless of how necessary they are. 

*   *   *   sigh   *   *   *

I agree with that, but this is a legislative matter, not requiring popular vote.

A tax on gasoline to pay for the improvement of roads is about a fair a tax as I can think of.

That's true. 

All we need to do is convince the House of Representatives to raise taxes. 

raise taxes

Well, we CERTAINLY can't put it like that if it's going to pass.

We have to "enhance our energy excise tax, so that we can once again enjoy taking a spin in our cars that we value so much".

Feel free to voluntarily pay more to the government to direct toward the causes you see fit.  There's nothing to stop you.  We on the other hand are Taxed Enough Already.  

"What chaps my ass more than this is the fact that the government could actually slap a tax on the gas that would go a long way to fixing our crumbling roads. "

I believe I pointed out in another article to dowser , that this already is the case, the fed state and local governments already do tax gas and diesel , for just those purposes .

 lets not forget the trucking industry also pays road use taxes as regulated as well as those taxes imposed on fuel.

So the question is , how much of a tax is someone willing to pay? and is it able to be gotten through the legislative process?

My issue with having Congress increase the gas tax is simple.  The gas tax was initiated for the purpose of establishing a temporary highway trust fund to support the construction of the nations highway system.  This was supposed to be a temporary tax with any remaining funds going back to the States.  Congress has been abusing this tax for over 40 years.  As it stands now almost a third of what we pay in gas tax goes toward projects that are referred to as "off road" and Gov't representatives pet projects.  We can't trust Congress to do the right thing.  We will only be giving them more money to disperse and misappropriate (imo) on their special projects.  

Now this Pj is something we are in complete agreement on.

ANYTIME you allow taxes to be raised, you will never, EVER see them go down or disappear when they are no longer needed.

AS far as taking your money, the government is the worst......

Market forces will drive alternatives and in fact gasless alternatives are already here and the prices are coming down and infrastructure is growing... When the tipping point comes I will laugh my ass of at those that scream about more taxes, MORE TAXES cause it drives the correct direction. WE are not going to tax our way out of this problem.

The coming transportation revolution, wasn't done with taxes in the first place.

But in spite of them.

PJ and NWM, 

The irresponsibility of the House of Representatives (not "government", since taxes are decided by the House, not the President or the Supreme Court or even the the Senate) is indeed a related problem... But it is not the immediate topic. Whether or not higher fuel prices are currently desirable is an independent question. 

Personally, I would put all roads and bridges under a toll regime, along with raising gas prices. I would tie user costs as directly as possible to the user. Then we would observe observe that rural areas would gradually lose their population. We would have to decide whether or not to subsidize rurality. Either do it consciously, or not at all. "Truth in government!" 

Mark, I understood what you were saying, and agreed with it.  However, I was talking about the fuel surcharge that many many companies added to their prices.  At the time, if you wanted to call in a plumber, it was $80 for a house visit, (not that anyone could carry their sink over to the plumber's shop).  PLUS, they added a $5 - $7 fuel surcharge onto the bill.  Now, it's gone up to $90 for a house call.  It was the same for every other business here in Louisville.  I understand that they had to do it, because it ate into their profits, but after the price of gas went down, they just included the fuel surcharge in the regular price.  You call that inflation, I call that price-gouging.

It's like the grocery store raised their prices on everything 15%, due to the fuel surcharge they instituted.  Then, they would put specific items on sale, 10%, to draw in the customers.  What they hey?  If you weren't interested in what was on sale, you were paying 15% more, anyway.  If you were interested in what was on sale, you were still paying 5% more.  Has that gone away?  Nope.

I have no idea how bad it was across the state-- I wasn't out and about in the state at the time.  But here in Louisville, it was everywhere and everything.  The state Attorney General tried to put a stop to it, but couldn't because the law covers price gouging only under emergency conditions.  Meaning--  I wasn't the only one griping about it.

Bob, I see your point and agree with it.  However, I think you misunderstood me.  I never said that some greenhouse gases have to be expected.  I said that higher gas prices hurt our economy, as a whole.  I have a good friend who owns a campground, and he has been full, all the spots taken, for the past two years.  Before that, he was wondering if he could make it.  When gas went up to $5/gallon, many of the small touristy attractions at Mammoth Cave went under, because no one was traveling there.  Higher fuel costs result in across the board hikes.  So, instead of going up $.50/gallon over night, maybe $.05 gallon, every other month until equilibrium is restored...  It will take longer to get where we want to be, AGW-wise, but it can be done.

There has to be a happy medium, somewhere, where the price of gas goes up slowly, and people wean themselves off of the huge gas guzzlers.  I drive a Subaru.  Not the absolute best of gas mileage, but 28 mpg on the highway.  Made in the US, and dependable.

Our city buses here use a bio diesel fuel made from McDonald's grease.  All the buses smell like french fries-- which I think is a pleasant smell...  However, there are few cars that can use it, and it is very difficult to purchase.  I don't know of any gas station around here that sells it.  Perhaps we could expand that program a bit.

I've spent years writing blurbs, articles, fact sheets, etc., about protecting groundwater, surface water, and air quality, (they're tied together, in a not so obvious way).  You may find it interesting... LINK   LINK2   LINK3

Even though I've been retired for a couple of years, they still use the blurbs I wrote...

Dee, I understand all that and I simply mentioned we had discussed that after Jonathan made his comment about the government taxing fuel. I think we both came to understand what the other was talking about with the surcharge you mentioned . so no arguments there .

Now , as I pointed out , the government  already taxes fuel and in some cases imposes a surcharge on certain industries such as trucking for road usage . the issue I see is the two different types of driving cultures being discussed . and they really cant be compared .

 Europe has a far better mass transit system in place out of nessesity after the post war years , as people became more affluent , they started being able to afford products that  mass transit , be it the train system or buses already filled . when I was stationed in Europe I toyed with the idea of either bringing my existing vehicle overseas , or getting one there, but after looking into it once I was there , I used the public transport available , why? because of the many added taxes the country I was stationed in charged , there were luxury taxes , user taxes VAT taxes , enough so to make owning a vehicle unless I was going to hire out as an impromptu taxi in my off time , made it cost prohibitive. and even back then gasoline in the mid 80s cost at or over $5 American  a gallon, that's when gas in the US was just going up to the buck 25 a gallon mark and people were complaining here. and can you imagine paying a luxury tax , on top of the luxury tax of owning a vehicle ( cars were considered a luxury because of mass transit), simply because you had an AM/FM radio installed in your car? and its an annual tax?

 The US doesn't have the mass transit systems Europe does , and another reason I doubt it will ever really catch on outside of metropolitan urban areas is because of the vast expanse that constitutes this country , mainly because the passenger rail lines would never to be able to go where people desire , so at some point  another means would be needed  to get where you want to go. after the war  returning servicemen started families , the government started building better interstates , and the people started taking to the open road as a means of expressing freedom.  the American dream of the open road and the freedom to go where one desired at ones own pace. and the vehicles sold reflected those desires.

 It wasn't until the 70s with the gas crisis that americans felt the crunch , and stared demanding better fuel efficient cars ,the end of the American muscle car era ,  the death of the real gas guzzlers .

Now without the mass transit system in place , any further tax on fuel will impact , those that can barely afford a vehicle as it is in this country , those that are poorest , because those are the ones driving  the less fuel efficient and least economical qualities, because that's what they can afford to buy, and outside a metro urban area isn't exactly a luxury , its almost a nessesity.

So unless someone is all for using European style taxation to foster social engineering, to change social behavior , and they get the super majority of the voting public behind it , the discussion is a moot one because those in the US just wont buy it , least not as I posted it here. in this response.

We don't have enough mass transit here in Louisville, period.  You can get downtown and back if you're willing to switch buses 3 times, but it takes 1.5 hours for a .5 hour drive...  I've tried it, and it still costs a lot of money.  When the band room was being remodeled at my son's school, he had to go about 1/2 way across town to get to the band camp at another school...  I could get him there on time on the bus, but not get him back.  WAY too far to walk-- about 15 miles...

The only good thing that happened, that I could think of, when gas was $5/gal, was that the TARC (our mass transit system), didn't raise their prices.  So people who were barely scraping by as it was weren't hurt too badly.  And gosh yes, I've been one of those poor people barely scraping by.  I drove a '65 Mercury Comet in the 1990s, but it got 20 mpg.  Her name was Nellie and she was cantankerous.

I doubt, as you do, that we in the US are willing to go the way of Europe any time soon.  Our mass transit system is too poor.  Most places in KY don't have them, at all.  I don't see how people get to work and back, in all honesty!  

That being said, there are things that all of us can do, that aren't that much trouble, and can actually save $$, to help with the AGW.  Little things, like seed your lawn with low-mow grass, instead of the regular grass.  The cost is about the same, but you mow less often, eventually. Lots of things!  Most of them pretty painless, too.  

Dee, I apologize for dragging you in on this article , I wasn't even going to answer anything or post , and not because of the RBR , but other reasons that will remain mine , that is until jonathan mentioned taxes on fuel.

 another reason that contributes to the price of fuel is regional specifications , what that means is different regions of the country have differing regulations for the fuel sold there, and that's mostly handled at the state level , so a state can tell the suppliers they have to mix / blend the fuel they sell in state a specific way , well addatives cost money , and the extra refining time to blend it in costs money , that's not even considering there are winter blends of fuel so a vehicle will run correctly in the colder winter months and areas , but summer blends  as well,  so all that stuff if a state required special addatives , California is one that requires addatives to the fuel that lower the emission content of the exhaust , problem is they are finding out though it lowered the emission readouts , it had a side effect of causing cancer , so what is one to do ? some states can run gas without addatives and they tend to be states with usually lower gas or fuel prices .

another factor is how much is actually in storage and how fast and at what price are the petrol producing nations putting it out . OPEC recently flooded the market at low prices , some say that was to drive the cost per barrel down to the point that domestic producers , who have to have the cost per barrel at a specific rate , to make it profitable to keep the wells open, so you have geopolitical factors affecting the price of gas. and the last time the opec nations flooded the market like they just did, it took the domestic oil industry 20 years to get back on track to running status which also cost money.

 a lot of different factors will affect the cost of fuel, and that's not going to change anytime soon, thing is , if someone is going to try and come up to a solution for what they perceive as a problem , they will have to do it in a way , that wont hurt the most vulnerable and least able to afford it in our society.

Agree!  

There are a lot of factors going into it.  Here in KY, we have one supplier-- Key Oil group.  Out of Ashland.  Louisville requires MTSB or MTB gas, which I used to know that abbreviation stood for, but no more-- anyway, it is oxygenated gas.  Supposed to cut down on emissions...  But the emissions it does put out are highly toxic to the ground water, and a carcinogen.  Despite this proof, Louisville continues to require it.  Go figure.

Everybody gets their gas from the same company, no matter what brand is slapped on the side of the truck, it's the same gas.  And Louisville's gas prices are $.05- $.10 higher than anywhere else, as a rule.  If you want to buy gas here, get it on a Tuesday afternoon- Wednesday afternoon-- that's when the price is the cheapest it is going to get.  They usually raise it Thursday- Monday, for the weekend.

No worries, here.  

lol about to torque off some of the eco friendlies , twice a year during the switch from summer to winter grade  and back I go get a couple gals of aviation gas , way over the octane rating(over 105 octane) add a gallon to a full 22 gal tank and run it through , but my pick up is an old 1983  so very little in the way of emission controls and sensors , run that through the system and it cleans everything , and I mean everything out  and runs like a raped ape with it rear end on fire got clocked at 130 mph last time I did it. I don't recommend doing that with todays cars with all the fancy pollution controls. it would fry them.

I used to have to add a bottle of Lead additive to Nellie's tank, or burn her up...    Of course, she was old and quite the obstreperous one!

The 65 comet? it was designed to run on leaded gas with higher octane ratings , what most folks don't understand or know about today , is engines in those older cars were designed to run on fuel that was also a lubricant , the lead in the gas actually served as a lubricant as well as filling al those tiny micro striations caused when you run an engine. and they were designed to run at higher octane levels to avoid carbon build up one of the reasons also for more frequent oil changes , putting lower octane gas  and no lead in it in those older cars is what caused the engine nocks , pinging and run on ( refusing to shut off for a second). now adays you can put in a lead addative  but its not the same , and octane ratings nowadays isn't over the 100 mark even the preimium is only about 98 , put in some octane boost and you notice a difference in the way a vehicle runs . a couple of octane can make a very big difference.

 right after Hs and before I went into the service  I drove a 72 Pontiac catalina , had a back seat as big as my bed, and drive ins still existed. this car had a big block 400 CI with a 2 barrel carb , it got about 12-13 around town for MPG , but it was designed to be a highway cruiser , if I put , Hi test leaded gas in it , (102 octane or higher rating) and got it on the highway , cruising at 60 mph ( remember the federally mandated 55mph speed limit?) I would get 20-22 MPG at 55 MPH I would get about 18MPG. neither of which was actually bad  gas mileage back then.

I loved Nellie because she was cheap and was all I could afford.  I drove her for 5 years, and the total cost, including a new engine, new distributor/alternator, new transmission, 2 new batteries, installation of a radio, new everything under the hood, new tires, insurance, and the lead additive was s$4000.  Now, that's cheap.  She cost me $500, and she ran.  Granted, she was old and looked awful, but she could flat fly, and STILL get 20 mpg.  Plus, she was a tank.  Her trunk was cavernous, and I could fit all my field gear in her.  My mother made me park it over at the church, because she was ashamed that I would drive such an old clunker, when I went to visit, but she ran, and I needed transportation.

I didn't mind buying the lead additive-- it was $2 per bottle at the time, and she ran beautifully.  She didn't purr like a kitten, more like growled like a lion, but she ran.  I think the only thing I didn't have to replace/repair was the windshield washer motor.  But, she was simple and I could work on her myself.  When it rained, I had to spray her distributor cap with WD 40, and then she would keep on going, but she was lovely.  When it snowed, I had to stop occasionally, and clean out her air filter from snow...  Evil, but lovely.  Property taxes on her, per year was $8.  I used to teach auto mechanics...  So, thankfully, she was simpler and there was plenty of room in there to move around.

And yeah, Bob, it was not a "green" car, but she was all I could afford at the time, and she was a Godsend.  So, I sold her for $550.  Actually made a profit, and had a good time with her.  I would go into a restaurant, while out in the field, and when I left, a crowd had gathered, wanting to see what she looked like under the hood.  I had her all spruced up and made as pretty as I could, all that new stuff helped, but she was quite the car!  Good old Nellie.  I still wish I had her.  (Every time someone cuts me off in traffic, I think of her and wish I could just RAM them.)

Little side note , mercury , being a ford subsidiary , created the comet, but iacoca and delorean both who worked on the project , used the comet as the basis for when they developed the mustang, so your little comet was a mustang, before there actually was a mustang. least that's what I have read.

and the most fuel efficient vehicle I ever drove ( hold on to your shorts) a 1990 Geo metro hatchback, I was driving 140 miles average round trip daily for work, and was averaging 39 MPG and it only had a 10 gallon gas tank. even use to take it hunting in the mnts and off road.

I loved that car, even though she embarrassed my mother, had a tendency to want to rattle you to death, and lost pieces along the highway.  She was picky, but I learned what to do to take care of her.  The funny thing, my Daddy drove a '63 Comet, (he called it, "The Vomit"), in 1963-1965.  It was a Ford.  Which meant that it rattled.  I think Daddy put in something like 50 shims to keep her from rattling so much...  She was a pretty gold color-- Nellie was Robin's egg blue.  So, that's neat-- an early Mustang...  I remember when those came out!  What fun they were!

I left something important out of the article. My bad!

I should have included the fact that Americans are already paying a great deal more than they imagine for gas. The petroleum industry is one of the most subsidized. YOUR tax dollars go to Big Oil at every stage of their operations. 

The real importance of these subsidies is not exactly known, because of their complexity. A quick stroll on the interwebs returns a "true price" anywhere from eight dollars to fifteen dollars. 

These subsidies cost John and Jane Doe as much as would a significant fuel tax... but they have exactly the opposite effect. The subsidies encourage consumption. 

So... How about this: No higher fuel tax, but an end to the subsidies. The pump price would rise (probably even more) but Big Oil (the most profitable industry in human history) would not be getting your tax dollars. Those tax dollars could be earmarked elsewhere or (if you don't trust the government) returned to you in the form of an equivalent tax reduction that would help you pay for gas at its true price. 

Dowser, 

 I never said that some greenhouse gases have to be expected.

The greenhouse gasses have to be expected, whether you say it or not. In my not-quote of anonymous (is that formulation okay, Perrie?), I gave the the speaker credit for intellectual honesty and frankness. Those are qualities we all associate with you, of course. 

I have a good friend who owns a campground, and he has been full, all the spots taken, for the past two years.  Before that, he was wondering if he could make it.  When gas went up to $5/gallon, many of the small touristy attractions at Mammoth Cave went under, because no one was traveling there.

This is a great example. We have a 30-ft RV in France. It weighs less than 3500 kg / 7716 lbs (legal limit for an automobile driver's license... and for lots of urban streets) and gets over 25 mpg in the real world. Of course it's a lot smaller inside than my cousin's 40-ft with its four pull-outs. He''s happy when he gets 10 mpg. 

RVs clog the highways in France almost year-round, and the campsites are full. Low gas prices are NOT essential to that industry. 

"Have your cake and eat it, too" would be great. Reality doesn't work that way. My cousin's rig is really, really nice. It weighs well over twenty tons - he isn't really sure because he has added so much stuff. He gets under 10 mpg most of the time. 

Our RV is a whole lot less nice, but totally adequate. It weighs 3.5 tons and gets 25 mpg. 

Its a choice for society. 

We get 8 mpg when we pull our camper, so we don't pull it much.  We leave it at the campground, in storage, when we're not using it...

I think things work here a bit differently...  High gas prices really do cut down on people's ability to pull their campers.  There are plenty of people that don't have to care, but your average Joe cares very much!  People on fixed incomes, etc.

Ours is a 34' 5th wheel, with one long 18' slide out.  It's like a condo, in a lot of ways.  I love it!  

And thanks for the compliment.  Very much!  

American-style RVs are dinosaurs, I'm afraid. Moving just two people, at 8 mpg, is crazy. Crazy must cease. 

The world cannot support craziness any more. 

Remember, Bob.  We have our son with us, 6 cats and 2 dogs...  Plus a friend for my son, if he wishes.  Sometimes, my step-daughter and her husband.

And yes, they are dinosaurs.  But the only time we can ever get away is to go camping in our 5th wheeler.  It costs a fortune to board all those animals!  And besides, they're our family, too!  Our camper sleeps 2 adults and 7 dwarfs.  Or 4 adults and 3 dwarfs.  We don't pull it often, maybe once a year.  The rest of the time, we travel back and forth to where our camper is parked.

OK. I think people should be able to choose. Set their own priorities. 

If you're willing to put that much into running the fifth-wheeler... you should have that possibility. 

I suspect, though, that as fuel prices rise, other solutions will be found. Our RV could hold your brood while on the road, and sleeps three, so if some campsites are equipped for pets, you could be getting 25 mpg... 

I understand what you're saying...  

My family has had campers all my life.  From those tiny little pull behinds of the 1960s, to the Winnebago Brave.  And I tent camped for about 20 years.  On my own.  That left a very small footprint, only the gas to go where I wanted to go, which was around the state-- not far, by myself.  

I'm so old and decrepit these days that tent camping is OUT.  I have to be up off the floor and need a climate controlled environment...  I can't take the heat.  Actually, I love to winter camp!  We don't pull our camper that much-- In fact, we haven't pulled it anywhere, except around the campsite to find our spot, in 3 years.  Both of us like leaving it where it is, down around the Mammoth Cave area, and drive down in our car, on the weekends.  All of the campers I've been in, all my life, have been gas guzzlers.  Even the Airstream was a gas guzzler...  But back when we had one, it was the late 1960s and the car was a gas guzzler.  (1968 Ford LTD station wagon).  

So, yes, I think it is important, very important, to lower emissions, and reduce the amount of gas we use, and the amount we drive, which I've done.  Thank God, I don't have to drive across town to work every day, any more...  That cut my gas usage to 1/4th of what it was.  Since I had to pick up my son at the after school care, taking the bus was out...  I think that alternatives, as they become less expensive and easier to maintain, will be an integral part of that.

You should go camping with us sometime!  We have a ball, and all the animals are fun!  The cats love being "outside" but "inside", too.  Besides, there are plenty of windows to look out of, etc.  We cook out, recycle what we can, etc.  I don't ever buy bottled water.  And we do our best to camp safely and environmentally "green".     We have a grand time...

My husband doesn't drive his huge truck to work and back, to cut down on gas usage/costs.  But, hey, I had a really hard time convincing him to stop using waste oil to start the campfire.  That only took about 5 years of tearing out an absolute strip every time he did it.  Believe it or not, I'm doing my best.

And I'm with Larry-- we've got to stop tearing up the planet for our own selfish desires, or we are going to lose all life as we know it.

 I don't ever buy bottled water.

Me neither. Beer. 

There has to be a happy medium, somewhere, where the price of gas goes up slowly, and people wean themselves off of the huge gas guzzlers. 

Exactly. 

Any massive, instantaneous change in market conditions is disruptive, and should be avoided. 

If I were emperor, I would draw down Big Oil subsidies very quickly, and reduce payroll taxes in parallel so as to minimize impact on consumers. Since we don't really know the extent of the subsidies, we would have to pilot the operation pretty closely. 

I'm all for shutting down, gradually, the Big Oil subsidies.  In the two years prior to the Gulf Oil spill, BP made 36 Billion dollars.  That's obscene.

edited to change the 16 billion to the real number 36 billion...  D.

Big Oil is the most profitable business in human history. And yet they get billions in subsidies. Its one of the most egregious examples of wealth feeding itself off the general public. 

something I feel needs to be said here , simply because there are some that feel the big oil companies , either pay too little in taxes , or make so much money that they don't need subsities . that 36 Billion figure in profit? that is world wide sales , not just profit made in one country. what the companies are taxed on is what they make in individual countrys period , US profit is not taxable in Europe (usually) when multi nationals ( such as big oil ) is involved ,  a lot will have to do with where the company is headquartered, where is the HOME office . some countries , will only tax them on what they actually made within their borders , some will defer taxes if they paid taxes to another country , some use both and give credits for foreign taxes paid.

 Now my following numbers are old , by about 10-15 years, but profits from US sales only accounts for about 10% of total world wide petroleum sales . now I will break down what that gas actually costs to have available , 3 cents , that's what the person that owns the pump gets on every fuel dollar, that's just the money the gas costs,  another 3 cents goes to transport  that's all transport , from oil field to gas station. 40 cents goes to extraction , and yet another 40 cents goes to refining  4 cents  covers the needed maint, advertising and repairs for ALL that's been mentioned and that leaves 10 cents , a thin dime of every actual fuel dollar as supposed profit, but it doesn't stop there really, contingent of getting some subsities , a portion of the profits have to be used for research and development .

 Now lets use Bobs numbers for what the government(s) here in the use charge for taxes in addition to that fuel dollar.

as he said since 1993 the feds charge 18 cents per fuel dollar, states vary ,and I wont argue that 30 cents isn't a good averaged number so for every dollar actually spent on fuel the states charge up to 30 cents( it does vary by state).

 then you have local municipal governments that have the option of charging a tax as well , here locally one town voted in an additional 1 cent tax , but it doesn't just affect fuel , it affects sales tax , lodging tax , rest, tax so anything you buy , has an additional 1 cent added to it no matter what it is.

 Now that tax isn't everywhere, and what this local community earmarked that one cent for , was infrastructure and improvements within the community it gave them a buffer fund to be used for road repair , water sewer and the like , but its use is dependent on approval.

Now you have that initial fuel dollar, the feds and state charge you 48 cents to spend that fuel dollar. so for every $1.50 you spend the government already collects 1/3rd of that as a fee /tax / surcharge / whatever you wish to call it .

at what point will society cut their own throat and make it unprofitable and infeasible? to me that's the real question.

Mark, I feel like that was their total, world wide profit.  My point was, when the BP spill occurred they said they didn't have the $$ to clean it up, when they had made $36 billion in profit in the two years leading up to the spill...  That's not right.

Now, I'm not an economist, by any mean, I'm just a geologist.  A hydrogeologist at that, not an oil and gas geologist-- and try finding some, there aren't that many around, because the 1st people to get fired when the times get rough, are the geologists that work for the oil companies.  I have lots of friends that are oil and gas geologists-- all of whom are retired.  I've had friends that worked in China, Norway, Venezuela, Scotland, and all kinds of fun places.  Where did I work?  Wheatland, Indiana.  If they ever decide to give an enema to Indiana, that's where they'll stick it.

And I've worked 40 years to protect groundwater and try to find a reliable, prolific source of drinking water for cities, towns, and industries.  I've also cleaned up a LOT of sites that had oil problems...  So, yes, I freely admit my view of the O&G industry is somewhat tainted.  But you have to understand that I'm trying to protect our drinking water.  So, don't tell me that they haven't the money to clean up their messes.  Nor do they have the right to ruin the drinking water of anybody...  

Not mad at you, but I don't know why you're yelling at me...

didn't think I was yelling at you , I simply brought something to the table that most people don't take into account .

 ok so that  36 billion that BP had as profit ,  how many dimes make up 36 billion , because that's how many before tax fuel dollars it takes to generate that profit. and not all of that 36 billion was profit because a portion had to be pumped back into research and development to get certain subsities.

 I understand your angst at them saying we don't have the money for the clean up yet posting a profit , but here is where I will ask a question , at what levels were they expected to clean up? that level dictates costs does it not?  did the government EPA have unrealistic goals or expectations ?

 reason I ask that is if you look at the superfund cleanup sites , the US government( and it is usually the military industrial complex run by the government) is the single largest offender that gets the most lienient treatment when it comes to clean up.

and may I add this , after an accident /incident like this , getting something back to pristine condition , is not a realistic expectation, its akin to putting toothpaste back in a tube after its been ran over by a semi. what is a realistic expectation is to clean up the mess , so that the problem is no longer a problem itself .

 another thing I keep in mind , the gulf coast has been used as a dumping ground since people started living there , and actually for the worst in the 18 and 1900s, how much military waste was dumped in the gulf? how much industrial waste , from businesses that are no longer around , and the government themselves are now responsible for? and how much of all that was being shifted or attempted to be shifted because of the spill? should they of had to pay to clean up their spill ? yes no arguments , should they be made to pay to clean up their spill and others mess as well?

Mark, BP listed it as profit, so I'm assuming they meant the money they made after their expenses.  Secondly, you are never ever going to get it back in pristine condition-- it can't be, so that was not my realistic goal.  But to spray even more petroleum products on top of the oil slick to make it sink beneath the waves was a foolhardy thing to do.  Thirdly, I am not really sane when it comes to this, as hard as I try to be, simply because I have seen the devastation left in the wake of an oil spill, with my own two eyes, and yes, they were on land, and at the bottom of a pond, and at the bottom of a quarry, in the river, etc.  I can't be sane.  I've tried to clean up some of that, and no matter what you do, you can't.  And you can't drink the water from the area, either.

Next, about 10 years before BP happened, the US wanted the oil companies to chip in together and buy a huge tanker, to suck up oil spilled in the sea, anywhere the oil companies spilled it.  But they said it was too expensive...  ARE YOU KIDDING ME?  They are making billions in profit, but they can't buy a tanker to clean up their messes?  Oil/water separators are cheap, and easy to use...  They could have sucked all that up, separated the oil from the water, and still made their money-- but they wouldn't do it.  THAT is what makes me mad...  They chose not to be safe.  And the US government let them get away with it.  At the time, the whole thing would have cost about $500 million dollars, divided among all the companies drilling in Gulf and on the Arctic slope...

And lastly, yes, I've worked on the Valley of the Drums, a superfund site, and believe me, that was no picnic, trying to both clean it up, and protect the groundwater, and come up with a closure plan.  I'm not all gung ho, EPA, because they had 15 people out there to read samples, and they needed maybe two.  They were all in moon suits, and it was a nightmare.  The water was black.  It was owned by a lovely lady, whose husband died and left her the mess.  I was working for her, at Timberhills Waste, right next door and a part of the Valley of the Drums, too.  Same stuff, just different jurisdictions.  The biggest perpetrator of the garbage at Valley of the Drums, and at Timberhills Waste, was the Ford plant.  They had just taken thousands of barrels of old paint, and waste products from the Ford Plant here in town, and just covered them up with dirt.  No idea of what was in it, no inventory, no whatever.  There were people living downhill from the area, and their water was black.  I made Helen build them a pipeline to get pure water, because it was dangerous, and thank God for state law that says if you ruin a water supply, you have to replace it.

So, no, it isn't a picnic by any means, but the BP spill was unconscionable.  I have friends at Schlumberger who told me that BP wouldn't pay for the drilling mud additive that would have kept the whole thing from happening-- and these people were in the "know".  It was make hole and make $ kind of thing, and safety was put on a back burner.  Now, look what we've got.  BP even admitted that.

You can't compare the utter negligence of the BP disaster to the superfund sites.  Superfund sites are on land, and didn't necessarily involve negligence.  A lot of them started, the one I worked at as an example, before there were many laws in place.  They just wanted to get rid of their trash, and Helen's husband bought up a bunch of cheap land to dump it on.  Thankfully, it was in the Nasty Borden formation, which does not transmit water well.  A blue/green/gray shale that is soft and weathers out easily.  So they were covering it up in shale.  The trouble was the fine layers of limestone that run through the formation.  Rainwater percolates down, leaching out all that junk, hits the limestone, and transmitted it downhill.

As I say, I can't really discuss BP's spill sanely...  I've tried and just can't.  I know too many people in the industry who told me the truth.  

As a side note:  The feds are the worst.  No state has jurisdiction over the feds-- so no state can make them comply with the state laws.  We have ding donged around about that for years, on the Geology Board.  If they want to do stupid things, there is nothing we can do about it.  

So, you're saying that if the Feds do it themselves it's an ok thing to do?  Are you saying that because the Gulf has been used as a dumping grounds for hundreds of years, it's ok for BP to do it, too?  This disaster was predicted, years and years before it happened.  All it takes is once, and things can never be the same again.  I'm not asking BP to clean up everyone's mess, just their own-- and certainly not spray KEROSENE and soap on top of the spill to make it 'go away'.

No I don't mean if the government gets away with it the industry should too. but the government has no expectation that industry should clean it up better than they would hold themselves liable for either,  nor should they make someone that has to clean up a mess , include what they are responsible for themselves.

 well we could debate the comparison of a superfund site to a disaster like this just becase one takes place on land , doesn't mean on at sea doesn't have just as much impact .

 You know I am a history buff, back towards the end of WW2 , in the pacific , the front lines were moving fast , materiel and supplies where moving just as fast and being off loaded and stockpiled, unfortunately , where they stockpiled , became too far from the front , now in some of those cases the native islanders thought they had a boon of equipment on their hands they could make money off of and use , Uncle Sam decided to offer it for pennys on the dollar to recoup at least some of the cost , islanders didn't go for it figuring , with the shipping costs , the US would just abandon it there.after the war was over and it was very close to being over.

 Well that's not what happened either , US commanders built a jetty, drove munitions stockpiles out to the emnd , loaded them on low barges , took them out to the center of a lagoon and dumped them overboard , after the munitions , next came the surplus vehicles , left to run to warm up, then driven right off the jetty when the warmed up trucks hit the ocean water , engines cracked so they were unusable , they did this to jeeps , all sorts of heavy trucks up to semis , earth moving equipment even perfectly good planes,tanks and other troop moving equipment, the whole shebang, and what was ironic? as they were doing this ships were still being brought in to off load supplies and material, they called those places million dollar lagoons or atolls , the waste was phenominal. all because the government wouldn't give it away , and they didn't want to pay to ship it back.

 Now that idea of a skimmer ship I like , it could be mandated by law in order to operate , with host countrys , chipping in and manning them ( coast Guard , Navy , Merchant marine )with the costs shared between states feds and the oil companies, and no doubt todays tech is better than it was 10 or 15 years ago.

 the only way we will ever get the feds to follow the rules they make others follow , is to get the people to vote in those that believe as they do.and stick it to them.

Mark, it's 10:30 and I'm suffering with my back, to where I can't think straight.  I'll be back later, ok?

And I agree, that wasn't one of my brightest statements-- Probably because I can't think.  YES, it does just as much damage, but we don't get a lot of our drinking water from the ocean.  It's easier to cover it up in the ocean, because you can make it go down to the floor-- but it is in the food chain, and that's going to cause all sorts of problems.

I'm not sane about this...  I had nightmares for weeks about it.  Having seen, in the fossil record, the results of disasters from long ago, I kept thinking what it was like then, when the spill happened.  

But I can't think straight right now, I will come back here, I promise...  MUCH love to you!

Mark and Dowser,

Great exchange!

May ask both of you... How would you administer the preservation of the environment? It's a serious question. I can't seem to find a good answer.

I certainly don't trust industry. 

As Dowser demonstrates, the Feds can be out-of-control know-nothings.

And local regulators are so very often in the pockets of the industries they're supposed to regulate.

This famous picture of Minamata has haunted me for fifty years;

... and we have all seen that industry will do the same whenever it thinks it can get away with it. Lead in the drinking water, and all the rest.

So... without regulation, industry will kill people. That is a proven fact.

What is the best way to regulate?

Bob, I feel that we must have an inter-disciplinary approach.  Get everybody involved.  No one will agree and everyone will sit there and point fingers at each other, and nothing will be done.  I don't propose giving complete control to any one single entity.  

But, as a start:

Put the oil and gas industry back under the Clean Water Act and force them to treat and dispose of their hazardous waste.  Don't allow a lot of injection wells, operating under the extreme pressures they do, because they are causing earthquakes.  (There is a good article out today about the Oklahoma governor calling a moratorium on injection wells in his state.)  And make them go ahead and buy that tanker, the cost to be shared by all, the administration to be shared with the Coast Guard and Navy, etc.

Force the oil and gas companies to document, report, and clean up the 3,000 per year spills on the Arctic North Slope.  That should help to make them a little less careless.

Make the Feds talk to one another and force them to follow their own rules.  Make sure all of the military bases have drinking water that meets the required minimum, set by the EPA, that all of us have to live under.  Give the states jurisdiction over their messes, so that qualified personnel are actually doing the work to site hazardous materials dumping sites, testing facilities, and drinking water supplies.

Right now, the entire environmental protection is actually a patchwork of agencies-- the EPA is incompetent to administer all that.  Maybe start up a new agency called Environmental Security, that has the jurisdiction needed to enforce common sense legislation.  They can start by having, on staff, qualified personnel who understands how groundwater effects just about everything, and the inter-relationship between ground water, surface water, and the air.  Someone who understands that out of sight, does NOT mean out of mind-- it will always come back to bite us in the tail end...

Set reasonable standards for a gradual increase in mpg for vehicles.  Set reasonable standards for clean up of horrible messes.  Set reasonable standards for everything the EPA does.  It is silly to sue a car dealership, who is in compliance with the law, (paint wastes are kept in sealed containers, stacked on a concrete floor, surrounded by a dike), for the dried paint in those containers.  I mean, gee, drying out of paint is what the EPA tells you to do to dispose of paint!  

Everything is such a hodgepodge of regulations and requirements, many of which contradict one another-- just straightening all that out would be a feat, in and of itself.  Any regulations to the oil and gas industry will be considered unreasonable, BUT, setting reasonable requirements is imperative to safeguard the environment.  The EPA can help, but I don't think they should be in charge...  They don't have the sense to read their own requirements...

I certainly don't have all the answers-- but these are a few ideas...

You are surely right about the need to advance on all fronts. I did not mean to present higher pump prices as a panacea. They are necessary, but far from sufficient. 

To express it simply, we must take the environment in count in everything we do. That's simple to express but terribly hard to do. 

IMHO, the greatest need is for the American people to accept the idea that they cannot continue to consume without limit. 

OK, dear Mark, I'm back!  Amazing what lying flat does for one!  

I thought it was a wonderful idea-- sort of a floating hospital for the oceans...  The cost was to be shared by all-- and it wasn't going to cost that much, but the oil companies flatly refused.  Even with so much oil spilled in the BP disaster, there would have been ample room in the proposed tanker to suck up the spill, process the water, spit the clean water out of the side and keep the oil.  And a LOT less dangerous to the ocean and wildlife.  There wouldn't have been those slicks that came ashore...

They came up with the idea after the Exxon Valdez spill.  But, again, it was a no-go.

No, I don't think an oil company should be made to clean up the Fed's messes.  And the Feds aren't about to follow their own rules.  Military bases don't have to meet the water quality standards, the basic standards, of the EPA drinking water branch, nor do they.  The states can't enforce their own water quality standards on federal lands.  They don't even have to use Certified Professional Geologists to do the base work of siting hazardous waste, or designing water well fields.  We, as a state, can't force the military to do zilch.  It is MOST frustrating.

We have a lot of federal lands here in the KY.  Probably not as much as WY, but a lot, anyway.  We have Ft. Knox, a giant piece of Ft. Campbell, the Bluegrass nerve gas repository, etc.  Right across the river is the Jefferson Proving Grounds, a huge WWII installation with lots and lots of unexploded ordnance, just lying about.  There is all kinds of stuff, everywhere.  And not one thing we can do to fix it.  Or to make them fix it.

In today's political climate, I don't honestly think that any politician is going to tell the military to clean up their messes-- not when the refuse to fund the pensions of their own men, or care for them properly.  In today's political climate, I don't think anyone is ever going to tell the oil companies they MUST clean up their methods, or invest in a giant rescue tanker...  I have a feeling that window has closed.  When they were publicizing their profits of billions of dollars, was the time to do it.

The federal gas tax is 18 cents per gallon, unchanged since 1993. Diesel is 24 cents. States impose another 30 cents. 

European prices tell us that the upper acceptable limit is somewhere north of five dollars. That's politically impossible from one day to the next, but if managed correctly over several years... 

We'll pay the penalties and buy the car we want regardless of meddling by AGW proponents to try to coerce us into aluminum can death traps.  There are different needs in small geographical high population areas like Japan and Western Europe and the USA with vast open spaces with low populations.  Here in the western USA we think nothing of driving 100 miles a day to get to our jobs or go to another place for an activity.  Besides, we can get a Deisel Ram 4 door pickup that gets as good gas mileage as a compact 4 cylinder sedan.  We can get a Cadillac Escalade hybrid that gets 1 mpg better gas mileage in town than a 4 cylinder Toyota Camry.  The bottom line is that we will use technology to get the vehicles we want and not sit by and drive what you think we should be allowed to have. 

My immediate reaction, on reading a post like yours... would be a Red Rules violation. That's kinda funny, I think. 

So I force myself to be calm. To reflect on "why" someone would post -- put in front of everyone -- a demonstration of... lemme find a way to say this that is not insulting... such a lack of knowledge. 

aluminum can death traps

Look at crash-test results. There is no correlation between size and crash-survivability. If you want to identify a group of cars that are death traps, you have all the 1960s iron that is so popular among the nostalgics for yesteryear. Those old tanks also get horrible milage. 

There are different needs in small geographical high population areas like Japan and Western Europe and the USA with vast open spaces with low populations.

 Speed limits are generally higher in Europe. The density of 4-lanes is greater. Kinda the opposite of what you imply. 

we can get a Deisel Ram 4 door pickup that gets as good gas mileage as a compact 4 cylinder sedan.  

No, you can't This unicorn doesn't exist, and never has. 

We can get a Cadillac Escalade hybrid that gets 1 mpg better gas mileage in town than a 4 cylinder Toyota Camry.

You should update. This situation never existed -- the Cadillac never did as well as the Camry. And Cadillac discontinued their hybrid a couple years ago. 

The bottom line is that we will use technology to get the vehicles we want and not sit by and drive what you think we should be allowed to have. 

 I hope you are right. I'm a gearhead from way back. I started reading Car and Driver when it was still Sports Car Graphic. Sixty years. One of the great things about cars is their variety, reflecting the variety of wants and needs among customers. 

Interestingly, the European approach to limiting consumption (higher fuel prices) is more tolerant of variety than the American approach (CAFE). American manufacturers must plan their product lineup to meet CAFE. This may mean eliminating some models. European manufacturers may build whatever sells -- it's up to the driver to set his budget priorities. This is why the best luxo-barges and performance cars are European, as well as the most economical cars. 

Look, XX... I am happy to have you post to my seeds / articles. Sincerely. But please... Do a little fact-checking first. It's okay to be wrong, but when you -- or anyone -- post a hypothesis accompanied by "supporting facts" that are all wrong... it's both an embarrassment and a waste of time. 

I don't mind doing this kind of point-by-point correction once in a while, in the hope (I'm an eternal optimist) that the poster will realize that their sources are wrong and leading them into error. But it's time consuming. 

There are authors / seeders who pay no attention to the reality of information that is presented in their conversations. I do, as well as I can. So please... Check your "facts" before posting. Thank you. 

Yes, I agree that the incentive is not enough. That said, there is an ever increasing number of alternate fuel vehicles. It's not being done very quickly, though.

I remember when rooftop solar panels came out. Not many people wanted them. Why? mainly because initially they were terribly expensive.

But as is usually the case with new technologies, the price kept coming down. Now they are being used much more widely. (Still not as much as they should be, IMO).

The cost of generating energy from various green technologies keeps decreasing. (Now one of the things slowing it down is storage-- when batteries are improved, the costs will really decrease).

I'm hoping to equip our retirement home with solar panels...  And downsize a lot!  I need something I can take care of!  Our house now is beyond me.

Our condo in Yuma is great. It's not new -- built in 1981 -- but entirely refurbished by the guy who flipped it to us. About 1200 sq ft, all the on the ground floor. The Homeowners' Association takes care of the grounds and the exteriors. 

Yuma in summer is very hot. Full-timers stay home from 9 AM until 6 PM. They have solar panels because the AC runs almost all the time. But in winter... the weather is fine. I wear shorts and T-shirt all winter. 

We paid a little under $ 90 000. The same thing in France would cost four times that. The difference pays for a lot of airplane tickets. 

That sounds great!  

I need about that size of a house, maybe a little bigger-- 1400 ft2.  What I need is LOTS of storage.  Some day, Matthew is going to inherit all this furniture, and I need a place to put it until then...  All on ONE FLOOR.  The steps are killing me!  (Currently our house is 2 stories with the laundry in the basement.  Now who came up with THAT bright idea?)

OK Bob , you have properties on 2 continents that requires  air travel to commute , How would you personally feel if there was , lets say a 40-60% surcharge  on your airline tickets for that commute? would that limit the number of times you flew back and forth?, what about , the country you claim citizenship in deciding to tax second residences be they in the country or not at say 40 % as well of the assessed market value because its a luxury and not needed being a second home? perfect way to influence social behavior and make a person to make substaniative choices,  as you pointed out ,  would it lead you to make choices of having to choose where you are better off,  using your own choices of where you want to be and having to pay for it? and being you are affluent enough to afford all this you of course could afford these impositions . oh and of course there is no way to write off the expense as something else.

Those are good questions, Mark. And not far from true, in some cases. 

would it lead you to make choices of having to choose where you are better off,  using your own choices of where you want to be and having to pay for it?

 Exactly. We are conscious that stuff like this may happen. If it does, we'll react however we can. When we bought, a couple years ago, a euro was $ 1.40. Now it's $ 1.12. So we already have to make choices. 

That's life... 

Technology is the key. Like with light bulbs.  Government mandated those stupid high Mercury bulbs that were ugly and expensive.  They phased out incandescent bulbs.  I am still using the old incandescent bulbs that were four for a buck as I hoarded them as they were being phased out.  I still have a few years supply of them.  Now though technology has allowed a new incandescent bulb that just meets the new federal standards and LED technology is almost to the point it's cheaper, longer lasting, and looks better than the government mandated CFL's.  I'm going to never use the bulbs government wanted us to.  In the USA the surest way to assure massive resistance to something is for our federal government to mandate it.  We don't obey its rules and regulations we find technically legal ways to work around them to do what we want, not what they tell us to do.  

The CFLs were a failure. They never lasted a tenth of the purported time. I like the LED bulbs though, but many are not as bright as I'd like.

Boy, I hear you!  They may last a little longer, but not much...  Not to mention that they aren't bright enough.  Me?  I'd like a million watt globe in the center of the room, then maybe I'll see something.

I hate going to a meeting of all the bigwigs and have on one black shoe and one navy shoe, just because I can't see in my closet.  It's embarrassing.

A good idea gone bad.

Lol! That's why navy blue is banned from my closet.

smart!  I have yet to figure out how to do it...  This is when a million watt bulb would help.

If fuel prices are low, there's no incentive to limit consumption.

I would state that differently: If fuel prices are low there is much less incentive to limit consumption. But for families who are struggling economically, there is still a price incentive to limit consumption. (Even with low prices, if they buy less gas they save some money).

I don't have any data, but I wouldn't think the poor are significant contributors to gas consumption. They use public transport... or walk. 

Where there's is a will, there's a way. Raise fuel taxes, and hand a portion of the revenue back to the poorer strata. For them, the tax hike's impact would be minimal. For most people, the impact would be proportional to consumption, encouraging temperance. 

bob outside metro urban areas , those that even make a above what Is considered  just above the poverty level would be affected drastically, they tend to drive and only can afford vehicles that are not exactly cutting edge modern emissions or fuel economy standards of the day , they cant afford to go buy a new vehicle , they get stuck driving usually something that is 5-20 years old in most cases , and outside such cities as I explained , there is no mass transit such as there is in Europe , and even what mass transit there is, is in no way comparable to that in Europe.

 unless of course you think the poor only live in the cities. which you would be wrong.

 and I would be willing to bet , those people that your so convinced could use the non existant public transportation , and could shoulder more additional taxes have less of a carbon footprint , than you do as it stands.

Mark, 

I agree with everything you say. 

You have in fact opened up an important thread: the (hidden) use of taxes for social engineering, in totally unrelated domains. I'm a way-left person. I am reflexively in favor of helping the poor. At the same time, I'd like to see greater efficiency in government. If we want to help the poor, then let's do that. Let's not maintain artificially low gas prices (which are consequential for all of us) on the pretext of helping the poor. 

Low fuel prices have lots of other consequences. They encourage urban sprawl. They increase driving deaths. Et cetera... 

Bob you wont get any arguments from me that you are very left , by US political standards you would be and are far left , now the following is just an observation not meant as any form of insult  ( I know someone says that there is usually an insult coming , but I will try my best).

 I think some things that definitely factor in and have to be accounted for as to why there are such differences between the US vs the European model are this.

the main one being 2 entirely different cultures and perspectives. that I think is the main one  not going to say either is right or wrong .

 Europe and the Us have roughly the same  size land mass area , 3.9 mil sq miles for eur and 3.7 mil for the US with the following populations respectively 742.5 million (2013/14 numbers) and 321.4 million (2015 numbers).

so your squeezing over twice the population into an area that is roughly only a couple hundred thousand square miles larger, to put that into perspective , that's about as big as the reservation I live on currently. and I think that increase in population plays a factor as to the different attitudes , as well as what can actually be done.

 Ok , next point you pointed out to dee that the house of reps has been negligent about taxation since it is there that taxation bills in our government are to come from. well here is the thing you most likely don't and wont like , the reps in the house represent, the people of the state that elects them not the people of the entire country , so its not hard to figure out why taxes are the way they are , the people majority of the people oppose them, but we have a bi-carmel congress, the other side of the chambers , the senators even though elected by the people now , do not represent the interest of the people, they represent the interests of their respective states . the way I explain both houses  is simple ,  something might be good for the people , but very bad for the individual state and make it insolvent , or something might be good for the state as a whole , but be very bad for the people and make them insolvent , and the reason the government was set up this way was to find the acceptable balance so solvency is maintained.

 you mentioned toll roads , well tolls are simply taxes under another name, remember jonathan saying you cant call something a tax , because if you do it will never pass , in some cases they are a benefit , in some cases they are a detriment , and what determines which they are , is if they are used , they follow the shortest paths (usually ) they become a detriment when the tolls are thought to be too high and alternate routes are used and there usually are alternate routes to any toll road , thus putting more usage on those routes , hastening wear.  drivers in the trucking industry do this all the time.

You talked about subsities , well your solution to help those in the lower tax brackets was to subsidize  them , in other words tax them but at the end of the year give them back that money they were taxed , which is pretty much what happens already with the tax system we have, ok , to me that is making an interest free loan to the government ,that while they hold on to it THEY earn the interest and get to do what THEY want with the money, to me that's usery. the government is forcibly taking money from those that cant afford it , and using it to their own ends .

another factor I think relates to the cost of petrol and Ng , is domestic supply sources, which I think explains the big petrol companies getting subsidies , now if they are used correctly they should be used for research , development of cleaner and more efficient methods of extraction , as well as exploration to find where the deposits are, that is not to mention the jobs created in those fields, so if that's the way they are used( and not to line pockets) those subsidies /tax breaks are the incentive to actually do those things and actually do business within a nations borders . now unless your going to nationalize the industry and make the government pay for it all , which in turn will come out of the peoples pocket thus rising the cost , there is not much else that can be done , how did nationalization work for venezuala? and quite a few other smaller countries that nationalized? most of those places are considered cesspools of corruption, irregardless of the laws.

Why would north of $5 be considered acceptable in Europe , I think it has to do with domestic supply if they couldn't import, Japan has no domestic supply and relies entirely on imports , and we can see the advances they made in fuel economy and emissions.

 right now , the US has domestic oil and gas in the oil sands , shale oil producing areas , and the historic oil producing areas , that make the middle east reserves look like a  drop in the bucket the green river formation  reserve , is close to 3 times the size of the reserves found in Saudi when it was first discovered , why its not being extracted , is cost to do so per barrel at current extraction methods. and its been know about for the last 90 years , and we only just recently started on the oil patch in the Dakotas in the last 15 or 20 years. and remember these are domestic reserves , they don't HAVE to be offered for sale for export like the sauds do. so what you have domestically available is also going to affect price if you suddenly cant import.  to be feasible and still profitable , oil has to be at or about 45 to 60 bucks a barrel  to get to the $4-5 dollar price per gallon oil has to cost close to 70-100 per barrel.

lastly . and if you were emperor?  I would have to guess that within 60 days , looking at the attitudes in this country and whom it would affect , and looking at what you think needs to be done , and how you would go about it? I would venture to guess, you would face your own French revolution of the late 1700s right here in this country.

You're hard to keep up with, Mark!

I set your post aside last night (I was about to break my jaw from yawning too hard) ... and when I woke up this morning, I found that you've posted another one. Yikes.

First things first. When I say "Europe", I mean the EU. No two definitions of "Europe" are the same. With or without Russia, the Caucasus, and so on... Whereas the EU is clearly defined. The US and EU are quite comparable in size, population, and wealth.

You are quite right that the differing contexts between the US and the EU lead to significant differences in outlook. On the one hand, the EU has some 27 languages. It is difficult to drive in a straight line for more than a few hours without hitting either the sea or another country. Meanwhile, many Americans can drive for a couple days , before bumping into anything. As a consequence, Europeans are much more conscious of the variety that exists in the world. Americans are very self-absorbed... but understandably . 

Americans have a very short history. Most of that history consisted (until Vietnam) of a triumphal march from the Atlantic to the Pacific and beyond. It was easy to believe in Manifest Destiny. That idea (Manifest Destiny) has gone completely off the rails since WWII, with Vietnam and the Middle East... but many Americans continue to believe , regardless of what is actually happening in the world. Popular perceptions are very slow to catch up with reality.

Meanwhile, most Europeans have a couple thousand years of history. I lived in a very ordinary farmhouse for a long time, that dated to before the American Revolution. It's not hard to find houses that date to before Columbus. Europeans live with many centuries of history, so they have a very different perspective on "current events".

So... yes. I agree completely that there are significant differences in attitudes. That fact requires us to beware of hasty conclusions, when we compare anything between the two unions. It does not mean that no valid conclusions may be drawn.

I don't quite agree with your analysis of the behavior of the House. I do not think that most Representatives vote according the desires of a majority of their constituents. That's far too angelic, IMHO. They vote according to the will of their financial backers. 

The rich don't use public services. Their kids go to private schools. They don't ride the municipal buses. They don't use public health services. And so on... So... the rich don't want to pay for stuff they don't use. They want to cut taxes, and if those public services go to hell as a result, that's no skin off their noses. This is fundamental. 

The Republican party serves the rich. Don't take my word for it. Just keep an eye out for conflicts of interest between the rich and everyone else, and see which side the Republican party takes. It's clear to anyone who actually looks.

So... Republican members of the House vote against taxes. Always , regardless of the situation. They vote as the rich command. Period. Again... don't take my word... observe... Even in poor rural areas, in dire need of aid, the local Republican Congressperson votes NO!

Senators are even less responsible, although they are not directly involved in the budget process. They are almost completely isolated from electoral reality. In any election, 33 seats are in play. No more than five or six are ever really doubtful. Senators can safely ignore their constituents... and do.

you mentioned toll roads , well tolls are simply taxes under another name

This is semantics. I really, really, REALLY do not like to get hung up on semantics! Tolls are tolls. Taxes are taxes. Each is proper or not, according to the circumstances. Without taxes, there would be no government services. taxes are necessary. And therefore, it is nonsense to consider taxes as "wrong by nature". A particular tax is justified or not, but "all taxes are evil" is just plain stupid. 

Tolls are a different animal. Tolls are direct payment for service rendered. If I pay the toll, I can use the bridge; if I don't pay, I must find another route. Not at all the same as taxes!

There's a good debate to be had about the proper extent of tolls. Personally, I think that public infrastructures of all kinds should be partly financed by general tax funds, and partly by tolls. Infrastructures have both a general interest and an immediate individual interest, and their financing should reflect this.

to me that is making an interest free loan to the government

I understand your position, but I think it is based on an erroneous idea. There's no timeline relation between when taxes are paid and when government expenses are disbursed.

IMHO, the primary characteristic of an operation like this is "redistribution". It is a way of extracting money from those who have more than enough, and giving it to those who do not have enough. In eliminating subsidies to Big Oil, we would be extracting money from the very, very, VERY rich... to redistribute it to people who need it just to get to work...

domestic supply sources, which I think explains the big petrol companies getting subsidies , now if they are used correctly they should be used for research , development of cleaner and more efficient methods of extraction , as well as exploration to find where the deposits are, that is not to mention the jobs created in those fields

Why should John Q Taxpayer pay for this? Big Oil is private corporations. They get the profits . Why should they not support the expenses? I really do not understand this!

No one spoke of nationalization. That's an entirely different topic. Maybe I'll do an article based on this:

The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying 'This is mine,' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: "Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." 
                                                                           -- Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Why would north of $5 be considered acceptable in Europe , I think it has to do with domestic supply if they couldn't import, Japan has no domestic supply and relies entirely on imports , and we can see the advances they made in fuel economy and emissions

I see no connection between the lack of domestic supply, and fuel taxes. But I agree that high pump prices lead to economical cars.

Your remarks about the availability of petroleum from shale sands, and the ensuing drop in prices are correct. (Well... inasmuch as the extractors don't have to pay for the ecological damage they're doing. I assume you've seen photos of North Dakota??) This is precisely why I don't think we should leave the pump price to fluctuate with supply of crude oil. 

When I say "if I were emperor", it is shorthand for "This is what I think should be done, but that I know hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of actually happening in today's real-world political context". I wouldn't take the job of emperor of the world if you tried to give it to me. Talk about herding cats!! 

"You have in fact opened up an important thread: the (hidden) use of taxes for social engineering, in totally unrelated domains"

actually no I didn't expose this thread , because it directly corrolates to exactly what both you and jonathan were discussing ,  which is exactly what you were discussing and the basic premise behind the article , I just happened to be the one to point out that's exactly what this topic is really all about in essence , I called the spade a spade and not a hoe.

In any case, you were right to take this path. 

If fuel prices are low, there's no incentive to limit consumption.

I would state that differently: If fuel prices are low there is much less incentive to limit consumption. But for families who are struggling economically, there is still a price incentive to limit consumption. (Even with low prices, if they buy less gas they save some money).

If fuel prices are low, there's no incentive to limit consumption.

I would state that differently: If fuel prices are low there is much less incentive to limit consumption. But for families who are struggling economically, there is still a price incentive to limit consumption. (Even with low prices, if they buy less gas they save some money).

Although I do agree that significant changes in price definitely effect whtehr people cut down on, or increase, the amount of fuel people use-- to a greater or lesser degree depemding on circumstances.

May I say something here?  I got into the habit of limiting my driving back when gas was $5/gal.  I can now go 2 weeks on a tank of gas.  Big whoopee, but I only drive to where I have to go, like taking my son to band practice, etc.  So, I already limit my driving as much as I can.  Plan my shopping trips so I go up one side of the road and down the other, in the most direct route possible.  I don't go anywhere, except for doctor's appts, and meetings that I MUST  attend.

My gas cost savings is more than covered by the increase in food and medicine costs.  So, I'm not ahead-- just treading water and gradually sinking.  

Budgets are tight. 

Our French cars are both eight years old, and beginning to limp a bit. They're nice cars, so I won't buy anything until I have to. But I keep an eye on the market, just in case. Without giving up our comfort -- hey! old folks need gentle handling! -- we should be able to get fifteen mpg better than we have. More modern, better milage. 

Yep, that is why I like my Subaru!  I can get in and out of it, without struggling...  Especially with this bad disk in my back and arthritis...  I sit on cushions to see out, (ask Kavika).  He's seen me, the princess without the pea, on my stack of cushions...

That's also why I adore our camper.  We're comfortable, and that's decidedly necessary!  

I have the opposite problem. I'm big. When I was younger, I didn't mind folding my carcass to fit into small (fast) cars. As I get get older, I don't seem to fold so easily. Funny 'bout that... 

I can understand that!  My problem is the opposite-- no matter what kind of car, I have to pull the seat all the way up to be able to reach the petals.  I hate driving around with the steering wheel imbedded in my chest, but I have no choice.  I have yet to find one car, and I've shopped, that "fits" me.

Nor do I want a car where I sit just about on top of the road.  A lot of the smaller cars are like that.  It makes it much more difficult to get into and out of the car.  To the point that I have to have someone come and pull on me, to get me out.

Opposite sides of the same coin, it seems...

My wife is closer to your size than mine, so we have to have something that accommodates all sizes. We tried a couple dozen different models. We both preferred the same car, a Buick Encore. Comfortable and quiet. Doesn't accelerate like a cannonball, but maintains Interstate speeds while passengers can converse in whispers. 

Great idea!  My husband is tall, too, so we have to get a car where he can sit comfortably, yet I can drive with my heel resting on the floor, not my leg stretched out...

He likes the Subaru, too!  I loved the Buicks I've had in the past-- but I hope to stick with Subaru...  Lot more dependable, for us!

Lots of people bought their first Subarus back when 4-wheel drive was rare. Now there are tons of models available. The Encore among them. Ours is 2-wheel, since we don't expect much snow in Yuma   , but Buick sells more 4-wheelers nationwide. 

Actually, mine is an all-wheel drive, which is not quite the same...  My husband can explain it better, but the power goes to each wheel as it's needed.  I've yet to be stuck, which is great for when I'm out in the field-- especially by myself!  I've been stuck a lot, in years past, before cell phones, and all I can say is, Thank God for my drillers, who helped me out!

This is an economic question, so the answer is - "it depends".

Good point. IMO it hurts some sectors f the economy, and helps others. 

You focused a lot on how much of an increase it is. Definitely a factor.

But higher prices do hurt certain sectors of the economy. Of course airlines come to mind. And of course retail (to a somewht lessor degree). And not often mentioned, but cruise ship lines. Which also means business related to those sectors, as well as many workers in those sectors. And the obvious one: anyone who drives.

They help other sectors: oil companies and related companies (& potential employees if they expand and increase hiring-- & in some case highly skilled employees where the companies have to increase wages to hold on to them). Or even if they had plan to expand, but decide not to.

Overall, in countries such as the U.S., higher oil prices hurt more then they help. (Obviously the reverse is true in countries like S.Arabia & the Gulf states, Iraq, Iran, Texas, Russia, Venezuela, Nigeria, etc).

And then, as Bob mentioned, there's the positive effect lowering demand for "carbon fuels"  will have on the environment.

I'm assuming that if one is a believer in climate change, then they are most likely also quite aware of the destructiveness we humans are practicing everyday against our garden and the creatures that live in it. Not saying that curbing greenhouse gasses isn't worthy; however, in the grand scheme of things, it only part of the equation. We need to learn completely different/radical way of thinking and living if we are gonna stop the destruction of the planet. So are increased taxes worth the assumed benefits they may bring? To me the answer is that it's nearly too little too late; but, it's a step in the ONLY correct direction. We will soon have no choice,,, a few more generations and the question may very well be moot as we will be living in the middle of an environmental disaster of our own making.

I'm assuming that if one is a believer in climate change, then they are most likely also quite aware of the destructiveness we humans are practicing everyday against our garden and the creatures that live in it. Not saying that curbing greenhouse gasses isn't worthy; however, in the grand scheme of things, it only part of the equation. We need to learn completely different/radical way of thinking and living if we are gonna stop the destruction of the planet. So are increased taxes worth the assumed benefits they may bring? To me the answer is that it's nearly too little too late; but, it's a step in the ONLY correct direction. We will soon have no choice,,, a few more generations and the question may very well be moot as we will be living in the middle of an environmental disaster of our own making.

Often the discussion re" whether of not to raise taxes is about "yes"..or "no". But there is also another factor-- if raised-- by how much? 

While the fluctuations in the price of fuel can be changed by changes in taxes, taxes are only part of the picture. The price is basically determined by 3 things:

1. Supply. 

2. Demand. One factor in decreasing demand would be to increase taxes. Another would be to produce vehicles that don't use carbon fuels, but that are cheaper to buy and to operate.

3. And as with commodities in general, the relative strength of the dollar. 9Many people don't understand how that works, but it is a factor).

Price is influenced by many factors" such as a somewhat free market economy ("market forces"), advances in oil producing technology(greatly lowers price), advances in technology in vehicles (more fuel efficient vehicles use less gas), etc. Thy are also influenced by various countries and lobbies manipulating prices. (One of the major reasons prices are so extraordinarily low now is manipulation by S. Arabia-- they are flooding the market with oil, in an attempt to gain market share (and perhaps also to hurt their "enemies"-- mainly Iran)>

As a trader I follow the price of WTI on a daily (its highly correlated with the price you pay at the pump. This graph shows price over different intervals-- you can change the settings. While to anyone who drives any price might seem too high, the fact is its really plummeted (recently is making a slight rebound). 

Chart (set to show price over a 10 year period).  (You an change the time frame-- just click on the double arrowheads to the right of "Select Timefrme").

Larry and Krishna, 

Keep in mind that euro fuel prices are in the $ 7 - 8 range. And keep in mind that median income after redistribution is about the same on both sides of the Atlantic. 

European GDP (for what it's worth) is higher, but per capita is lower. 

So much higher fuel prices are playable.