$100 if you promise to vote Republican (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060428/pl_afp/usoilconsumerpolitics_060428015908;_ylt=AlBjO0MeDi 1cjZsAgF.Gahes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MT g-) this year. ;)

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The top US senator proposed that the government give Americans 100 dollars for gasoline as the skyrocketing cost of fuel for cars has lawmakers worried just six months ahead of mid-term elections.

Stipulating that the money be paid by August 30 -- just two months before the national polls -- Senate Republican majority leader Bill Frist proposed the 100 dollar rebate to consumers as part of a budget package now under consideration.

WTF! We've got the hugest debt ever and they're talking about giving more money away?

I wonder if we'll have to declare it as income on our taxes?

Great, I got $100 (which, if you own an SUV, is essentially one tank of gas), but I have to give the gov't back $30 of it.

Pan, I know you love to stir up crap, but please at least use a relevant title for the thread. This article has nothing to do with Republicans or anyone offering $100 if you vote for them.

Sure there are political motives with timing, but that isn't the same as buying votes. Nor does there seem to be any serious push into backing the suggestion of a $100 rebate.

It was hinted at in the article.
Stipulating that the money be paid by August 30 -- just two months before the national polls -- Senate Republican majority leader Bill Frist proposed the 100 dollar rebate to consumers as part of a budget package now under consideration.

If they were truly concerned the welfare of their constituents and what high energy prices will do:

1) Vote for a windfall profit tax on the oil companies.
But that might hurt their campaign donations from big oil.
2) Repeal some of the give-aways they gave to energy interests just a year or so ago with the energy bill.
3) Invest the $100 in alternative fuel research
4) Give $500 rebates to the people who truly need it. Oh, but that would be welfare and we don't do welfare.

How can you view that proposal as anything other than trying to buy voter good will especially given the timing?

I'm sorry. No sympathy for a politically timed initiative that encourages people to drive their cars more often. It fails on every level.

Anka, you're an impartial observer to our political system (I suspect). Does it sound like a pathetic attempt to buy popularity to you?

Bah republicans wont win if that is the best they can do. They need to think more creatively like the democrats here

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2004/08/08-31-04tdc/08-31-04dnews-06.asp

now that is what gets votes.

I caught just the tail end of a conversation on fox the other nite where they were talking about lobbyist providing sex for votes. Anyone have a link to any info on that? Time to see who is being bad in D.C.----well who got caught anyhow since 99.999999% of ALL politicians are probably corrupt.

"Consumers are feeling pain at the pump, and Republicans are moving aggressively to address their concerns," Frist said.Sorry Teaenea, you lose this one. What does it take to make Panamah's statement TRUE? Does Frist have to come out and state it outright? Sounds to me like Frist has proposed a "rebate" that would be a paperwork nightmare and cost the government almost double after all the costs of staffing up to verify qualifications, cutting the checks, buying the envelopes and of course, all the 8X10 glossies of Frist shaking GWB's hand. :elfbiggri

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is the ones side has scandals with money, the other with sex. I think I'm on the right side. :D Independents either do both or neither, haven't figured that one out yet.

Sorry Teaenea, you lose this one. What does it take to make Panamah's statement TRUE?

How about the statement being accurate? That would be a good start. She stated that you would get $100 if you promised to vote republican. Does that mean that If I don't vote republican I can't get the $100? The statement was made only to get a rise out of people, which is why I posted in the first place.


Does Frist have to come out and state it outright?
Has he submitted a bill with for it yet? According to the article, it was one suggestion of many.


Sounds to me like Frist has proposed a "rebate" that would be a paperwork nightmare and cost the government almost double after all the costs of staffing up to verify qualifications, cutting the checks, buying the envelopes and of course, all the 8X10 glossies of Frist shaking GWB's hand. :elfbiggri

Feel better now? No one in this thread has stated anything about supporting this one persons suggestion.

Now tell me, If the Dem's were in power like the repub's are now, wouldn't they also be aggressively addressing consumer concerns? Are they not aggressively trying to do something about it now?

Give me a break.

Did you miss the winky smiley after the suggestion they're trying to exchange votes for money? They're not quite that blatant. I think probably most voters are so fed up it'd take a lot more than $100 at this point. To be more accurate and less slightly less jocular, the $100 bribe is more like putting Chanel #5 on a skunk to make it more popular.

Now, if the last 5 years hadn't been a total policy disaster I'd think that the $100 might actually be effective. You could say, "Hey, they did a decent job and we're getting money we didn't expect!" Now it just looks like a pathetic attempt to buy some votes.

Oh boy, $100. That'll buy me maybe a month's worth of gas... That's really going to fix the gas price issue! :rolleyes:

I dunno, Teaenea. I saw Panamah's "if you vote Republican" statement as tongue in cheek. Perhaps you might re-read after a brisk walk around the block or something. :)

And my opinion is that the proposal by Frist is pretty idiotic and deserving of ridicule. It's certainly not a plan I would expect a US Senate Majority Leader to publicize.
Now tell me, If the Dem's were in power like the repub's are now, wouldn't they also be aggressively addressing consumer concerns? Are they not aggressively trying to do something about it now?They are agressively trying to cover their tails because they haven't given our oil issues more than lip service for years. Same as the Republicans are. They're ALL politicians and have an attention span that runs from election to election. And then there's GWB who's trying to deflect the "gas crisis" blame by trying to point a finger at the oil companies. Not exactly something I would expect from a President of the US either.

its political pandering, no doubt about it, thing is they wont even have to do the $100 dollars, (bill wont pass with AWNR thingy on it) just that its a republican sponsored bill.

short of removing the taxes (which honestly isnt fair, quite frankly people who use the most gas should be paying more taxes that go towards transportation)

quite frankly people need to get used to the gas prices, i'm sure it will go down a bit in the future, but with increased use of gas, and decreasing possibly areas of production, prices will rise

i wouldnt be surprised if oil companies are inflating prices a little, and tax breaks for them are dumb, but in the grand scheme of things, and while both should be investigated and fixxed if needed, it will not stop gas prices to rise faster then inflation.

encouraging alternative fuel type stuff is great, but its not going to have any short term effects (not saying it shouldnt be done - it should, but it wont have any appreciable effect for years, and still wont stop gas prices from rising.

if gas prices get totally out of control the government should perhaps step by removing taxes and subsidize prices a little, but looking at the prices of gas historically and internationally, its hardly out of control

Here's the message the Democrats are trying to get out about their energy policy ideas (NY Times Article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/21/washington/21gas.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin)

Democrats are tailoring campaign messages to pierce any economic good news by focusing on other aspects of the energy law, chiefly the subsidies worth nearly $15 billion for gas and oil companies and the bill's lack of a more muscular approach to conserve energy and reduce the dependence on foreign oil.

While Democrats are eagerly laying blame for the situation on the Republicans, they did little to advance energy measures in eight years under President Bill Clinton. Democrats remain split to some degree over how to proceed, but in general favor greater investment in "clean fuel" technologies, more incentives for driving fuel-efficient vehicles and stronger steps toward reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Those positions were included in a measure sponsored last year by more than 30 Democratic House members who opposed the Republican version of the energy bill. Even so, 75 Democrats in the House and 25 in the Senate voted with the Republicans to pass Mr. Bush's bill.

The recommendations of the memorandum to Democratic candidates include holding a campaign event at a gas station "where you call for a real commitment to bringing down gas prices and pledge that, as a member of Congress, you will fight for families in your district, not the oil and gas executives for which the Republican Congress has fought so hard."

Not a real strong message, but it does bring back that whole energy bill thing where a lot of "incentives" were given to big oil companies, which are now racking in ginormous profits.

I don't see the $100 going beyond Frist. Frankly, my thoughts on Energy consumption have nothing to do with rebates and what I think needs to happen would be extremely unpopular on both sides of the isle. And the cold hard truth is, there is no short term solution and no President in my life time has been willing to do what it would takes. It would, in the end, make us practically self sufficient engergy wise.

we need more nuclear plants, its the only really good power source that we have atm

quite frankly i'd rather deal with a small amount of really really bad stuff that can be stored, then tons and tons of C02 and other harmful gas's going into the air.

Anka, you're an impartial observer to our political system (I suspect). Does it sound like a pathetic attempt to buy popularity to you?

I'm not Anka, but I'm guessing Anka is probably thinking something along the lines of "You Americans are complaining about spending $6/litre for petrol? Oh waahh." Which, I'm guessing, is how most europeans view it.

Nukes need to happen. We currently get only 20ish percent of our power from nukes from an aging infrastucture. We need to update just to maintain.

The US needs to Exploit it's Oil Shale reserves.

Coal needs to be revisited as well. The US has the worlds largest reserve in the world. Coal can be used as other source for Gassoline so it would make a great interum fuel source while we get Hyrdogen, Biofuels, or whatever the next best thing will be. It's more expensive to produce gas from coal than oil, but the break even point is less than $40 a barrel. I think we're well past that point now and I don't see oil dropping that low again. There is also more potential gasoline out of coal in the US than all the oil in the middle east.

I think we need to figure out what to do with nuclear waste before we build more plants. Right now, no one wants it. Too bad we can't just flick it into the sun like a big nasty booger.

The coal gasification thing sounds interesting to me.

It doesn't sound like shale oil is ready for prime-time yet. http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ser/shale/shale.asp
And it sounds like if they dig it out it uses a huge amount of water and you have a lot of spent shale to deal with. If they can extract the oil in place then it'd be good.

My fear is that we'll do something make an utter mess of the environment and not make any progress into hydrogen or bio-fuels because the shale oil is too cheap.

I think we need to figure out what to do with nuclear waste before we build more plants. Right now, no one wants it. Too bad we can't just flick it into the sun like a big nasty booger.


People need to get rid of this Not in my back yard mentality. We know where to store it safely. It needs to happen. right now most waste is being stored in temporary facilities at active plants. That needs to stop as well.

We know how to recycle it for maximum use. We know how to store it safely.

People need to get rid of this Not in my back yard mentality. We know where to store it safely. It needs to happen. right now most waste is being stored in temporary facilities at active plants. That needs to stop as well.

We know how to recycle it for maximum use. We know how to store it safely.

Erm, no we don't. This is a very mature industry now and (in the UK at least) it cannot put together a simple plan for waste disposal and is still only promising future solutions. It doesn't wash. As far as I'm concerned any nuclear solution has to be entirely self-financing, including decomissioning and disposal, and have the whole business lifecycle completely mapped out. British taxpayers have poured an immense amount of money down the drain to support the nuclear industry and it's about time that renewables got priority funding instead.

There might be a place for nuclear power, but I only see it as a temporary solution and we need to invest in the technologies that will really move us forward.

$100 gas rebate called ‘dumbest idea’ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12521259/)
"It could be one of the dumbest ideas of the year," said Jerry Taylor, a senior fellow at the conservative Cato Institute. "I haven't looked at all of the ideas yet, but it's got to be right up there."
...
"It's not really a compensation for higher gas prices," Taylor said. "It's simply a please-vote-for-me-in-November payment."I don't think his statements about buying votes is tongue in cheek... :elfbiggri

And this HAS to make ya laugh:
... Political analysts said the proposal was unlikely to be passed into law, although Senate leaders are hoping to bring it to a vote next week.:rolling:

we need more nuclear plants, its the only really good power source that we have atm

quite frankly i'd rather deal with a small amount of really really bad stuff that can be stored, then tons and tons of C02 and other harmful gas's going into the air.

The USA would probably do a whole lot better by using less energy, instead of building more powerplants.
Things like using cars that are smaller and have smaller engines. Better insulation in buildings, less use of air-conditioning (at the very least try not to cool whole buildings down to near arctic temperatures). Building cities more compact (thus requiring less transportation, perhaps even allowing things like bicycles to be used).


Eri

Better insulation in buildings, less use of air-conditioning (at the very least try not to cool whole buildings down to near arctic temperatures).Gotta admit... when I was working in office buildings I carried a tissue with me CONSTANTLY and would have to keep a heater under my desk all during AC season. It seems that office buildings have no "just right" temperature when it comes to AC. I think they adjust it for the worst case scenarios and expect those who work in it to have access to space heaters. And the worst offenders are the "computer balanced" buildings.

Last summer, I had to wear a coat at work, and I wasn't even one of the unlucky people sitting directly below an AC vent. Either the climate control system was broken, or there was a single setting for the two-story building, and the setting was based on the temperature of the windowed offices along the outside of the building on the second floor. I have to admit, the windowed offices were significantly warmer than the rest of the building. Still, there's no reason why it should be colder where I work during the summer than in the winter!

I think it may have been colder in our work area than in the computer server room...:(

I _think_ it has been fixed for this year. I'll find out soon enough!

I have to admit, the windowed offices were significantly warmer than the rest of the building.Yes but that's usually where they place the executive suites, too. ;)

Yup, along with our main conference room!

$100 gas rebate called ‘dumbest idea’ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12521259/)
I don't think his statements about buying votes is tongue in cheek... :elfbiggri

And this HAS to make ya laugh:
:rolling:
Ok, glad to see I'm not the only one making that inference.

The USA would probably do a whole lot better by using less energy, instead of building more powerplants.
Things like using cars that are smaller and have smaller engines. Better insulation in buildings, less use of air-conditioning (at the very least try not to cool whole buildings down to near arctic temperatures). Building cities more compact (thus requiring less transportation, perhaps even allowing things like bicycles to be used).

It would be better if we consumed less energy your right.

But no matter what we need energy, and pretty much all sources of energy have a downside. (Solar would be great if everyone had it on their house, but it not enough for only source)

I'd rather have to deal with a small amount of radioactive stuff, then a huge amount of poisionous gas's and C02 that gets put into air by coal/natural gas. (not to mention that our supply isnt exxactly getting bigger)

I listened to NPR this morning on the way to work as I usually do. The entire broadcast made me grab my face in exasperation.

This was part of it and I, too, have a comment about the title.

The title was made to get a rise in the same way the enquirer comes up with sensational titles. It is well known that these forums are full of smug individuals that lean to the left. Perhaps if it was an occasional jab, but its a daily occurrence and it appears to be really grating on some. Kind of like when you continually tease your spouse about their choice of clothing on a daily basis. At first, its funny if not mildly annoying. Eventually it just makes you mad enough to tune them out.

-- my opinion, you don't have to agree with it.

The Democrats are talking a lot, but doing nothing. They aren't exactly working hard to get us off the oil either. They have chosen to play politics instead.

The Republicans are oil people. While both sides benefit from rich oil companies, the Republican side actually owns or has owned some of those companies. It isn't in their short term benefit to make changes.

100$ is the same as nothing. I am also sure you will have to pay taxes on it. It wouldn't matter if it was done by Democrats or Republicans or some independent government. It is just a ploy at quitting the masses. It will pay for 2 weeks gas for me. That's not counting the taxed portion.

Suspending the federal gasoline tax for two months isn't going to do anything either. 18c a gallon for two months. That tax money is supposed to pay for highways and bridges (we know it goes through some accounting legerdemain and ends up doing something entirely different). That infrastructure is falling apart and nothing gets done about it until someone falls down from a collapsed bridge. It just doesn't matter to them (Washington politicians).

We (the United States) do not run our own country. The oil producers are rubbing it in our face. The UN is a joke. They say they don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons but do nothing about it because, as the president of Iran said last week, they can do whatever the want, they have the oil.

Saudi Arabia has slashed its prices of gasoline because they can. 65c a gallon folks. The western devils can suck it and suck it they will.

As Teaenea has said, nobody is going to like the solution, therefore no politician is going to make any real moves to implement the solution. We need to be independent of foreign countries for our energy supply. Leadership has to think in the long term for the country and not think only what hineys they have to kiss to get re-elected in two years. I don't foresee that happening because no professional politician is interested in bettering the country, just their image.

The title was made to get a rise in the same way the enquirer comes up with sensational titles. It is well known that these forums are full of smug individuals that lean to the left. Perhaps if it was an occasional jab, but its a daily occurrence and it appears to be really grating on some.
If the smug, right-leaning folks who control the country would stop doing stuff that was jab-worthy on a daily basis the grating might let up. :tongue:

Pretty much everyone has heard about supply vs. demand.

When it comes to energy consumption, the U.S. has done a reasonable job on the supply side. Heck, many say that a major driving force for the Iraq war was to ensure oil supply.

On the demand side, the U.S. has done an absolutely lousy job. (Note: So has Canada, but it's less stressful in a country with surplus energy.) North Americans are energy hogs.

Price of Energy:

People are complaining about price of energy. Guess what, folks? Energy is too cheap!!! Not just a little too cheap either. It's hugely underpriced. I'd say a three-fold increase might bring things a bit more in line.

Who's to Blame:

Yeah, yeah... blame the oil companies (suppressing technology advances, ripping off consumers blah, blah, blah)

Blame the car companies (they don't make the energy efficient cars that consumers won't buy anyway, blah, blah, blah)

Blame the government (that we elected, and that we would throw out if we didn't like their energy policies that increased energy prices and forced a reduction in demand.)

Blame the lack of technology... ok... not too many people put the blame here. Let me tell you this though. You don't need technological breakthroughs to deal with energy consumption. The technology is currently there. Sure, technological improvements will help, but there is no reason to wait for them.

Blame us... Bingo... correct answer!! We're the ones that consume the cheap energy.


How do you reduce energy demand? Lots of ways, but here's some.

* Ban the manufacture and use of regular incandescent bulbs. Force the use of energy-efficient fluorescent bulbs.

* Put a 200% surcharge on the purchase cost of gas-guzzling SUVs. Have a graduated scale that subsidizes the purchase cost of the most energy efficient vehicles and penalizes those with lower efficiency.

* Put energy meters on each and every single household. For example, your electricity meter should read out in $. People need to physically see the $ impact of energy reduction.

* Change the whole structure of electricity rates. (note: some places already do this.)
- Instead of decreasing electricity costs per MWhr for larger consumers, reverse the rate structure so that you pay less for the first bit of electricity you use, and ramp up the rate as you use more.
- Charge lower electricity rates in off-peak hours and more in on-peak hours. Most places have a flat rate at the moment. Off-peak electricity production is cheaper to produce and rate structures should reflect this.

* Stop building roads in urban areas. Put in public transit in dedicated rights-of-way. If people can get to where they're going faster on public transit than in their personal vehicles, their behavior will change. Have you looked at public transit in a place like Houston? It's a disgrace.

* Support projects such a district heating which uses low-level heat that is currently wasted.

* Allow energy prices to rise to the point where wind-power is economical and doesn't need to be subsidized.

* Build a vision of energy self-sufficiency similar to the vision of getting to the moon in the 1960's. Get passionate about it.

* Stop moaning about energy costs and stop blaming others for your problems.

/e gets off soapbox :)

When it comes to energy consumption, the U.S. has done a reasonable job on the supply side. Heck, many say that a major driving force for the Iraq war was to ensure oil supply.

If Iraq had nothing we wanted we wouldn't be there.
People are complaining about price of energy. Guess what, folks? Energy is too cheap!!! Not just a little too cheap either. It's hugely underpriced. I'd say a three-fold increase might bring things a bit more in line.

I sort of agree with this. We haven't seen inflation in energy prices that we've seen in every other sector. It has risen slowly for the last 20 years with a much bigger spike in the last several.

BUT! Here's what I don't understand... the economists say that the price of gas is related to demand. Ok, I can understand that. But why are the oil companies making such a huge profit? Shouldn't their costs be going up too? I still haven't heard a good explanation of this and I've listened to several economists squirming publically to explain it.


* Stop building roads in urban areas. Put in public transit in dedicated rights-of-way. If people can get to where they're going faster on public transit than in their personal vehicles, their behavior will change. Have you looked at public transit in a place like Houston? It's a disgrace.
Most of the US cities have terrible public transportation. Even with our highways grid-locked at rush hour in my city, it is STILL faster to go by car than PT.

* Stop moaning about energy costs and stop blaming others for your problems.
I feel like we have to make progress at solving the problems now, at the beginning of what is going to be a long, drawn-out crisis. With globalization the demands for energy are just going to increase and the problem will simply continue to worsen. If we don't start to solve the problems now we're going to be in a world of hurt in 10 years. So yeah, people need to whine and complain and get motivated to change and put people into office that will do something other than reach-arounds for big oil executives.

As usual Thicket, you're exactly right. You've got a pretty good soapbox there.

I could cut our gasoline consumption by 20% with just passing one law. 4 day work weeks. :p We could cut it another good chunk if more businesses would let people work from home a day or two a week.

Thicket, you're right. I remember a few years ago when prices shot up I commented here that people should be jealous of my more energy efficient car when their hog-of-a-gas-eater SUVs were becoming popular. The responses I got pretty much summed up to "Hey! If I can afford the gas, why should YOU worry about it?"

Face it. Even today in this crunch, the primary mentality is that having a monster SUV PROVES to the world that you are wealthy enough to afford the gas... it's the most common VISIBLE status symbol that has a devastating affect on all of us.

In the famous words of the infamous Alfred E. Neuman:
"What? Me worry?"

It appears that more than a few people are perceiving this as a thinly veiled attempt to buy their votes.

Sharp Reaction to G.O.P. Plan on Gas Rebate (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/01/us/01gas.html?ex=1304136000&en=2d18b609566326af&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)

By CARL HULSE and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: May 1, 2006

The Senate Republican plan to mail $100 checks to voters to ease the burden of high gasoline prices is eliciting more scorn than gratitude from the very people it was intended to help.

Aides for several Republican senators reported a surge of calls and e-mail messages from constituents ridiculing the rebate as a paltry and transparent effort to pander to voters before the midterm elections in November.

"The conservatives think it is socialist bunk, and the liberals think it is conservative trickery," said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, pointing out that the criticism was coming from across the ideological spectrum.

[More... (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/01/us/01gas.html?ex=1304136000&en=2d18b609566326af&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)]

* Ban the manufacture and use of regular incandescent bulbs. Force the use of energy-efficient fluorescent bulbs.

Then Swift will be on here posting links to the plethora of fluorescent bulb conspiracies that are out there =P

* Put a 200% surcharge on the purchase cost of gas-guzzling SUVs. Have a graduated scale that subsidizes the purchase cost of the most energy efficient vehicles and penalizes those with lower efficiency.

Despite popular notions, there is a large swath of the American public who have legitimate use for those gas-guzzling SUVs and pick-ups, and generally speaking, they aren't the folks who can afford a 60k car. Hell, living in Toledo, OH, I'm not inclined to move away from an SUV. Driving in the snow in a 2-wheel drive car sucks and is dangerous. If I keep driving my SUV, I can keep driving safe until my exhaust continues raising the temp. high enough that we don't have snow anymore =P

I only spent my college years in cold snowy places so I can't really comment on whether or not you MUST drive a SUV in parts of the country, but I seem to recall seeing smaller cars on the road.

Somehow, when I was a kid we had a typical sized sedan car and quite a large family to stuff into it. Nowadays people have one kid and they think it justifies buying an enormous car to haul around the kid. Of course, these days people take along a lot of props when they take their kids anywhere. Its like watching a circus traveling around. When my friends had twins they immediately went out to buy a mini-van. Not for the twins... but for all the stuff they carry around for the twins.

Then Swift will be on here posting links to the plethora of fluorescent bulb conspiracies that are out there =P

Shhh. you might summon him here.

Despite popular notions, there is a large swath of the American public who have legitimate use for those gas-guzzling SUVs and pick-ups, and generally speaking, they aren't the folks who can afford a 60k car. Hell, living in Toledo, OH, I'm not inclined to move away from an SUV. Driving in the snow in a 2-wheel drive car sucks and is dangerous. If I keep driving my SUV, I can keep driving safe until my exhaust continues raising the temp. high enough that we don't have snow anymore =P

Very true. Not everyone that owns SUVs drive Escalades and Expeditions either. Quite honestly, I do drive a SUV. I own a 2001 Explorer Sport with a Manual transmission. But, In New England 4WD weather ranges from 4 to 6 months a year and where I live requires it just to get to work some mornings. And in the Summer I need the tailgate, cargo capacity and occasionally the off road ability. But, It's not a large SUV (2 door) nor is it that bad on gas comparitively speaking. On top of all that, I payed less for it than I would have payed for a car with All wheel drive and reasonable trunk space.

For some there are other reasons to buy SUV's other than status too. A friend of mine got into an accident with his effecient commuter car a while back. He hit an Expedition and totalled his car. The Truck barely had a scratch. That week, he replaced his commuter car with a similar one, sold his wifes small care and got her an expedition solely for the safety of his wife and baby boy. I personally think he went for overkill, but it was his motivating factor.

Somehow, when I was a kid we had a typical sized sedan car and quite a large family to stuff into it. Nowadays people have one kid and they think it justifies buying an enormous car to haul around the kid.

Keep in mind, Typical sized sedans have shrunk down in size dramatically over the past 30 years. The Ancient Station Wagon my Dad still drives is heavier longer and wider than my Explorer.

I sort of agree with this. We haven't seen inflation in energy prices that we've seen in every other sector. It has risen slowly for the last 20 years with a much bigger spike in the last several.

Well, oil (and all other energy since the prices are linked) is twice as expensive in Europe already. It has not exactly destroyed our economies either. It did however encourage to invest in developing and using more energy efficient technology.


BUT! Here's what I don't understand... the economists say that the price of gas is related to demand. Ok, I can understand that. But why are the oil companies making such a huge profit? Shouldn't their costs be going up too? I still haven't heard a good explanation of this and I've listened to several economists squirming publically to explain it.

Basically because people like to think that 'supply and demand' (and the infamous 'competition of the free market' politicians like to tout as the best thing since sliced bread) drives the prices down.
In reality, and especially in cases where we have a monopoly or near-monopoly, it does not. It drives the prices up to the highest point that the buyers are capable of sustaining.


Most of the US cities have terrible public transportation. Even with our highways grid-locked at rush hour in my city, it is STILL faster to go by car than PT.

*shrugs* there are ways around that. At least in relatively dense population centers. Even the way cities typically are laid out in the USA there are efficient ways of public transportation possible.
The problem is plain and simple (political) will. Both from the politicians and from the people. Improving public transportation requires investments, and will require money being spent every year to keep it operating. This means taxes, which seems to be hitting a particularly sore nerve with a substantial portion of the voters. Being required to give up your 'independence' in a culture where people pride themselves in being able to go whenever they want and wherever they want, is something only a portion of the people are willing to even consider. Who uses public transportation? It is the people who are unable to drive their own car or can not afford to. In other words it is not the kind of people most Americans would like to think of themselves as being one. That is a huge psychological barrier to investing money in public transportation. Doubling, even tripling the cost of gas is not going to make any difference. Most people are still willing to pay whatever it cost to keep driving their cars and will keep doing so.


I feel like we have to make progress at solving the problems now, at the beginning of what is going to be a long, drawn-out crisis. With globalization the demands for energy are just going to increase and the problem will simply continue to worsen. If we don't start to solve the problems now we're going to be in a world of hurt in 10 years. So yeah, people need to whine and complain and get motivated to change and put people into office that will do something other than reach-arounds for big oil executives.

Already China is moving to secure their own supply of oil, by buying oil companies and by investing heavily in political goodwill of oil producing countries. Why do you think that the Chinese government is backing Iran against all logic? It is not because they are so fond of the current government of ultra-conservative war-mongering religious leaders there, nor are they all that happy to allow them to have a nuclear bomb or two. But they know that in 10 or 20 years they need to be friends with Iran to secure their own growing need for oil.
In a few more years India (another country with over a billion people living in it) will start to realise that they too, will need access to oil if they want to keep their current economic boom to continue (and able to feed their mushrooming population). That is another country driving the price of oil up, and at the same time the supply of oil is going to continue to dwindle.
So, yes, it is not simply a good idea, but it is absolutely imparative to start using the current wealth and oil supply to start working towards an entire political, social, technological and cultural system that does not require oil. (at least not to burn it for heat, locomotion and electricity). Because if we do not start doing so now, by the time we are forced to, the exploding cost of oil will seriously cramp our economic ability to build entirely new infrastructures and raise a new generation that does not look to oil as the solution to every problem.


Eri