Gas prices reach above $5 in California

redstaterebel · Joined: 05 Dec 2007 Posts: 128

I'm glad you asked.

My reason is environmental.

Higher gasoline prices are the ONLY way to reduce our dependency on oil. At $5/gallon, you will see more carpooling, less Hummers and Suburbans, more hybrids, more E-85 stations, more electric cars coming out of Detroit and Japan. We would drive less, we would get more efficient cars, we could breath better.

I think that we are already seeing it - at $3/gallon. I work in the auto industry - Tahoes, Suburbans, and Hummers aren't flying off the shelves like they used to.

Your concern about the higher prices trickling into prices of goods and services is valid. Everything at our local grocery store arrives on a truck. I sure thought it would happen at $50 per barrel. It hasn't. The gov't can tweak that though - with less tax on Diesel, or tax credits for the transport companies.

Gasoline was about $1.50 not so long ago - its doubled. Not because of taxation, but because of the price tag for a barrel of oil. I wish it was because of the tax instead - which of course would add dollars to our treasury.

Kizzume · Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:57 am Post subject:

Unfortunately, you are right about the fact that higher gas prices is the ONLY thing that will force a change in this situation.

Hackfest · Joined: 04 Dec 2007 Posts: 413

I think that it would need to increase more than that to REALLY make a change. An interesting comparison, although not entirely the same, is cigarettes, at least in Washington State. I remember when Marlboros were 3 bucks a pack. Everyone I knew said that they were quitting when it became 4 bucks a pack. They all still smoke today at 6 bucks a pack, some places $6.75 per pack. Granted, the addiction is different than gasoline, but people are addicted to their ways, and carpooling and the such impedes on their ways.

redstaterebel · Joined: 05 Dec 2007 Posts: 128

I think that's right. And the Cigarette comparison is spot on.

The problem with the artificial inflation through taxes - of course #1 is that it will never happen.
Imagine one of these Presidential candidates proposing that - no chance.

The problem is that no one wants to pay for a cleaner environment nor for alternative fuels. Too many people are all for doing something about this issue - as long as it doesn't cost "ME" anything.

Kizzume · Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:58 am Post subject:

I believe you are correct.

redstaterebel · Joined: 05 Dec 2007 Posts: 128

How much is gasoline in Seattle?

In Tampa we are just over $3. I work at a Chevy dealer - we still sell lots of Tahoes, Suburbans. $3 isn't enough.

Do you have gas guzzler tax out there? Perhaps expanding that would help as well. Right now its on cars that get less than around 15mpg. Dodge Vipers etc. Corvette doesn't have to pay it - 25mpg.

Imagine applying a $3k gas guzzler tax on any car getting under 30mpg - that would get the ball rolling as well.

Kizzume · Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:59 am Post subject:

So, tax classic cars too?

Hackfest · Joined: 04 Dec 2007 Posts: 413

Interesting about the classic cars. That doesn't seem right. I think it should only apply if you buy the junk now that gets the bad millage. You buy a classic car for a different reason. Anyway Rebel, gas was $3.30 two days ago in Tacoma, WA., which means $3.50 in Seattle, or thereabouts.

Kizzume · Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:00 pm Post subject:

Well, the reason for the classic car is primarily to have something really old that still looks nice, but the other reason is to have a vehicle that has an enormous amount of power. A person or panel of people could decide that having a power vehicle is a similar reason to those who get Hummers, and would try to bend the law to go towards that route. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it could be argued.

Sometimes I wonder if the conspiracy theories about oil companies buying out patents for things that would/could reduce or eliminate the need for oil might actually have some truth to them. Doubtful, severely doubtful in reality, but I still wonder.

redstaterebel · Joined: 05 Dec 2007 Posts: 128

They could grandfather in the classics - I was thinking new cars only when I wrote that.

Ya know my 67 mustang didn't have seat belts - in Michigan I got a pass on the seat belt law because it was so old.

Kizzume · Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:00 pm Post subject:

That makes sense, since new cars already cost an amount that is far beyond most people's budgets anyway, unless they're living completely on credit and are already hundreds of thousands in debt or it becomes the beginning of such.

How about used cars that are only 5 years old? Would they have the tax too, or are we only talking brand new cars?

technocrat · Joined: 04 Dec 2007 Posts: 216

We need to start abandoning cars anyway and starting thinking of a post-personal automobile future. It's not possible to maintain this car/suburban culture. It's too inefficient and consumes too many resources wastefully. We ought to be moving toward urbanization and increased mass transit clustered in those urban centres and between them. Automobiles are some of the most inefficient transportation mechanisms, and everyone doesn't need one, most especially petrol monsters. Trains, trollies are far more effective at transport.

People need to get used to the idea that wasteful consumption will not last forever. You can have a pretty high quality of life without pissing resources away with everyone having multiple cars, driving them all around willy nilly.

We actually have pretty cheap gas prices, even if they become 5 dollars per galleon; Americans have been spoiled by artificially cheap gas prices. Other countries have far, far higher gas prices for significantly smaller quantities of gasoline. The country needs to make some serious lifestyle changes. We live far too much beyond our means, and other countries are trying to play catch-up, and it's devastating the planet.

Personally, I would like to see the complete destruction of suburbia and it's waste-of-space McMansions and green lawns. It's going to happen anyway, so no one needs to do anything about it. It will just be too expensive in the future and fuel will be too scarce. This really si the message I was promoting in that thread on OnTheLeft. The problem is that people want to deny the problem and keep thinking the future is going to be peachy. It's scary, and denial helps people get through it. Sadly, it also leaves them entirely unprepared.

Kizzume · Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:02 pm Post subject:

True, we do need to start abandoning cars, but it's going to be a while before we are at a point where we can start doing that.

I was really disappointed that the light rail system didn't get expanded in the Puget Sound area. Nobody wanted to pay the higher taxes, which is unfortunate. The republican anti-lightrail ads were quite extreme. I wish I had an example to show you of how extreme the ads were.

I agree that a lawn is a total waste of space. If you're going to have an area like that, fill it with vegetation that looks nice without having to constantly mow it--I've never understood the whole lawn thing. But when it comes to wasted space--people NEED to have some wasted space or we'll get the rats-in-a-cage syndrome, and that's not pretty. There MUST be extra space.

The bad thing about everyone being all clustered together is how vulnerable a whole city is. One big bomb and millions of people die. Awful. I like the idea of being more spead out.

jq · Joined: 02 Dec 2007 Posts: 1124

Don't forget that if we get rid of cars, we will also be getting rid of thousands of union jobs!

Kizzume · Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:03 pm Post subject:

You mean all those jobs overseas where they get paid pocket change? Smile