$4/gallon, here we come!

May 3, 2004 12:42 PM

The gas shortage won't get better. Paid more at the pump recently? I hope you don't drive an SUV -- things could get really painful really fast. Demand is always increasing for gasoline, but now we're hitting a point where refineries can't actually refine enough gas to meet demand, and very few places in the world can supply gasoline that meets our environmental standards.
posted by SpecialK (121 comments total)

Opinion article, yes, but the author's a broker -- shortages and dramatic price increases don't necessarily help his business. It's not alarmist, which is the scariest thing to me.

Personally, I'm glad I own a motorcycle that gets close to 50 mpg.
posted by SpecialK at 12:45 PM on May 3, 2004

Takin e-it to the streets.
posted by clavdivs at 12:47 PM on May 3, 2004

I'm glad I bought a Prius.
posted by me3dia at 12:47 PM on May 3, 2004

Can't -- or won't -- refine enough gasoline?

-- Proud Civic Hybrid owner.
posted by dewelch at 12:50 PM on May 3, 2004

Gasoline, even after all the costs of exploration, drilling, transportation, refining, and taxes, is still really cheap. A gallon of gas costs less than almost any other liquid you can buy.

Filling your car up with Pepsi would be more expensive.
posted by rajbot at 12:53 PM on May 3, 2004

Filling your car up with Pepsi would be more expensive.

Yeah, but the Constitution doesn't promise cheap Pepsi like it does cheap gas.
posted by Mayor Curley at 12:58 PM on May 3, 2004

I believe I am seriously in the minority (although not perhaps at MeFi) in thinking that an extra $2/gallon federal excise tax on gas would be a good thing. It would encourage conservation and pass along the real cost on the environment to the polluter.
posted by caddis at 1:05 PM on May 3, 2004

$2/gallon federal excise tax on gas would be a good thing

Agreed, though it would probably bankrupt the country overnight. In theory though, I'm all for it. Maybe just on gas purchases over 20 gallons (I really have no idea about gallons), or whatever goes into the tank of the smallest SUV? At the least it would inconvenience people into making multiple stops to fill up a third of their tank, make them think twice about buying another, and leave more responsible car owners alone.
posted by loquax at 1:11 PM on May 3, 2004

better would be to add a ?0% tax on all vehicles that get less than 20mpg.
posted by crunchland at 1:13 PM on May 3, 2004

Until, of course, late Octoberish, when the Bush pals in Saudi Arabia, lower prices before the election.
posted by moonbird at 1:16 PM on May 3, 2004

Better yet to just kill the bastard SUV drivers and set fire to their homes.

When their families run screaming from their burning homes then they too will be shot, and then run over by an army of Civic Hybrids and Prius cars.

Ah, how sweet the taste of victory.
posted by xmutex at 1:16 PM on May 3, 2004

My car gets about 26 or 27 miles to the gallon.

So, does this mean I'm 35% more righteous than an SUV driver whose vehicle gets 20 MPH ?
posted by troutfishing at 1:27 PM on May 3, 2004

Oops. That's MPG.

The SUV's will go 20 MPH when all the gas has run out and they are pulled by teams of draft horses.
posted by troutfishing at 1:29 PM on May 3, 2004

better would be to add a ?0% tax on all vehicles that get less than 20mpg.

Sorta like the Gas Guzzler Tax?
posted by techgnollogic at 1:29 PM on May 3, 2004

My friend's Rock-Star-Style-Million-Dollar-Super-Bus gets around 10mpg, and it's freaking HUGE. I'm amazed at its efficiency - my car wieghs a few TONS less and can only go twice as far per gallon (unleaded vs diesel of course).

I'm all for more efficient vehicles.
posted by tomplus2 at 1:36 PM on May 3, 2004

I <3 my Bridgestone.
posted by Fezboy! at 1:50 PM on May 3, 2004

Considering how much the rest of the world pays for "gas", Americans complaining about their prices rising looks quite ridiculous. The US really is addicted to cheap gas, and it's about time it woke up to reality.
posted by reklaw at 1:53 PM on May 3, 2004

I'm outfitting my car, as land-ship, with a mainsail woven from hemp fibers infused with rare trace metals that will enable it to catch blowing gusts of political campaign rhetoric.

I'm also working on a jib, for auxiliary power, that will catch the rising winds of xenophobic hatred.
posted by troutfishing at 1:54 PM on May 3, 2004

troutfishing: ha ha!
posted by xmutex at 1:55 PM on May 3, 2004

MetaFilter: catching the rising winds of xenophobic hatred
posted by tippiedog at 1:57 PM on May 3, 2004

I'm welding spikes onto my bumper a'la Road Warrior now. I'm also downloading some Tina Turner from Kazaa just in case.
posted by Keith Talent at 2:06 PM on May 3, 2004

Before the self-rightiousness gets any thicker in here, I would just like to point out that not all of the country is urban and temperate. Put another way, folks where I live don't drive SUVs for the "cool" factor. We do it because its sometimes the only way to get around. Add to that the fact that the town I live in is 140 miles from a hospital with a full cardio ward, and you might get the idea that rising gas prices aren't just a pet moral issue. High gas prices hurt people, often those least able to absorb the hurt.

Rural areas are disproportionately negatively impacted by soaring gas prices, and before anybody else pulls a Nelson ("HAH_HAH") kindly remember who raises your food, and how far it has to be trucked to you. Also try and keep in mind that the Amazon fairy doesn't wisk your new book to you via magic wand, and your local retailer can't very well afford to have his inventory of mountain bikes shipped in a Prius, can he?
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:10 PM on May 3, 2004

caddis, I agree. We should sin tax other items. For example, hamburgers should cost $20 each, and steaks $200 each, being that they aren't healthy. We all know how much extra methane unhealthy people produce.

Also, we should tax vegetables $400 each unless they are hand picked. All that machinery is no good for the environment.

While we're at it, let's tax computer usage. All that plastic is made from oil, too. I say $10,000 a computer. That should cover it.

How about books? Every book made cuts down a tree. Let's tax them at least $25,000 each.

...Or, we could just realize that, AS I HAVE PREDICTED, for the longest time, we will never run out of gas because prices will rise to the point where people finally drive non-gas vehicles.

And we could realize that governments will find much more offensive ways to spend an extra $2 a gallon than you could ever think of. Camp X-Ray vol. 2, here we go!
posted by shepd at 2:16 PM on May 3, 2004

The curious thing is that..this is hardly news. Here's a nice wikipedia link in which you'll see oil crisis isn't an invention of year 2k as the first crisis happened 30 years ago.

We had 30 years to do something..I wonder how much was done to really _reduce_ the quantity of crude oil everybody needs (for plastics, basic chemicals & energy)..I suspect seven companies didn't agree and don't agree with the strategy of reducing demand.
posted by elpapacito at 2:16 PM on May 3, 2004

kindly remember who raises your food, and how far it has to be trucked to you

... and how little of the cost is fuel, given that your head of lettuce shares a truck with thousands of others.

Assuming a 16-wheeler gets mileage something like tomplus2's friend's bus (10 MPG), and a driver averages 50 MPH, and diesel is $2 a gallon, fuel costs $10/hr. The driver costs more.
posted by kindall at 2:17 PM on May 3, 2004

It's not just the refineries that could present as bottlenecks...

The idea that Saudi oil reserves are drying up was certainly not something that the Saudi oil finance ministers and their U.S. counterparts would have admitted. In fact, they lined up to say that the industrial world has nothing to worry about on the oil front for decades. That so many high-ranking Saudi and US officials should gather in public to tell us not to worry should be quite worrisome.

posted by meehawl at 2:22 PM on May 3, 2004

Don't forget the fuel that's used by the farmer's equipment, and the fuel that's used to deliver his fertilizer.

Furthermore, a 10 mpg load-carrying tractor-trailer is a fiction, unless it's hauling goose down. Even then, I seriously doubt it.
posted by trharlan at 2:23 PM on May 3, 2004

kindall, what is your point? Are you arguing that rising gas prices won't be reflected in the cost of your lettuce, because truck drivers cost more than diesal fuel? That doesn't make very much sense, does it?

(Personally, I was thinking more of beef and milk, but hey, if ranchers, farmers, truckers and trucking companies are willing to absorb the added costs, we got no problem, right?)
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:25 PM on May 3, 2004

kindly remember who raises your food, and how far it has to be trucked to you

Drumlin Farm: Trucked 5 miles
Far Look Farm: 40 miles
Harmony Valley Farm: 75 miles
Future Fruit Orchard: 41 miles
JenEhr Farm: 6 miles

Buy from local farmers!
posted by rocketman at 2:27 PM on May 3, 2004

Wulfgar:

I know where you're coming from, but I can't say I agree. We had a perfectly delineated system of what vehicles you bought for different situations: it sounds like you'd be a truck guy. I'm kinda a car guy, my parents were truck people. It worked. Variants such as station wagons were also available.

But what would the most likely use for one of the SUVs that were sold today?
posted by sleslie at 2:29 PM on May 3, 2004

Wulfgar!, you act like milk only comes from Alaska, and beef from Argentina. And the only way to get it to us is to drive it.
posted by rocketman at 2:29 PM on May 3, 2004

Put another way, folks where I live don't drive SUVs for the "cool" factor. We do it because its sometimes the only way to get around.

Jeeze, Wulfgar -- what did people do before the introduction of the Suburban, just die on the plains?
posted by Ogre Lawless at 2:30 PM on May 3, 2004

Sleslie, you've hit on why the SUV is so damn popular, it has merged the truck and station wagon segments (aka the Family Truckster).

Ogre, they drove station wagons... which were just as bad on gas then as SUVs are now.
posted by tj at 2:32 PM on May 3, 2004

I was reading some posts elsewhere today where this was being discussed. One truck driver says with a full load on the highway she gets about 7.5mpg. That is a newer streamlined truck with better mileage. Her old truck got about 5.5. Of course that is only two trucks. Local gravel truck driver told me once that his truck gets about 3.5 mpg, but that is in the stop and go driving around town. Any truck drivers here with better information?
posted by bargle at 2:33 PM on May 3, 2004

I am going to have to get off my butt and start riding my bike to work. It's only 23 miles one way.

I live in a rural area, and there are actually tons of places where it would be *nice* to have an SUV, but we do have pavement all the way to town. My front wheel drive gold handles ok. I just spent $250 to get my oxygen sensor replaced, which will save me $20 a month at current gas prices.

My bike is cooler than your prius, anyway: [he said, in denial and envy]

It would take approximately five billion years for the gas savings from your Prius to pay for itself. I still want one.


posted by mecran01 at 2:40 PM on May 3, 2004

sleslie - But what would the most likely use for one of the SUVs that were sold today?

I'm not sure what your driving at, here. A lot more SUVs were purchased today in LA than were bought across the whole state of Montana. Do those folks need the capabilities more? Obviously not. But there is no delineated system that tells people what they can and cannot buy, nor any system to make fuel cost less in those areas where its "needed" more. We got 21 inches of snow the day after Christmas. What did LA get?

So if there is some effort to tax SUVs, or gas, in an effort to make SUVs go away, then my point is brought into sharper focus: those most negatively impacted by the rising costs of driving a utility vehicle are those who often can afford it the least. Thank you, by the way, for understanding that in some parts of the country, there is only a minimal distinction between a pickup truck and an SUV. They get about the same mileage, and they're used for many of the same things, at least around here.

rocketman - Wulfgar!, you act like milk only comes from Alaska, and beef from Argentina. And the only way to get it to us is to drive it.

I'm not acting anything, and you just laid the smelliest straw man egg I've seen around here for many weeks. Do you or don't you believe that rising fuel costs will spur the inflation of necessary goods? Argue or don't. But I assure you, somebody had to buy some gas to get your milk to Safeway. And if it costs them more, it will cost you more.

Ogre Lawless - Jeeze, Wulfgar -- what did people do before the introduction of the Suburban, just die on the plains?

Sometimes, they did just that. Or they rode horses, or pickups, or old International Scouts ... what you enlightened modern folk call your newfangled SUVs. What's your point?

And for the record, I don't live on the plains. I live in the mountains.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:56 PM on May 3, 2004

quit yer belly-achin and pay the fuckin suv tax.
posted by crunchland at 3:08 PM on May 3, 2004

Pollution creates externalities for society, that is effects born not by the polluter, but by someone else, generally society as a whole. If the polluter had to actually pay the cost of these externalities they would make more rational economic choices about the acceptable level of pollution. I am not sure what the exact level of tax would be to pay for these externalities from vehicle pollution, but the current 18 cent (I think) federal tax is not enough. Economists have been debating this issue for years, but economists don't get to make these decisions, politicians do. If they want to get re-elected, politicians don't vote for outrageously high taxes, which I agree a $2/gallon gasoline tax would be. In addition to pollution, our increasing gasoline diet forces us into uncomfortable positions vis-a-vis oil producing countries. Some say the war in Iraq is just about oil. I don't agree, but it was certainly one of the factors.

Regardless of your terrain, I believe SUVs are still purchased as much for the cool factor as anything else. I love Montana, but I never seem to see many Subarus there (except with CA tags). Small 4x4s will get you through just about any situation that a Ford Explorer will. For true off roading I'd rather have a Jeep CJ than most of the crap Detroit now passes off as 4x4. Of course if you buy a Subaru in some areas of the west your neighbors will probably think you are some sort of pinko and won't let their children play with your children.

I am not against SUVs per se. I would love to see fuel efficient, powerful hybrids make it. Right now they are too small to be practical for most people and too expensive. However, I also think it is sort of selfish to drive a huge SUV in an urban area. Heaven forbid you hit somebody.
posted by caddis at 3:10 PM on May 3, 2004

Whoa, so does this mean that all of us folks who have been saying for ages that the market won't allow the total depletion of fossil fuels because prices will rice to compensate for scarcity have been right all along? And that the market will then prompt the further development and acceptance of alternative (Prius) fuel (Insight) vehicles (Civic), saving us from the economic and ecological doom that alarmists have been screaming about for years?

Wow. Whoulda thunk it.

</Snark>
posted by jammer at 3:11 PM on May 3, 2004

didja hear they wanna tax email?
posted by NationalKato at 3:14 PM on May 3, 2004

quit yer belly-achin and pay the fuckin suv tax.

Happily, I will ... the very day that Cheney's energy commission offers complete and unequivocal exposure, and Bush releases all records and correspondence between his family, their company holdings, and the royal house of Saud. Sound fair?

on preview: I love Montana, but I never seem to see many Subarus there (except with CA tags).

You weren't looking very hard. According to the local Subaru/Jeep/Audi dealer (which sells more Subarus than any other outlet in the state) Subarus outsell any other make of car in Montana by a factor of 3 to 1. I realize this is only anecdotal, but I talked to the guy (Dick is name, and he's a great guy) just a week and a half ago. But let me ask you, have you ever tried to haul 6 hay bails in an Outback? Not so doable.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:21 PM on May 3, 2004

SUVs could be controlled really really simply: categorize them as large cars rather than trucks.

Hey presto, suddenly fewer people buy them, because they can't depreciate them as aggressively. Folks who actually need pickup trucks will continue to use those, and nobody has to introduce unusual new taxation schemes.

All the gov't would have to do is say "a truck has to have a separate cargo area or else it's not a truck". Camper shells are unaffected, king-cabs are unaffected, and so on.

...also, an 18 wheel tractor-trailer rig, going 60mph, with a gross vehicle weight of 80,000lbs should average about 6mpg.

Interestingly enough, a nickel per gallon increase in diesel cost equals a penny increase in cost-per-mile on the truck, so a 40cent fuel increase adds about $10,000 in extra costs per truck per year.

Found here.
posted by aramaic at 3:22 PM on May 3, 2004

aramaic, that's a terrific idea, but it doesn't help those affected by rising gas prices. Rural areas are still more heavily impacted by the rising cost of fuel.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:30 PM on May 3, 2004

Rural areas are still more heavily impacted by the rising cost of fuel.

...um, I wasn't trying to address that, I was trying to get the SUV issue out of the thread so that we can go back to more serious implications of increased gas prices.
posted by aramaic at 3:32 PM on May 3, 2004

It's very obvious that half of you didn't read the darned article.

This has nothing to do with crude oil shortages, (which is what they poke holes in the ground to get), this has to do with refined gasoline. You have to refine crude oil to get gasoline. There isn't enough refinery capacity to make enough gasoline for our consumption rate right now. Sheesh.
posted by SpecialK at 3:39 PM on May 3, 2004

you act like milk only comes from Alaska, and beef from Argentina

mmm...argentine beef. I could really use an asado right now.

-a hungry cyclist
posted by John at 3:45 PM on May 3, 2004

There isn't enough refinery capacity to make enough gasoline for our consumption rate

I assumed that talk of taxation was aimed at reducing that consumption rate.
posted by loquax at 3:52 PM on May 3, 2004

I'm shocked (almost) speechless to hear the market actually endorsed as a solution by not one, but two, posters who aren't me. And, of course, there is absolutely no long-term problem with gasoline supply that the market won't solve with elegant dispatch.

In the short term, though, it may be troubling. I wouldn't want to be a Saudi Arabian prince when the vast American middle class starts begging for a solution, any solution, to that nasty $3.75 a gallon problem.
posted by MattD at 4:06 PM on May 3, 2004

SpecialK, I don't recall anybody here arguing against the point you stridently think we've all missed. It appears to me that we all accept that gas prices are going up due to a shortage of capacity to refine. How do we deal with it is the issue. Was there something you'd like to add?

I assumed that talk of taxation was aimed at reducing that consumption rate.

This is the part that actually has me the most curious. Would taxation actually reduce consumption? I have argued (and believe that I'm correct) that rising gas prices (whether due to taxation or supply) will negatively affect rural areas least capable of absorbing the increase. But I'd like to see some evidence that increasing the gas price either way will positively affect out-of-control consumption, without leading to devastated rural communities. Does anybody have figures to support such a claim? Or is this just another boondogle where the morally correct benefit the profit of the morally bankrupt in an effort to do "the right thing"? Regardless of refining capacity, oil/gas companies will still retain profit. If we artificially advance the retail of petroleum product, are we just amassing more wealth via those that can afford to pay higher prices, or are we coercing those who must have the product for the benifit of those who profit? Where is the proof that increased retail price will cause a decrease in demand?

("Oh look, Marleen, we can take twice the trips to Grandma's now that we have a Prius". "Sorry there, Stan, but we've got to forclose on the truck because you can't pay your bill at the co-op.")
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:15 PM on May 3, 2004

"Where is the proof that increased retail price will cause a decrease in demand?"

That's a good question. This article suggests that people will cut back elsewhere before they'll cut back on gas purchases.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:20 PM on May 3, 2004

Wulfgar! you're totally right. I don't have a car and live in a city with public transit, so I don't care, but it would affect rural populations that don't have a choice. Clearly.

As for taxation reducing consumption, I think there's a pretty straight line in economics between higher cost and reduced consumption. I know that if gas prices were substantial higher, say, only in metropolitan areas, I would think a lot more carefully about even occasionally renting as I am want to do. I would be curious to see what the average urban gas consumption rates in Europe or Australia with their much higher prices are compared to the ones in North America.

That being said, seeing Lincoln Navigators and tricked-out pickup trucks motoring to downtown clubs here drives me crazy on principle.
posted by loquax at 4:23 PM on May 3, 2004

That article is insane Mr_Crash. Clearly I do not understand the attachment people have to consuming as much gas as possible. I recluse myself from this discussion.

(for now...)
posted by loquax at 4:26 PM on May 3, 2004

The article is about a possible gasoline shortage. Farm equipment and 18-wheelers run on diesel. Diesel fuel is not gasoline. Nothing in this article indicates an impending diesel fuel shortage. Also, a gas tax would only tax gas, not diesel fuel, and long-haul truckers would be unaffected. So why are so many people talking about trucks?
posted by skoosh at 4:36 PM on May 3, 2004

loquax, I think it's because for a lot of people gas isn't a luxury item, it's a necessity. I drive 50 miles round-trip to and from work four days a week. I work off-hours, so I can't use the (painfully inadequate) public transportation system, and due to the weird hours and the distance involved I'm not likely to find anyone to carpool with. With the price of gas having gone up 50 cents a gallon in the last few months I've had to cut back on some discretionary spending to make up for the increase in the necessary cost of getting to work and back.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:38 PM on May 3, 2004

Wulfgar!:

I do not buy milk at Safeway. I buy it directly from the farmer. As I do with my vegetables, my beef, my pork, and when the season allows, my fruit.

All of them live 75 miles or less from my home. Everyone in the country has the ability to shop as I do - from local farmers - but choose not to, for reasons of convenience.

And that is also why people choose to drive SUVs: convenience, not need.
posted by rocketman at 4:39 PM on May 3, 2004

Mr_Crash - No, you're right, that's not what I meant to imply. Like I said in the comment before that, I agree that higher costs negatively impact those who require cars. I just can't understand it because I don't have a car and don't know anyone who *needs* one.

No offense meant! (As long as you're not driving an Escalade in Manhattan!)
posted by loquax at 4:42 PM on May 3, 2004

Everyone in the country has the ability to shop as I do - from local farmers - but choose not to, for reasons of convenience.

Some people can't afford to.
posted by swank6 at 4:54 PM on May 3, 2004

Anyone can afford to, but choose to spend money on other things. If it was important enough to them, they would do it.

I have made it a priority, therefore I do without other things, thus the inconvenience.
posted by rocketman at 5:05 PM on May 3, 2004

And for the record, I have no problem with people in rural areas driving trucks. If a farmer needs a big-ass truck to haul equipment and supplies, I can understand that.

I live in a small-ish city and drive the most fuel-efficient car I can afford. Should the price of a gallon of gas go up and remain above $2 a gallon, I'll probably start biking to work year-round.
posted by rocketman at 5:09 PM on May 3, 2004

Price of living where I am now: $700/month
Price of living within walking distance of work: $1200/month
Difference: $500

Amount I currently spend on gas, driving to and from work, with gas prices around $2/gal: $100/month

Amount gas would have to cost before it would be cost-effective for me to move into town: $10/gal

Of course, if that happens, a lot of people will want to move into town, so the $1200/month place would probably increase to $2400 and it'll remain cost-effective for me to live where I live now.

(Obviously I'm going to have a car wherever I live. I'm not poor, after all.)
posted by kindall at 5:26 PM on May 3, 2004

rocketman, though I greatly respect your choices, I would like to point out that what you advocate simply shifts the burden of consumption ... it doesn't alleviate it. One truck driving to Safeway, or 500 people driving to the local dairy (if such a thing exists). Hard choice.

If we could live tribally, as you advocate, it still wouldn't remove the burden of shipping to densely urban areas. Furthermore, rural areas require hard goods that can't be provided locally, and hence the problem remains. Someone has to ship the equipment that provides the milk you drink or the beef/chicken/pork you eat.

Finally, part of my objections in this thread relate to the idea that those who know better/choose wiser/ have more self interest should be able to choose for others. As has been pointed out, dickheads in Manhattan are driving Escalades while Montana ranchers are struggling to afford gas for their '78 F150's. It would be nice if we could say that these people get the gas, and you people pay more. The market doesn't work that way. The one thing that we can be sure of is that Exxon will make the required profit for their shareholders, regardless.
posted by Wulfgar! at 5:29 PM on May 3, 2004

Also, a gas tax would only tax gas, not diesel fuel, and long-haul truckers would be unaffected. So why are so many people talking about trucks?

skoosh, the price of diesel does not stand alone. It is tied to the price of gas by a formula set by the oil/gas companies, not by shear market forces. If the price of gas reaches $3.00/gallon, I guarantee you that diesel will be with 25% of that, regardless of refining capacity or overhead tax burden. If you find me wrong, please call me out and I will apologize publicly here in this forum.
posted by Wulfgar! at 5:39 PM on May 3, 2004

People talk about the disruption to their way of life as if everything will remain static. If energy costs continue to rise to the point where things become untenable, the process of adaptation can occur over the same period of time.

The way of life we're talking about -- shopping at superstores, living 75 miles from where you work -- it took time to get to this point, and it's made possible by cheap energy. It'll take time to readapt -- better transportation systems, smaller business and shopping areas where people actually live, extending the option of telework to more people. It will suck, for some, but you have to live with the choices you've made. The world doesn't owe you a painless rescue from what (in many cases) will be a self-inflicted predicament.
posted by George_Spiggott at 5:43 PM on May 3, 2004

Sorry, got called away to do actual work. Didn't have the time to reply adequately. There's so many self-righteous misconceptions in this thread that I'm just going to throw all this out there in no particular order.

elpapacito -- This shortage is caused by a different reason than the 70's shortage. The 70's shortages was a crude oil supply problem caused by political issues. (Revolutions and whatnot.)
This shortage is a refining issue; there isn't enough refining capacity, no matter how much crude we have, to produce the required amount of unleaded sulfur-free gasoline.

As far as taxes go, look at cigarette taxes -- in a lot of areas, the cigarette taxes double the cost of cigarettes. Has it worked? No.

Wulfgar, get off your high (and to use your terminology, 'strident') horse ... See, we've got too many farmers in this big ol' country of ours. We're paying them NOT to grow shit. Gee, if food prices go up because farmers up and quit and therefore grow less food, maybe it'll become profitable for the remainders farm again! And actually, it's not the small rural farmer and his pickup truck that is producing our food these days, it's large factory farms. Get used to it. Those smaller farmers that hold on do because they fill a niche market (i.e. Organic) that's less price-sensitive. Also, they receive significant tax write-offs for their vehicles that should more than make up for the cost of the extra gas they consume versus a typical consumer's sedan.

What I'm seeing in this thread is that a lot of people need to go back to basic economics. As supply goes down, price goes up. If the government steps in and tries to control things, it's easy for them to spin out of control. (i.e. ... with agribusiness!) And when the price of a basic commodity, such as gasoline, goes up... everything gets more expensive. Everything's also interconnected; when the price of something that goes into something else goes up, the price of the thing it goes into will go up as well.

All the talk about Saudi lowering prices -- not gonna happen. They've been increasing them because of diminishing supply and the difficulty with extracting current reserves..., they're not about to decrease them more. And besides, it wouldn't help. We're not talking about a crude oil shortage here. We're talking about a gasoline refining capacity shortage. Saudi Arabia or "Bush's friends" don't have anything to do with a refinery shortage and cannot do anything to rectify it. Go read the article again.

What's worse is that the gasoline companies (i.e. Shell) have been taking huge losses recently because they had to write off some old reserves they had on their books as assets to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley. Many companies have gotten trashed financially recently due to these writeoffs and can't get the financing they'd need to expand their refining capacity.

Everyone's correct in that prices of EVERYTHING will go up as fuel costs go up. It's a base commodity. (I agree, there's no mention of diesel prices going up, but a lot of local delivery trucks and other economically necessary vehicles run off of it.) Of course, when prices on everything go up, we call it an inflationary force, which the government is trying to avoid right now. Very few people watch industrial supply-side numbers, but prices are almost double on a lot of basic commodities compared to a year ago. (And don't even get me started on the price of steel... I haven't looked in the past few weeks, but it's skyrocketing, especially since there's a coke shortage ... coke being one of the materials necessary to turn iron into steel, not a popular soft drink or narcotic.) Personally, I think we're in for a very, very bumpy economic road over the next few months. Seriously, don't sign any long-term contracts right now unless you negotiate a price-change clause... unless inflation would be in your favor. ;)

So... in the short term, it's gonna hurt. But there isn't really anything we can do about it except point out to the asshats we voted into our government (And by the way, if you want Kerry to win, cross your fingers and pray that gas hits $3/gallon nationwide -- Bush will never survive that, even though it isn't his fault.) what they did wrong. Personally, I've bought a motorcycle that gets 50 mpg... I don't really care where gas prices go. ;)
posted by SpecialK at 5:48 PM on May 3, 2004

Thank you, George, that was the point I forgot to make... and it was worded much better than I'm capable of.
posted by SpecialK at 5:49 PM on May 3, 2004

SpecialK: What crawled up your ass and died?
posted by jpoulos at 5:53 PM on May 3, 2004

I'd like to see some evidence that increasing the gas price either way will positively affect out-of-control consumption, without leading to devastated rural communities.

In most of Europe petrol prices are 2-3 times higher than the US. This is coupled with much higher fuel efficiencies, more diesel usage, less edge cities/superstores, and, but by no means least, a flourishing agricultural economy. Of course, it's beyond the terms of reference here to trace correlations and causations...

Granted, some farming areas of Europe are depressed and declining, but so are many similar areas within the US. There are some counties in Nebraska and other impoverished US states, for example, where the average GDP is around $6000. That's lower than the average in some of the newly admitted, impoverished eastern EU states such as Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.

So I see no conclusion that higher petrol prices lead inevitably to devastated rural communities. There are other, stronger factors at work influencing the continual migration into urban areas.
posted by meehawl at 5:53 PM on May 3, 2004

Hey Keith Talent: "We don't need another hero."
posted by sharpener at 6:09 PM on May 3, 2004

jpoulos: Overeducated "socially conscious" care-bear liberals.

(Some present company excluded, of course; I just spent half a day arguing about this with people who want the gub'ment legislate everything and control prices and keep blue-collar manufacturing jobs in america against the pressure of the market to outsource these non-knowledge jobs overseas... which will kill the US economy in the long run. Look at our merchant marine, for instance... or our lack thereof.)
posted by SpecialK at 6:10 PM on May 3, 2004

I am currently converting my motorcycle to run on ethanol. the mechanical conversion is quick and fairly easy, finding a supplier for 180 proof at a decent price is tricky.
posted by 12345 at 6:13 PM on May 3, 2004

See what crash_davis said:

I drive 50 miles round-trip to and from work
so he must do that or change job, easier said then done EVEN if one is a youngster these days


1) add weird-hours (call it flexibility like companies HR do)

2) which makes carpooling unlikely (oohh but we're flexible yeah ? Not when it comes to organizing
ourselves cause we devote our life to the fuxin company ..which requires flexibility for company
not for us)

3) put the fact crash_davis doesn't find the public transportation adequate to his demands (obvious, public trans
runs on a fixed schedule, Crash doesn't)


Sum it up: Crash cuts on what is _not_ necessary, cause in economic terms (cry default if you studied lots of economics)
his demand for fuel is not elastic at all. Why ? Is Crash crazy ? Nah Crash doesn't have many alternatives.

Oil companies know that well, so they can rise price knowing that a number of people _rely_ on cars to go to their
jobs ; others only guzzle gas to parade around in SUV (bah suckers) but many use oil for work.

Now, if you tax oil or rise price and shift all of the tax or price on Crash, he will have to cut back more , till public transport becomes a sustainable alternative. Crash will not like that. So one could shift some of the tax on companies,
but we know they'll just shift the entire tax back to consumers in one form or another.

I don't have data on hand, but I suspect public transport is devastantigly more fuel effective (in terms of moved people per
gallon fuel) then any car. Problem is public transport frequencies and distribution over territory may not meet the demand
expecially these days in which we're often asked to be extra flexible (usually at our expense for some reason)

So, solutions ?

1) much more fuel efficient cars ..doesn't solve the problem, just delays it , but it could just be good enough.
2) invest in public transport, fund it by tax on gasoline ?
3) tax recreational use of fuel ? hard to track down....
4) let the market find a solution lasseiz-faire ? Doesn't mean anything, it's an ideology...
5) reduce unreasonable flexibility demands on drivers working class in a way the reduces fuel consumption ?
6) invade a country and take its oil for extra cheap ?
7) something else ?
posted by elpapacito at 6:14 PM on May 3, 2004

Fellow Mefites, it's time for responsible Americans to do what we've always done when our volatile chemicals are being restricted: Make moonshine. I suggest that all industrious American's purchase barrels of crude oil directly from our Arab neighbors and create gasoline stills in our basements.

There are many positive advantages to creating your own moonshine gasoline:

a) Buying crude oil by the barrel can save you money (83 cents per gallon of crude oil!)
b) Creating moonshine can be a fun, family-oriented activity!
c) Be your own gas station! You can sell your cheap moonshine gas to your neighbors for fun and profit!
d) Become a powerful warlord during the apocalypse!

In closing, making your own moonshine gasoline is not only a fun and fiscally responsible activity, but it's our duty as righteous, religious-minded Americans to be prepared for the coming gas shortage.
posted by fatbobsmith at 6:26 PM on May 3, 2004

fatbob: that sound so much Dukes of Hazard Granpa's illegal brewery. And btw Daisy is hot.
posted by elpapacito at 6:28 PM on May 3, 2004

Why does it sound like some people here are defending glutonous gas consumption? Most people don't have to drive gas-guzzlers if they don't want to; you make the choice to drive something that gets 10mpg, you pay the price. Quit whining about it.

Thank you, by the way, for understanding that in some parts of the country, there is only a minimal distinction between a pickup truck and an SUV.

Huh? An SUV is not a pickup truck. They are generally not used by the same types of people, nor for similar purposes. Why would anyone who's trying to haul big, heavy stuff want all those doors and roof getting in the way? Yeah, those heated leather seats are gonna keep my bales of hay nice and comfy.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:30 PM on May 3, 2004

SpecialK, I'm so very glad that you came along to decide who gets to make a living and who doesn't. What would this country do without you? *kiss*

See, we've got too many farmers in this big ol' country of ours. We're paying them NOT to grow shit. Gee, if food prices go up because farmers up and quit and therefore grow less food, maybe it'll become profitable for the remainders farm again!

And actually, it's not the small rural farmer and his pickup truck that is producing our food these days, it's large factory farms. Get used to it.

I guess we know where your loyalties lie, now don't we? You've made some pretty ballsy claims here, big guy. How 'bout some links to back them up? Any? Just a one? Come on; your pompous ass has just doomed a fairly significant portion of the population to obscurity, poverty, and obsolescence. The least you could do is prove your pompous bluster ... unless you think I'm just on a high horse here ...

Civil_Disobedient, the world isn't just about you, though SpecialK might think it is. There are plenty of reasons to want a rig that can haul many people, much gear, lotsa dogs, and keep them all out of the rain. Just because you don't understand doesn't mean much. That you would be so foolishly idiotic in response, however, means a great deal.
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:37 PM on May 3, 2004

I'd like to see some evidence that higher fuel prices will hurt the small farmer in the long run. Perhaps very naively, I see it like this: big agribusiness is powered by cheap fuel: they run gigantic monocrop farms that are only economic because they can distribute the produce cheaply over a wide area. Raise fuel prices and they eventually lose their economic edge.

Why? Because the small farmer or consortium of small farmers can produce a variety of crops locally and distribute them locally relatively efficiently in a climate of expensive fuel -- their customers can sometimes even come to them. People who want to protect low fuel prices in order to save the small farmer are probably trying to protect the very thing that's killing them.

Please regard the above as dumb guesswork -- as I said, it's a naive opinion. I'd be interested to hear it shot down.
posted by George_Spiggott at 6:46 PM on May 3, 2004

Don't forget the fuel that's used by the farmer's equipment, and the fuel that's used to deliver his fertilizer.

And how hydrocarbons are used to make the fertilizer.

Don't forget barrels of oil become barrels of Ammonia fertilizer.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:53 PM on May 3, 2004

Regarding ethanol: Lindsay Technical Books has at least one book on distilling vehicle-grade alcohol, including some tips on doing it legally.
posted by aramaic at 6:54 PM on May 3, 2004

As far as taxes go, look at cigarette taxes -- in a lot of areas, the cigarette taxes double the cost of cigarettes. Has it worked? No.

SpecialK : How do you arrive at this conclusion?
posted by crunchland at 6:56 PM on May 3, 2004

Speaking as a Brit who has never owned a motor vehicle but is currently driving a V8 5.2 Dodge Ram hi-top camper round the SW US getting around 12-15mpg...

Well, for starters, I'm glad I'm not paying UK prices which work out at around $5.63 per US gal. (I remember UK being GBP 0.85 per litre). Stop crying ya pussies!

SUV's in LA...not surprised folks are grabbing 'em as CA roads are the worst I've driven outside of the 3rd world & are populated by fucking morons who seem quite happy to try & pile into each other at any opportunity. Bouncy suspension & alleged safety/protection would sway me. [BTW, Is it illegal to use blinkers on the road these days in the US?]
posted by i_cola at 6:57 PM on May 3, 2004

I want to teleport everywhere. Screw these landwagons, when are the damned teleporters going to be ready?

Those who own SUVs and the like pay for the privilege, and will pay more for it in the future. Sounds like a win-win to me.

The U.S. has approximately 5% the world population, and uses approximately 25% of the oil. Just think if the rest of the world tried to live the American Way™. 500% more oil consumption! Woo! So, it's too late to avoid the oil crunch anyway -- best we can do is put it off a few years, and it won't matter anyway because people will just wait until the last minute to try and do anything about it.
posted by moonbiter at 7:03 PM on May 3, 2004

Well, yeah. This is going to be a big problem coming up in the lifetimes of most people reading this discussion. As for what should the government do about it?

Well, one of the things I find interesting about reading the international press is that European countries justify heavy investment in replacing fossil-fuel energy systems with alternative energy systems because of two factors. First, the cost-benefit analysis includes the probability of "rollover" when fossil fuel production won't keep up with demand. Second, there is an awareness that investment today might lead to technical breakthroughs tomorrow. For example, prototype etched photovoltaics reduce reflection and increase the optimal range of angles resulting in huge increases in photovoltaic efficiency.

Our government has certainly used its brute strength as a consumer to push forward electronics, avionics, and industrial efficiency in the past. Investing in energy efficiency and grid-free production now might be advisable even if not cost effective under the current market, because the market is likely to change in the future.

Wulfgar! Certainly it is true that SUVs are a useful class of vehicle for many people. On the other hand, much of the criticism of SUVs has been focused less on the rural market, but on the suburban trail-blazers who feel the need for a big vehicle to take the family out to get sticky buns on a Saturday morning. Even though the rural population has declined over the last several decades, SUVs have exploded from a niche product to a huge fraction of the new car market.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:10 PM on May 3, 2004

$4 a gallon?!? What are we, French??? Guam-an?
posted by headless at 7:11 PM on May 3, 2004

when are the damned teleporters going to be ready?

Teleporters will put the car companies out of business. Why do you hate America, Germany and Japan so much moonbiter?

Also, they probably need Helium-3 to work, so first we'll have to build that moon base.
posted by loquax at 7:11 PM on May 3, 2004

My bicycle gets infinity MPG, and the weight/torque ratio is INSANE.
posted by spazzm at 7:21 PM on May 3, 2004

I currently drive an almost 10 year old Civic and am toying with replacing it with a Mini when the time comes. (up to 37 MPG, so not as good as the Prius, but still no Escalade.) However, I worry about putting my daughter in the back seat which is basically 18 inches from the rear bumper. Most of this concern comes from the fact that many of the commuter vehicles on the road will outweigh the Mini by as much as 3 to 1. This puts me in a bad way when I hit the brakes quickly and the cell-phone-yacking-soccer-mom-in-the-monster-SUV doesn't react as quickly. I know of many people who are reluctant to purchase a small car for this very reason.

So, I propose replacing the speed limit with a kinetic energy limit. Something like 1.5MJ. That way, someone driving a 3000 lb car can go 75 MPH. In my Mini (2500 lbs) I can go 81 MPH. A little bonus for the extra efficiency. Moreover, I no longer need to fear the Escalade as it is limited to 53 MPH. And, SpecialK can go zipping by us all on a 500 lb bike at 182 MPH. (If he wants to kill himself, that's his business. I'll trust natural selection to help us weed out the motorcyclists who can't ride straight.)

Of course, we'd have to offer commercial licenses for those who need their vehicle to make a living. I figure this would both cover the folks driving the large rigs as well as the farmers/contractors who need their pickups to haul around supplies. That is a small price to pay for the contribution they pay to society. Plus, we'll get a marginal payoff after all the SUV owners sell off their land-boats for lighter fare and gas prices drop for the folks who really need to buy a lot of it.
posted by Mr Stickfigure at 7:23 PM on May 3, 2004

I agree, "there are plenty of reasons to want a rig that can haul many people, much gear, lotsa dogs, and keep them all out of the rain." All I ask is that the true cost to society for such a privilege be paid by the driver. Actually, Aramaic's idea is probably better than mine. Politically, high gas taxes are dead at the starting gate, but momentum is definitely building to stop the special treatment that big SUVs get from the Feds (taxes, fuel economy standards, safety standards, etc.). The big problem politically is that the US auto industry has failed to compete against the Japanese in automobiles, but has done well with trucks and large SUVs. A vote against SUVs could easily be considered a vote against American jobs and against one of America's most important businesses. Tough stuff, especially in an election year.
posted by caddis at 7:26 PM on May 3, 2004

Watching the urban vs. rural conflict here is interesting.
Let me add that residents of rural areas currently have votes that are worth more than residents of urban areas. Rural areas are also getting back much more in federal dollars than they are paying in taxes, compared to cities, where the reverse is true.
So if rural areas are disproportionately affected by a gas tax - fuck 'em, payback's a bitch.

Wulfgar - regarding family farms:
Large corporations produce 98% of U.S. poultry.
2% of farms produce 50% of U.S. agricultural products.
4 firms handle over 80% of beef slaughter.
The disappearance of family farms is not a good thing, but it is happening. And a gas tax would impact farms delivering locally less than it would impact farms delivering nationally.
posted by bashos_frog at 7:32 PM on May 3, 2004

Things everyone should know about cars.
posted by loquacious at 7:34 PM on May 3, 2004

what we need is for everyone to switch over to using SEGWAYS, the HUMAN TRANSPORTS!
posted by crunchland at 8:01 PM on May 3, 2004

Hey! Loquacious! I've been meaning to say hi! We seem to be birds of the same feather.
posted by loquax at 8:06 PM on May 3, 2004

The problem with Segways is that cities haven't been designed around them yet.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:10 PM on May 3, 2004

There are some basic realities mostly absent from this discussion. rough ashlar covered one - "Don't forget the fuel that's used by the farmer's equipment, and the fuel that's used to deliver his fertilizer.....And how hydrocarbons are used to make the fertilizer.....Don't forget barrels of oil become barrels of Ammonia fertilizer", and here is another :

The rest of the world. America is not the only inhabited area on Earth, remember ? The entire world runs on oil.

The world's wealthiest countries, as oil prices climb, will merely bid up the prices on the remaining supplies. But it is the developing world nations which will suffer the worst, and this - in turn - will drive political instability.
posted by troutfishing at 8:35 PM on May 3, 2004

I have begun a long-term project to collect and preserve all my stools - I figure in around 50 years well-dried vintage nightsoil will sell for an insane premium as both fertiliser and burning fuel.

I figure the economic benefit will just about cover the engineered bankruptcy of social security...

Who's with me?
posted by meehawl at 9:19 PM on May 3, 2004

I'd say that you're gonna be up to your ears in shit.

That doesn't make it a bad idea though.
posted by troutfishing at 9:26 PM on May 3, 2004

Ok, I'll jump in, despite the fact that the "SUVs Suck and the people who own them should be shot" crowd is going to massacre me for it.

I have an SUV. It's not a giant one, it doesn't have "heated leather seats", or a 3rd row of seats, or any of the other things that the anti-suv fanatics use as proof that we who make different decisions are somehow elitist pigs bent on destroying everything around us. Mine is almost 5 years old, and it has less than 10,000 miles on it. I live out in the country, but I plan my trips to be efficient.

I use, on average, a tank of gas a month. When I bought the car, I understood the economics of driving it, and since I used to live in Europe, I always expected gas prices to reach the $3.00 per gallon price while I owned this vehicle, as I purchased it to be a 10 year car. Would I love gas to be as free as air? Certainly. But I'm not gnashing my teeth at the though of $2.00 gas either.

I live in the land of pickup trucks and SUVs. I carry a small child with me almost everywhere I go. I haul lumber and sand and dogs and cats and feed and multiple baby car seats if I've got the friends, and all kinds of other things in this vehicle. It's safe, it's comfortable, it's got a kick-ass sound system, and by god, it's my choice to drive it.

(As a note, my Camaro, which was actually longer than my SUV, but lower to the ground, only got about 8mpg, but nobody ever walked up and hassled me about driving a car with holly high rises rising gloriously over the loudly throbbing engine.) My SUV gets better mileage than any performance car I would prefer to drive. I grew up in an engine shop...cars to me have to be one of two things; fast or practical. For me, a Prius isn't practical for my lifestyle...and god knows it surely isn't fast.

I severed my acl tendons, crushed both knees and did horrid things to my back in an accident a few years ago...and after years of physical therapy was able to walk without crutches or canes, but it still isn't comfortable or rational to expect me to get me and the baby in and out of a tiny, low to the ground car.

I sold my last sports car when I saw a truck hit one just like it. It splintered into fragments. There were no survivors. The headlights of the truck were at the head level of the people in the car. By the same token, my husband got sideswiped...on the driver's side...by a semi in the same model SUV I drive, and walked away.

So yeah, the extra $10-$20 a tank it costs me to drive this bad boy is worth it to me to keep my baby safe, me safe, my critters safe and at the same time be able to haul 700 pounds of sand...which I just did two weeks ago, or a boat, or a trailer. And, I have the added advantage of being able to cross fields, ride the fence line at his parent's ranch if we need to check them, and if you've ever tried to fit a big stroller in the trunk of a car, you suddenly appreciate vehicles with space...yes, yes you do.

My long and winding point is this: if you drive a big car and didn't see the commodities inflation coming, you're an idiot...but that doesn't mean you don't have a good reason for having a big vehicle. If the SUV hadn't been invented, I'd be driving a big ol' truck, or a minivan, or a station wagon, all of which get the same or worse mileage than I get in my SUV.

Some people just don't like SUVs and feel justified in taking out their 20-something, anti-corporate, pseudo hippy rage on those of us who do happen to have an object of which they disapprove. Honestly, we've beaten this topic to death, over and over and over again...and I'm astounded by how many times it's just the same conversation.
posted by dejah420 at 9:34 PM on May 3, 2004

'llo there, loquax. Where's polyloquent?
posted by loquacious at 10:19 PM on May 3, 2004

Mr. Stickfigure, pure genius. But genius doesn't get you elected.
posted by snarfodox at 10:36 PM on May 3, 2004

*applauds dejah420* Voice of reason, as usual...

Everything else I wanted to say, including Wulfgar!'s challenges, is pretty moot at this point, others answered them for me. And wulfgar!, I didn't see you offering any links or proof. *sets fire to straw men*

I just wanted to say that I'm a little peeved that this turned from a economics thread into a "burn the SUVs" thread... that wasn't the intention. I am starting to get pissed about the number of people who insist on crapping on threads, hence the bitchy attitude. Too much of a /. feel to me. I think I need time off from MeFi.

Re: Taxes ... I'm incorrect, my apologies. My impression of spending time in the Northeast (where many states, i.e. NY, have cigarette taxes in excess of a dollar per pack) is that many, MANY people smoke.. and states like Oregon and California, where smoking is banned or at least taboo in most indoor spaces besides bars AND taxes are high, few people smoke. The numbers don't reflect this; there's actually a relationship that's anywhere from 1% to 4% reduction in smoking for a 10% increase in tax. (Google it, I'm too tired and lazy to link.) However, I'd hazard an unsupported guess that the socioeconomic status of those who quit when the taxes increased is heavily slanted towards poorer segments of the population. When dealing with a gas tax designed to reduce consumption, I believe you'll find that you'll simply price poorer people out of the market and force them to public transportation (this segment, after all, can't afford newer and more efficient cars); those who are wealthy enough to afford the true gas guzzlers will just go on guzzling gas. Artificial control of a market is usually a negative thing, but we persist in doing it and demanding that our government do it anyway.

And by the way, Mr Stickfigure, I really do like the idea of a kinetic-energy limit rather than a speed limit. ;) The idea of not getting pulled over when I'm doing 5 over by some local revenue collector because "that thing looks durned fast, boy... this is to teach you to slow down, y'hear?" is very appealing. ;)
posted by SpecialK at 11:23 PM on May 3, 2004

Honda 919. 40 MPG, and more torque and brakes than just about anything out there with wheels on it (0-60 in 2.9 sec, 60-0 in 1.3 sec/82 feet - without even lifting onto the front wheel). I've always preferred speed, acceleration/deceleration and maneuverability over 3 tons of armor... at least when nobody's actually shooting at me. I'm out there on the LA freeways every day on my commute, and by the very simple motorcycling skill of... wait for it...

... PAYING ATTENTION TO ALL THE OTHER DRIVERS AND HOW THEY ARE DRIVING...

... I feel pretty confident in my ability to survive the daily run thru SUV Canyon between the #1 and #2 lanes.

If people didn't drive as if (a) there's nobody else on the road and (b) that actually looking out the window and paying attention and steering were the LEAST important things to do when driving, then LA would be a lot safer and nobody would need to drive monster tank trucks everywhere to feel safe. And we'd use a lot less gas.

Meanwhile, at $8.50 per full tank of gas, I'm feelin' just fine. And I only take the '67 Camaro out about once a month. ;)

As far as Segways... they're electric, and they recharge off the grid, which is mostly powered by... fossil fuel of some type. However the economy of scale makes that more efficient... still, not a solution.

Anyway, get ready kids... gas is goin up and it ain't coming back down. Increasing refinery capacity will cost billions, and if the oil co.'s have taken a big hit from writing off reserves, they don't have the capital to expand that capacity. Oh well...
posted by zoogleplex at 11:24 PM on May 3, 2004

Surely if Americans are wondering how to deal with rising fuel prices, they just have to look... well, everywhere else in the world, and see how they cope? See, we've done all the research for you. So look and learn, even if it's just for contingency purposes.

(From my experience, British farmers or people in rural areas don't drive pickup trucks or SUVs: the former is very rare, and the latter is the domain of yuppies. You'll get some farmers in Land Rovers, some posh country types in Range Rovers, but the Volvo and its ilk remains the rural vehicle of choice.)
posted by riviera at 11:42 PM on May 3, 2004

Are the roads in rural Britain large enough for SUVs? I woud worry about falling off them, considering some are still horse and cart width and not much more :) (I've seen a lovely photo of a road in Devon, near Morebath, that had high dikes on either side, something which is apparently common with roads used since the middle ages.)
posted by jb at 12:03 AM on May 4, 2004

SpecialK ... you're assuming the sole goal of increasing taxes on cigarettes was to reduce the number of smokers.
posted by crunchland at 8:01 AM on May 4, 2004

Everything else I wanted to say, including Wulfgar!'s challenges, is pretty moot at this point, others answered them for me. And wulfgar!, I didn't see you offering any links or proof. *sets fire to straw men*

SpecialK its been pretty obvious that you've had a bug up your ass in this thread, but I would really like to know exactly what bug is up your ass about me? What high horse have I been on, except to argue that increasing fuel prices will hurt rural areas more than others? Do you think that's untrue, or just offensive to you for some reason? Show me what straw-man I've built that I needed to prove to you. What did I claim that was so egregious to whatever grand thesis you were trying to wow us all with here?

And riviera, I do kinda have to point out with a smile that all of Great Britain would fit inside the state of Montana, with a little room to spare. I'm not sure that Europian analogies are adequate for instructing the American West.
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:12 AM on May 4, 2004

Wulfgar - Montana has all that wind. It'd drive a heck of a lot of wind turbines to make the juice for hydrolysis, to make hydrogen.

Montana is so spread out, you could safely (without risk of chain reaction explosions) use mere compressed hydrogen gas tanks to power vehicles. With the tanks in place, the conversion to running your SUV's motor on that hydrogen takes only a few hundred bucks, I hear.

End of story, end of controversy.

Weren't Americans supposed to be a self reliant people, or something ?
posted by troutfishing at 10:07 AM on May 4, 2004

There are plenty of reasons to want a rig that can haul many people, much gear, lotsa dogs, and keep them all out of the rain.

Sure. But unless you're willing to switch to a more fuel-efficient method of transportation, you're going to have to pay more for it. Deal.

Just because you don't understand doesn't mean much. That you would be so foolishly idiotic in response, however, means a great deal.

Talk about having a bug up your ass... What the hell did I say to elicit this fucking self-rightous indignation?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:34 AM on May 4, 2004

Why does it sound like some people here are defending glutonous gas consumption?

Assumption based on your own view of what is gluttonous.

Quit whining about it.

"You have a choice, now shut up and do what I tell you!"

Yeah, those heated leather seats are gonna keep my bales of hay nice and comfy.

That about covers it. That sarcasm was pretty friggin' unnecesary at that point, not to mention remarkably self-rightious since you only had in mind your view of what makes an SUV, or what people do with them.

I do apologize to you anyway, though. I was really getting tired of SpecialK by then. I have no idea why he seemed to think I was pissing on his party, just for pointing out that this is going to hurt people. and not necessarily those who have "heated seats".
posted by Wulfgar! at 11:06 AM on May 4, 2004

Wulfgar!: He's talkin' 'bout fuel economy. Like wot US vee-hi-cules don't have.

If folks had to pay $5.50 per gal I reckon they'd be seeking out some more efficient transport no matter how many bushels of whatever they want to carry.
posted by i_cola at 11:51 AM on May 4, 2004

I do kinda have to point out with a smile that all of Great Britain would fit inside the state of Montana, with a little room to spare. I'm not sure that Europian analogies are adequate for instructing the American West.

Britain is quite small and peripheral to mainstream Europe, so why not try something more mitteleuropan for your refutation analogies, like Poland? That's in the EU and is around the same size as Montana. And its roads are pretty shit. And it has a lot of farmers. And currently, a gallon of petrol in Poland will set you back around €3.10 ($3.75).

And right next to Poland you've got Ukraine, around twice the size of Montana...
posted by meehawl at 12:10 PM on May 4, 2004

I think I'd just like to add that going by this chart of petrol prices, the average price is €0.96/l. The lowest listed price is, of course, the US with €0.38/l and the highest is the Netherlands, with €1.21/l.

The conversion to US gallons is left as an exercise for the reader.
posted by meehawl at 12:18 PM on May 4, 2004

Assumption based on your own view of what is gluttonous.

No, assumption based on the rest of the world's standard price for gas.

"You have a choice, now shut up and do what I tell you!"

"Quit whining" and "Shut up and do what I tell you" are different phrases, and have different meanings. If you insist on putting words into my mouth, at least put some effort into it. I'm not ordering you to do anything. And even if I was, this is a message board, and I don't know where you live, so it's pretty unlikely that I could actually do anything about it.

That sarcasm was pretty friggin' unnecesary at that point

When is it ever necessary? But at least it's not actively hostile, which is the tone I keep reading from your posts. Calm down.

not to mention remarkably self-rightious since you only had in mind your view of what makes an SUV, or what people do with them

An SUV is not a pickup truck. They are different. I never said you couldn't use one as such, but then, nothing's stopping you from using your moped as a pickup, either. That doesn't change the fact that it's really not the best tool for the job, if that job is hauling stuff. But what do I know, I only live in Nebraska. It's not like people farm around here or anything.

Whoops, there goes that sarcasm again.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:34 PM on May 4, 2004

Civil, since the apology obviously didn't mean anything, and you and others have been hellbent on mischaracterizing what I've said or what I've intended to do in this thread, let me ask you this, why are you so damn interested in picking a fight?

You cherry picked a comment I made about the fact that the negative impact for those in rural areas are going to be similar regardless of whether one drives a pickup or an SUV, and then decided that I needed your sarcastic education about the difference between the two. Fine, lets call to arms our brethren in the great crusade against heated leather seat SUV driving farmers, until we have defined who can and should drive what down to the minutia of what options are responsable and which aren't. And when we're done, then the people most likely screwed will be those who have to drive pickup trucks for their livelyhoods. Sucks to be them I suppose. Hopefully they won't whine too much. Now, do we agree? Are you happy? Can we all just get along?

Whoops, there goes that hostility again.
posted by Wulfgar! at 1:19 PM on May 4, 2004

Deja40: As a note, my Camaro, which was actually longer than my SUV, but lower to the ground, only got about 8mpg, but nobody ever walked up and hassled me about driving a car with holly high rises rising gloriously over the loudly throbbing engine.

Which again, comes from culture and politics. Cameros are not sold as the necessary lifestyle option for going to the mall to get sticky buns, nor are they marketed aggressively through a loophole that permits them to duck many of the regulations that affect cars and vans with similar capacity and features.

Wulfgar!: That about covers it. That sarcasm was pretty friggin' unnecesary at that point, not to mention remarkably self-rightious since you only had in mind your view of what makes an SUV, or what people do with them.

Well, the other side of the coin that is not being acknoledged is that a large chunk of the market for SUVs has nothing to do with "sport" or "utility" but to aggressively exploit the "small truck" loophole to create the replacement for the old Cadilac and Lincoln flying couches. Many of the SUVs I see marketed are finished in such a way that I would not want to jump in after a weekend mucking down-river, or covered in mud for gardening. The "heated seats" argument is relevant because so much of SUV marketing is about urban luxury, rather than sport or utility. (And for the record, my current vehicle is an '88 Ford Aerostar Van that we picked to aid in pre-sale house rennovation. So I fully see the utility value in SUV ownership.)

Of course, I agree that rural areas will be hit harder by increased gas prices than urban areas.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:25 PM on May 4, 2004

urban luxury

don't forget the umpteen cupholders and the DVD players.
posted by crunchland at 3:31 PM on May 4, 2004

Just because the assumption has been made without anyone ever asking, my ride is a 5 cylindar '93 VW Eurovan, 24 highway, 15 to 21 city (depending on the temperature) and I've hauled dogs, kids, trees, the whole damn family, bags of cement, hay bails, flagstone, fish, and about a half of ton of tools in it ... all because it was necessary. I actually make money, (for now); many of the people I know will not when the gas price spikes. I apologize if anybody thinks I'm just defending SUVs for the hell of it.

Efforts to undermine SUV ownership, while founded in the desire to keep Joe Broadway from driving his Escalade to the opera, will have a negative effect on my entire state, and the way we make our livings. Joe Broadway will still drive his Escalade, and when hybreds come that get 30 MPG and still offer the cool factor, Joe will have one well before Stan the Rancher can afford a hybred pickup truck. Yes, the American ideal is changing, but considering who will be hurt (the small business) and who will benefit (yet again the rich), I wouldn't be so eager to celebrate as many here have shown themselves to be. Wealth flows upwards yet again, and I'm the bad guy for whining about it, I guess. That's the only point I was trying to make.

KJS, thank you for understanding and not trying to marginalize or overstate my opinion.
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:08 PM on May 4, 2004

Wulfgar!

I guess, I don't see what can be done to prevent it. Unless a radical breakthrough we don't anticipate happens tomorrow, rollover will happen in our lifetime. I don't see it as a conspiracy to make the rich richer. It is simply something that we are going to have to face.

I don't think that trying to stick our finger in the dyke of energy efficiency necessarily requires harming working SUV owners in order to discourage luxury use. In fact, I would argue that one of the original reasons for the light truck exemptions was to give farmers and tradesmen a break. There is no reason why such a law could not be re-written to look at current patterns of car ownership and use.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:28 PM on May 4, 2004

KJS, don't get me wrong. I don't think that anything can be done to prevent what's happening. I just have a bitter feeling about who will get left behind, and who will come out of the rollover better than average. I do see more of a conspiracy than you, because our former governor sold out the the power needs and control of this state for profit and political gain ... (Did I mention he's now the head of the Bush/Cheney reelection campaign?)

We are going to have to face it, and people that I know personally are going to suffer, and suffer deeply, because of it; possably even myself and my wife because of where Montana draws its income, and the business she's trying to start. That doesn't mean I have to like it, or accept that those who celebrate the free market nature of this change aren't supporting those who would rape them, or anybody else, up the butt for additional profit. The nation *might* come out of this better. I just kinda doubt it, and will mourn those left behind in the effort.
posted by Wulfgar! at 5:00 PM on May 4, 2004

why are you so damn interested in picking a fight?

I'm honestly not trying to pick a fight. I'm trying to say that there is very little that can be done about rising gas prices, save for selecting your future mode of transportation with more care. That's all.

The SUV thing is a bit of a derail, I just wanted to point out that SUV drivers are, for the most part, in a different demographic than the pickup truck drivers. You know this, you say it yourself: "the people most likely screwed will be those who have to drive pickup trucks for their livelyhoods." Rural households will undoubtedly be hurt by an increase in gas prices, which is unfortunate, but what can be done about it?

Hopefully they won't whine too much. Now, do we agree? Are you happy? Can we all just get along?

It doesn't matter if they whine, or stomp their feet, or post angry screeds on message boards. None of it matters, because it will change nothing. The sooner that simple fact is accepted, the sooner one can start to deal with the situation.

Whoops, there goes that hostility again.

Don't worry, I understand where you're coming from. Like I said, I'm literally surrounded by people who are going to be hurt by rising gas costs. While I revel in the fact that some Escalade drivers are going to get a hit in their pocketbooks, those who can afford such vehicles are probably not going to care that much as it is.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:52 PM on May 4, 2004

I think it's established fact that a lot of people are buying and driving bigger cars than they really need, that our car industry and our society have resisted effective strategies for reducing gas consumption and that much of our country has been on a quest to live as far away from "the problems" as they possibly could. When gas prices rise, this is all going to cost us. Unfortunately, as Wulfgar! has pointed out, it's also going to cost people who live in rural areas a lot - it's going to kill off some marginal areas that are barely scraping by. I might also add that it's going to screw poor people who buy used, affordable gas guzzlers and live in areas where public transport is grossly insufficient.

If the market ends up with gas shooting up to 4 buck a gallon, so be it; what can we really do about it? But any attempt at taxing the crap out of gasoline will be ferociously resisted - the leftists often wonder why people in the red states can't see why Bush is bad for the country. Would it be too much to suggest that Kerry having once supported a 50 a gallon tax increase on gas might have something to do with that? It would affect the red areas a lot more than the blue.

In other words, if you want the "flyover states" to see the wisdom of liberalism, you're going to have to also pay attention to those people in those places when they tell you about their problems instead of being snarkily dismissive. The Republicans don't do that - oh, yes, they'll lie through their teeth to them, but they're not dismissive. As a person from the Midwest in a purple area, I'm saying this thread shows a REAL lack of understanding of the heartland and its problems and if you want to persuade people here of your views, you need to get that understanding.

And I say that AS a leftist.
posted by pyramid termite at 6:40 PM on May 4, 2004

I'm not sure that Europian analogies are adequate for instructing the American West.

I don't think I was making that specific point, Wulgar! -- more that simplistic arguments (hay bales = SUV/pickup) don't necessarily carry weight.

(If you want another interesting comparison, look to Australia, where farmers in the real outback often tend to use light planes rather than road vehicles.)

And I do think my larger point holds well: that Americans who ask 'what do we do about the rising cost of road fuel?' and forget that the rest of the world, bar a few notable exceptions in the Gulf, already provides a swathe of potential research data, really do look a little bit insular. This isn't about some kind of 'instruction' (or, if I gauge your tone right, Euro-preachiness): one looks at actual deserts to gauge the effects of desertification; one looks at examples of industrialisation or privatisation to gauge their potential effects on pre-industrial or nationalised economies. And the fit is never a perfect one, but that doesn't mean it should be discounted out of some kind of patriotic sense of exceptionalism.
posted by riviera at 4:52 AM on May 5, 2004

How many miles you drive is more important than your cars MPG rateing.
posted by stbalbach at 10:22 PM on May 7, 2004