price of gas

[powdork]

you forgot "perceived" an insight can carry skis, just not in the manner to which you've become accustomed.

Perhaps you can explain what that means when you're sober.

And no you might not be able to drive your Suburban alone to the mountain every weekend to go skiing.

It's Subaru, not Suburban. There is a difference.

renault megane 1.4 dci 86 estate 70.6mpg extra urban/freeway, 50.1 urban, 60.1 combined

Again, we're talking about miles per US gallon, which means you have to multiply your figures times .832. My original reply was referring to Idris, who said

A car here is only considered economical if it gets 75+mpg (us gallons) amd there are a quite a few available that manage that.

And whilst we Americans need to do some work on this, the worst performers by far are the Ferrarris and Lamborghinis of the planet.

[cj001f]

It's Subaru, not Suburban. There is a difference.

yeah, Suburbans can haul alot more and are much more practical if you need a big vehicle. Subarus are SUVs for the granola set. Put skis inside insight. Insight is now carrying skis.

And whilst we Americans need to do some work on this, the worst performers by far are the Ferrarris and Lamborghinis of the planet.

a few thousand cars each driven a few thousand miles a year.

the horror, the horror

[powdork]

yeah, Suburbans can haul alot more and are much more practical if you need a big vehicle.

I don't need a big vehicle, nor do most of the people driving suburbans.

[cj001f]

I don't need a big vehicle, nor do most of the people driving suburbans.

you've not given any good reasons why you need a Subaru, either

[Idris]

).

Hey, would someone living in Suisse clarify the decission that was made there last year, regarding on banning SUV's.

As far as I understand it from listening to swiss radio. The ban is not in place yet. but should be by year end. It's not a SUV ban per say its more an excessive vehicle ban.

Vehicles over 2200kg will no longer be registerable as a domestic vehicle. only applicable to new registrations

So you can't have a Suburban or Range Rover but you can have a Rav4 or Landrover Defender.

You could always run a suburban as a comercial heavy truck. But they you need to have a swiss registered buisness (not cheap) to do so.

There is also talk of a minimum fuel economy for domestic vehicles around 9l/100km or 30mpg (uk)

[Tippster]

you've not given any good reasons why you need a Subaru, either

The other Lesbians demand it - to stay in the club.

[jfost]

You have to realize that this would be a blatantly class based discriminatory action equivalent to a genuine poor tax. The rich folk who are getting 12 miles to the gallon will continue to do so no matter what the price of gas goes to. Who suffers are the poor and we all know that our country won't suddenly make up for that by improving public transpotation for them.....

EXACTLY!

Why do so many fail to see that F@#*%NG the working poor will ruin things for everyone eventually!?! If you like the "freedom" of your (probably most of us) middle class lifestyle, you should not support causes that take things away from those lower on the chain. If lower income people suddenly couldn't afford to drive, it wouldn't work to just say, "Hah, well you guys should have moved closer to work or ride your bike/ the bus/ etc..."

[Squatch]

EXACTLY!

Why do so many fail to see that F@#*%NG the working poor will ruin things for everyone eventually!?! If you like the "freedom" of your (probably most of us) middle class lifestyle, you should not support causes that take things away from those lower on the chain. If lower income people suddenly couldn't afford to drive, it wouldn't work to just say, "Hah, well you guys should have moved closer to work or ride your bike/ the bus/ etc..."

There's a simple solution that satisfies everyone: Tax the fuck out of it, and then redistribute it back to people. This way no gas usage = cash in your pocket. You could even structure the pay-out schedule to <gasp!> favor the poor.

[cj001f]

EXACTLY!

Why do so many fail to see that F@#*%NG the working poor will ruin things for everyone eventually!?! If you like the "freedom" of your (probably most of us) middle class lifestyle, you should not support causes that take things away from those lower on the chain. If lower income people suddenly couldn't afford to drive, it wouldn't work to just say, "Hah, well you guys should have moved closer to work or ride your bike/ the bus/ etc..."

It's going to be taken away sooner or later - unless you favour punitive redistributive taxation - something not particularly popular in America.

Everybody seems to think energy usage will change without changing their own and others lifestyle. It's not going to happen.

[tommyvee]

Rail is inefficient and costly compared to long-haul trucking. If it wasn't the market would have corrected for this.

Rail is efficient, however for transporting large bulk items like coal, chemicals, commodities such as wheat etc. Not consumer goods, which the market demands fast delivery.

The "market" for truck transport includes 10K+ $ subsidy for each truck on the road. Trucks pay for a tiny fraction of the road damage they cause. Meanwhile railroads pay for all their own infrastructure. If trucks really paid their own way the "market" would indeed correct for their economic inefficiency, but massive subsidies prevent this.

google it."In addition to congestion, our highways are in a state of disrepair. Again, the price system can help. The damage that a vehicle does to pavement depends on its weight per axle. A Brookings Institution study found, for example, that a two-axle truck weighing 55,000 pounds causes $1.80 of road damage per mile—yet its owner pays only four cents per mile in road use taxes.

If trucks were assessed axle weight-distance charges equal to the damage they cause, society would benefit by $5 billion annually (1982 dollars) with current highway design or $8 billion annually with optimal highway design (thicker pavement)."

[HikeforTurns]

If trucks were assessed axle weight-distance charges equal to the damage they cause, society would benefit by $5 billion annually (1982 dollars) with current highway design or $8 billion annually with optimal highway design (thicker pavement)."

Wouldnt they just pass that directly on to the consumer though?

[Bud Green]

The faster we use up the world's oil, the sooner our lame-ass governments will make a renewable energy mode of transportation. And they won't do it a day early. They will wait until the very last drop of oil is poured into president Jeb Bush's Hummer in 2027.

So do your part for the environment and take several massive road trips this summer, preferably in an oversized RV with a trailer full of quads in tow.

[powdork]

you've not given any good reasons why you need a Subaru, either

In message 94 I said.

In an area that in the winters of 2005 and 2006 received over 800 inches of snowfall, I choose the safety, reliability and comfort of a Subaru to transport myself and my three daughters to and from school, skiing, and other activities. I do this even though I realize it takes more gas to turn 4 wheels than 2, and seriously fucks up your world. beeeeaaatch!

The subie averages 22 mpg and always has between 2 and 4 ppl. I spend close to 100 days at the 'wood or in that area each winter. Most of those days there are chain controls in place at carson pass if not for the entire trip.

Now you can say I don't need to go to Kirkwood. Instead I could home school my children and I would make the world a better place.
I have and will continue to change my lifestyle. But neither of those items are on the table.

[dark mavidson]

There's a simple solution that satisfies everyone: Tax the fuck out of it, and then redistribute it back to people. This way no gas usage = cash in your pocket. You could even structure the pay-out schedule to <gasp!> favor the poor.

Not going to happen. As cj001f said below, redistribution is highly unpopular in the U.S. And highly is an understatement. Every time a drastic tax increase/redistribution move has been made in Congress, it has been shot to shit. Half the country doesn't even like the institutional redistribution that already happens (welfare), much less straight up cash.

Great idea in theory, but people will be less likely to do that than to change their energy habits.

This isn't a problem of gas/engery consumption. While that's a factor, it's the whole ideology that humans have always been and always will be striving forward towards a better and brighter tomorow. Admitting that we have caused 'global warming' would be a crippling blow to people, most notably Americans, who have seen every single development in the last 200 years as the crowning achievements of human exsistence. In short, it would make what the majority of people believe about our species (and again, Americans most notably) wrong. That we are not the best and brightest and most coolest thing to ever happen on this planet, much less the entire universe. No one wants to give in to global warming hype because it completely voids everything we've built the West on.

Ahhh rambling again...

[uglymoney]

(Tax increase)

Not going to happen. As cj001f said below, redistribution is highly unpopular in the U.S. And highly is an understatement. Every time a drastic tax increase/redistribution move has been made in Congress, it has been shot to shit. Half the country doesn't even like the institutional redistribution that already happens (welfare), much less straight up cash.

There are some interesting proposals popping up for how to use the money. I posted this linky once before, but its worth posting again. Basically use the fuel tax revenues to fund a national health care system of some sort. Beneficial to rich businessmen, poor people, and ski bums alike.

[dark mavidson]

(Tax increase)

There are some interesting proposals popping up for how to use the money. I posted this linky once before, but its worth posting again. Basically use the fuel tax revenues to fund a national health care system of some sort. Beneficial to rich businessmen, poor people, and ski bums alike.

That does sound interesting, but I'm afraid that the country is far too embedded in it's "ideological notions of what government should be doing." Facts in this country are far too easily dismissed by beliefs and opinions.

[uglymoney]

Hard to disagree with that ^

[tommyvee]

Quote:
Originally Posted by tommyvee
If trucks were assessed axle weight-distance charges equal to the damage they cause, society would benefit by $5 billion annually (1982 dollars) with current highway design or $8 billion annually with optimal highway design (thicker pavement)."

Wouldnt they just pass that directly on to the consumer though?

The whole point is that if truck transport was not made artificially cheap by massive subsidy, any transportation manager would select the cheaper alternative (rail) or lose his job. But because tax dollars flow to make truck transport appear cheaper than it really is, there is a reduced market incentive to use rail.

[Rontele]

The "market" for truck transport includes 10K+ $ subsidy for each truck on the road. Trucks pay for a tiny fraction of the road damage they cause. Meanwhile railroads pay for all their own infrastructure. If trucks really paid their own way the "market" would indeed correct for their economic inefficiency, but massive subsidies prevent this.

google it."In addition to congestion, our highways are in a state of disrepair. Again, the price system can help. The damage that a vehicle does to pavement depends on its weight per axle. A Brookings Institution study found, for example, that a two-axle truck weighing 55,000 pounds causes $1.80 of road damage per mile—yet its owner pays only four cents per mile in road use taxes.

If trucks were assessed axle weight-distance charges equal to the damage they cause, society would benefit by $5 billion annually (1982 dollars) with current highway design or $8 billion annually with optimal highway design (thicker pavement)."

Did you not read two posts below where I said I stood corrected?

[MeatPuppet]

That does sound interesting, but I'm afraid that the country is far too embedded in it's "ideological notions of what government should be doing." Facts in this country are far too easily dismissed by beliefs and opinions.

Here is a fact for you.

The constitution dictates what the government can and can't do. It's not a matter of ideology. It's actually written into the supreme law of the land. Change the constitution and the Government can do anything the people want it to.

There are some of us who would like to go back to following the constitution more strictly than we now do. So when some of us oppose the use of tax payer dollars for this good cause or that good cause, it might not be because we don't believe it is a worthy cause. It might be because the concept of limited government is at the core of this countries foundations and we would like to keep it that way.

[grrrr]

Here is a fact for you.

The constitution dictates what the government can and can't do. It's not a matter of ideology. It's actually written into the supreme law of the land. Change the constitution and the Government can do anything the people want it to.

Or ignore the constitution and do any damn thing you please. Just ask W.

Hoopee! I posted in this very important thread.

[cj001f]

Here is a fact for you.

The constitution dictates what the government can and can't do. It's not a matter of ideology. It's actually written into the supreme law of the land. Change the constitution and the Government can do anything the people want it to.

There are some of us who would like to go back to following the constitution more strictly than we now do. So when some of us oppose the use of tax payer dollars for this good cause or that good cause, it might not be because we don't believe it is a worthy cause. It might be because the concept of limited government is at the core of this countries foundations and we would like to keep it that way.

So we pay indirectly for our energy with a big war and a big military.

That's some free market efficiency going on

[MeatPuppet]

So we pay indirectly for our energy with a big war and a big military. That's some free market efficiency going on

Hey, if it's so important, maybe somebody should try to change the constitution. There are provisions for doing that, we have done it many times already. Until then, what we get is..................tadaaaaaaa!


Plausable Deniability.


We are trying to stabilize the middle east for one reason and one reason only; cheap oil. But I don't have a problem with that. Our entire way of life is dependent on cheap oil. If you get all of your food from an orchard in an oasis and somebody starts chopping down the trees, your very existence is threatened and you would act in your self interest, some would even say that you were acting in self defense, to protect your source of sustenance. That's exactly what we are doing as a nation.

But the political climate is such, that if any elected official actually stood up and said that, the drone from the howling monkeys on the Left would reach such a crescendo, that that person would be unable to hear himself think. So, instead we are "spreading democracy".

Okidoki, fine, we are "spreading democracy".

Yeah, you're right, real efficient.


But, there is a solution, change the constitution and we don't have to have either. I wouldn't mind a few billion in tax dollars being throw at research every year. But we need to change the constitution to allow that. Otherwise the government just becomes that much more of a giant teet for everyone and their cat to suckle at and fight over.

[Crass3000]

I wouldn't hold your breath. For example the current BOE (Barrells of Oil Equivalent) of Ethanol is around ~$200/Barrell. Sure gov't subsidies bring that number down some so you don't see a much higher price at the pump (if you can even fill w/ ethanol in your area), but thinking its going to cure our oil problem is a pipe dream.

Yep... It actually takes more energy to produce ethanol than you get out of the ethanol. Another thing to keep in mind is that ethanol typically has lower octane (or something like that) so you get less miles per gallon. Ethanol isn't the cure-all that it is marketed as.

[cinnepa]

back on the vehicle size question - went to germany last summer; i thought it was pretty cool how i did not see one SUV or large pick-up truck around. any truck i did see was owned by some business, they seemed to be much more smarter about it than us.....gas at about $4.50 a gallon might have had something to do with it too though.