Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Patrick O'Connor on May 8, 2010 at 5:18pm

THIS
is why this site needs signature lines!

Bob Maher said:

I would hate to see how cranky Ryan might get if he wasn't well lubed.

Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on May 8, 2010 at 5:19pm

I was always told those chemicals came from Triceratop tears.

Bob Maher said:

Don't worry - crude oil will be pumped out long after all of the easy to get oil is gone. There are uses for petroleum that have a higher economic value than burning it to propel transport. For example - those 20 syllable shampoo chemicals are made from old stegosaurus sweat.

Even when it takes more than a barrel of oil worth of energy to get a barrel of oil out of the ground, for some uses (Ryan's lube needs) it will be worth it. At least I hope so. I would hate to see how cranky Ryan might get if he wasn't well lubed.


Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:

No way to replace oil? That makes me sad.

I'm sick of having to use grease to service my hubs and bottom bracket, and use chain lube to keep my drivetrain quiet and running smoothly.

If we replace oil, I'll never have to do these tasks again. My bikes will also slowly deteriorate, but I'm ok with that because I like to blame the auto industry for all of America's oil use and refuse to look at the reality that I use petroleum products too.

Dr. Doom said:

Also... there really is no way to replace oil. This isn't a problem you can throw money at. The invisible hand isn't going to come up with a cheap, easily transported, easily stored, stable and extremely dense energy source just because Congress gives it an incentive to do so.

Permalink Reply by Julie Aberman (Hochstadter) on May 9, 2010 at 4:52am

Interesting conversation here. When gas prices went up 2 summers ago people drastically reduced their driving. I know that is a simplified example, but something I think about a lot.

Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on May 9, 2010 at 6:58am

That's true Julie. However, it was a buck or two a gallon. What Jill is talking about here is six. 3 dollars going to 5 was doable for a lot of people, but 3 dollars to 9 or 10 would have people up in arms. And that 'people' would be everyone, because everyone would be affected.

Julie Hochstadter said:

Interesting conversation here. When gas prices went up 2 summers ago people drastically reduced their driving. I know that is a simplified example, but something I think about a lot.

Permalink Reply by Joe TV on May 9, 2010 at 7:35am

This guy has some very interesting thoughts on the topic. Whether you agree or think he's a kook, it's worth the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAyHIOg5aHk

Permalink Reply by A.K.A Paul on May 9, 2010 at 10:11am

Your math is flawed...There are only about 20 gals of gas in a 46 gallon barrel of oil. The tax would only be on the gas portion not the entire barrel, otherwise I agree whole heartedly.

The premise of the thread is a fantasy because it is based on a reality that could not happen. The premise is based on a black and white plan that applies to life that happens in all the grey areas. The politics alone will keep this from happening.


Dr. Doom said:

America uses ~21 million barrels of oil a day. There are 42 gallons in a barrel, which works out to 821 million gallons a day, or 321 billion a year. A $6/gallon tax would thus (assuming it didn't affect gas use) hoover up $2 trillion, about the same as current annual federal revenue.

Pretty sure you don't need to raise as much money as the federal government takes in every year to encourage green development, whatever that is. Just to give a sense of scale the Manhattan Project cost about $20 billion in 2010 dollars—about 1% of what a six dollar gas tax would raise in a year.

Looked at that way, agitating for a .06/gallon tax might not be a bad idea. That would fund a Manhattan Project's worth of pure energy research every year...

Permalink Reply by Duppie on May 9, 2010 at 11:10am

It wasn't doable for people. They were hurting. And guess what they did? They immediately shifted their car buying patterns to more fuel efficient cars. Truck sales dropped by 30-50% in a matter of months and sales of smaller cars went up. Basic demand rules: you raise the price of a product and people will find alternatives.

That is of course where the problem was: The alternatives were not available. Mainly because manufacturers hadn't invested in research and manufacturing capacity to make the alternatives since they could not be sure that the market would be there when their products were ready. And that is why we need a permanent high gas price: Manufacturers of energy efficient products get a guaranteed return on capital and therefor will invest.

Of course it should be phased in over a number of years, much like CAFE standards are raised but take effect in 6 years or so. And that $6 number not based on any reality; in fact I find that Facebook page almost comically naive.

Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:

That's true Julie. However, it was a buck or two a gallon. What Jill is talking about here is six. 3 dollars going to 5 was doable for a lot of people, but 3 dollars to 9 or 10 would have people up in arms. And that 'people' would be everyone, because everyone would be affected.
Julie Hochstadter said:

Interesting conversation here. When gas prices went up 2 summers ago people drastically reduced their driving. I know that is a simplified example, but something I think about a lot.

Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on May 9, 2010 at 4:44pm

Precious few people ever seem to take into consideration the undeniable fact that the poor would be hit hardest by what is being proposed. Absolutely no one earning an income around or below the commonly agreed upon poverty level has the option of purchasing a new, fuel efficient hybrid that runs on unicorn farts and good intentions. Even with the most generous subsidies for the initial purchase one is left with the cost of general upkeep which for an emerging technology is astronomically high. Worst of all, it is the poor that are often reliant upon motorized transportation as a simple matter of survival. Whether it is due to physical limitations, family obligations, or work needs, they often do not have the luxury of abandoning their cars in favor of whatever "alternative" modes of transportation there may be.

Permalink Reply by Joe TV on May 9, 2010 at 5:55pm

Maybe it's been brought up already, if so, my apologies, but consider for a moment peak oil. If we are near (or past) peak oil as many experts claim, you can expect prices to skyrocket naturally. Demand is continually growing (hello China) and we have been struggling to keep supply coming. If we can't find new oil on a regular basis in the future then the the price point will increase, and it might happen very suddenly/drastically.

What governments could be doing now is instituting preparatory taxes on oil and subsidies for other options to in order to prepare for the day when peak oil is undeniably behind us.

Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on May 9, 2010 at 6:07pm

To add to that, even if poor people have the option of using public transit, it's not like the transit systems are going to eat the increase in gas costs. Just look at the CTA's recent budgeting fiasco. Tripling the price of a gallon of gas would force them to raise fares (and probably lay off more workers and cut more services just for fun).

Michael Perz said:

Precious few people ever seem to take into consideration the undeniable fact that the poor would be hit hardest by what is being proposed. Absolutely no one earning an income around or below the commonly agreed upon poverty level has the option of purchasing a new, fuel efficient hybrid that runs on unicorn farts and good intentions. Even with the most generous subsidies for the initial purchase one is left with the cost of general upkeep which for an emerging technology is astronomically high. Worst of all, it is the poor that are often reliant upon motorized transportation as a simple matter of survival. Whether it is due to physical limitations, family obligations, or work needs, they often do not have the luxury of abandoning their cars in favor of whatever "alternative" modes of transportation there may be.

Permalink Reply by cutifly on May 9, 2010 at 8:32pm

Considering I paid someone $45 to drive me around this weekend because I needed a date for mothers Day and a ride around to do some errands because I am simply worn out from riding., then NO please no tax, other wise I would have to pay around $350 for the 110 miles this weekend. Lol on the rest of this, I could not resist.

Permalink Reply by Duppie on May 10, 2010 at 2:21am

True.. but also a bogus argument, since I fail to see how a poor person can afford a car today. After all, federal poverty guidelines, define poverty as an individual making less than $10,830. After rent and food, that leaves not much room for a car methinks.

Also, where does that notion come from that people in this country have a God given right to own a car?

Lastly, somebody will always get hit hardest by legislation. Whether it's the poor, the sick, the healthy, working people, retirees.... That in itself is no reason not to enact legislation....

Michael Perz said:

Precious few people ever seem to take into consideration the undeniable fact that the poor would be hit hardest by what is being proposed. Absolutely no one earning an income around or below the commonly agreed upon poverty level has the option of purchasing a new, fuel efficient hybrid that runs on unicorn farts and good intentions. Even with the most generous subsidies for the initial purchase one is left with the cost of general upkeep which for an emerging technology is astronomically high. Worst of all, it is the poor that are often reliant upon motorized transportation as a simple matter of survival. Whether it is due to physical limitations, family obligations, or work needs, they often do not have the luxury of abandoning their cars in favor of whatever "alternative" modes of transportation there may be.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• …
• 9
• Next ›
• Page