If Gasoline Hits 10 USD a Gallon

[merccom]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Yep - I take in healthcare but I pay in taxes. It all works out.

did they original poster say anything about getting healthcare or anything at all in return for 10$ gas?

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by merccom

did they original poster say anything about getting healthcare or anything at all in return for 10$ gas?

No "the" original poster did not, but read post 2 in this thread.

EDIT - My mistake - post 3.

EDIT 2 - I'm not saying its good for all, just how it is here.

[user removed]

Healthcare paid by gas taxes? Sounds good to me since we spend 3 times as much for health care as we do for gas.

I'll bet there are few Americans here who can even name all the taxes we pay.

regards
Mech

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

We can not change trains, and that is why they are all coal-fired steam locomotives to this day.

Coal-fired? I thought they all ran on wood :-)

(Which I suppose would be coming full circle, back to biofuels.)

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by merccom

hire fuel prices will only hurt everybodys cause

In fact that's not true, if higher prices spur people to use energy more efficiently. As a small example, consider the person commuting to work in a large SUV or pickup. Let's be generous, and say they get 20 mpg. If gas is at $3.50/gal, that commute costs them 17.5 cents per mile. If $10/gal gas prompted them to switch to driving a 70 mpg Honda Insight, each mile would cost only 14.3 cents.

And of course if $10 gas prompted them to bike or telecommute, their cost per mile would go to zero.

The data supports this in the larger world. A number of eastern states have implemented a cap and trade system of CO2 emission permits, and have spent the money received from the sale of permits on improving energy efficiency. Result is that even though the cost per KWatt of electricity is slightly higher, the total cost to consumers is lower because they now use less. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/ny...llowances.html

[Ladogaboy]

I think that is a good point, james, because it seems (in my opinion) that most Americans have skewed values. Often times, people confuse desires and wants with needs. Even just 100 years ago, most Americans still didn't have electricity, running water, and automobiles. Yet they managed to live and survive.

I would dare say that most people here in Los Angeles could reasonably bike to work. The only reason they might not be able to at this point is because they are so out of shape from laziness, atrophy, and (ironically enough) a lack of exercise. Nice cyclical problem there: I'm too out of shape to bike to work because I don't bike to work.

[merccom]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

In fact that's not true, if higher prices spur people to use energy more efficiently. As a small example, consider the person commuting to work in a large SUV or pickup. Let's be generous, and say they get 20 mpg. If gas is at $3.50/gal, that commute costs them 17.5 cents per mile. If $10/gal gas prompted them to switch to driving a 70 mpg Honda Insight, each mile would cost only 14.3 cents.

And of course if $10 gas prompted them to bike or telecommute, their cost per mile would go to zero.

The data supports this in the larger world. A number of eastern states have implemented a cap and trade system of CO2 emission permits, and have spent the money received from the sale of permits on improving energy efficiency. Result is that even though the cost per KWatt of electricity is slightly higher, the total cost to consumers is lower because they now use less. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/ny...llowances.html

that may be all well an good for those that live in new york city but for those that live in montana and kansas not so much so

[Frank Lee]

Hmm... preponderance of V8 4x4 commuter vehicles... extended idling... speeding... tires half flat... drive everywhere, even in walking distance... lots of recreational driving... I'd say there's room for a fuel price bump. It could be an educational teaching moment.

[Ladogaboy]

Originally Posted by merccom

that may be all well an good for those that live in new york city but for those that live in montana and kansas not so much so

I use the area where my parents live as a good reference point. The nearest reasonable grocery store is nearly 50 miles away through mountainous roads, so the currently available EVs are nigh unusable. That means that you are stuck with gas, and most people there drive trucks, jeeps, SUVs, and other assorted 4x4s. I'd say that the average mpg on "the mountainside" is ~ 20 mpg. That means that an average trip to the grocery store or other shopping is going to be ~ $50. Seems like a pretty grip situation, right?

But what about the opportunities that arise as a result? First, someone will find a way to provide services because (even at the added cost of a larger vehicle) buying groceries for 300 people is cheaper because those 300 people are now splitting the price for fuel. Second, more viable vehicles are developed, built, and sold. Even now, many of the ranchers are getting Priuses as their second cars and only using their 4x4s when necessary. Hell, the ATVs would probably be traded back in for horses (which, interestingly, would actually bring back a good number of jobs). Third, what about those people who work "down below"? Well, there is already a van pool sponsor by the county (but few currently use it). If there were more interest, the van pool program could be expanded, and the 30 - 50 people who have to commute would have the opportunity to split gas six or seven ways.

I'm sure there are even more ways that people would learn to compensate, but that kind of gives you an idea about how one rural community could adapt. Oh, by the way, if you buy gas there right now, it is already over $5 a gallon, meaning you have to buy it "down below." Then again, for most people, that means they've lost almost two gallons by the time they get home.

[merccom]

does nobody understand the differance between chooseing to live a life of austarity and having it imposed upon you?