Gas Boycott

Gas is one of those thing economists call in-elastic commodities. Meaning, we have no (real) substitute, therefore any 1-day boycott is not gonna do didly. GM stop producing bit SUVs, then we may have something.

I agree with people who says Gas should be like $6 bux like in the rest of the world, THEN we'd wake up and get serious about ridding us of this drug.

Interestingly enough... Recently on the news they said Ethanol is getting a lot more popular and it's driving up the cost of everything from foods to feed for livestock that we will consume.

I don't drive. So I don't contribute to polluting the environment how many of you can say that? When will this dependence on foreign oil cease? There are alternatives we all know it but are powerless against the lobby machine of the rich, powerful, elite that control this country.

For more conspiracy theories please contact the cult leader: Baggss. :D

Realistically public transportation only work in dense urban cities, i.e.: Manhattan, EU cities. Most everywhere else in the U.S., it's just not practical to cover EVERYWHERE where people want to live, we got dang too much space here! :D

I think Schwarzenegger got some interesting thing going. In the past, pain has proven not to work (i.e.: Carter: We must conserve). Sample above, people not gonna give up their SUVs. There is an interesting article about Schwarzenegger in a recent Newsweek (Time? Fortune?) I think u should look him up deeper.

Whether u believe Global Warming or not, if its support means the start of the downward trend toward less fossil fuel then I am all for it. And if the next administration appoints an ex-oil executive as Energy Zar, that should raise a HUGE RED FLAG.

What I dunn understand is how Ryanair is able to make any money at all. UK industry get fuel subsidies from the Government?

Sadly the drive to bio fuels seems to have it's down side too.

There are millions of acres of Indonesian rain forest being cleared to plant bio fuels. Borneo is about to plant 3 million hectares of palm oil plantations. An area the size of Belgium is destroyed each year to plant palm oil to satisfy the EU directive that all fuel must contain 10% sustainable ingredients by 2020.

Green? Not if it involves ploughing up the rain forests of the world....

I'm with Moe, they'll just need to buy gas on another day to make up for not buying it that day.

The only way it would work if is everyone did not drive all day, for one day. Now that might hurt, but will it happen? No.

Interestingly enough... Recently on the news they said Ethanol is getting a lot more popular and it's driving up the cost of everything from foods to feed for livestock that we will consume.
If all of the corn grown in the US was used to produce ethanol, it would only cover 12% of the gasoline market. Ethanol is a terrible way try to lower fuel prices, anyway. It raises food prices significantly (specifically the price of food containing corn syrup - about 80% of packaged foods) while having little to no discernable effect on the price of gasoline. It still emits carbon dioxide, albeit less than gasoline, and it is only 75% as dense in energy as gasoline, meaning that 1.33 gallons of ethanol are needed to equal the energy contained in one gallon of gasoline.

On a different note, detracters of large-scale photovoltaics complain because solar panels are currently only about 20% efficient. I find that argument specious because even the modern internal combustion engine is about 20% efficient.

May 15 is my birthday!
Just delete the post.

The original:
Yeah, great idea :rolleyes:

have fun with that one.

As many of you know, gas prices are ridicilous, costing most of us well over $3.00 per gallon! On May 15, people are not to buy gas the day before or the day after to make the oil companies lose over 2 BILLION dollars, forcing them to lower prices.

Comments?

And on a side note, in a weeks time when your gas tank along with everyone else who boycotts for a day goes empty, the demand for gas will increase; raising prices sharply and make the oil companies gain over 2 BILLION dollars, not to mention the fact that once gas prices are higher, the gas companies are reluctant to lower them, causing people to lose more money over the long run. In conclusion the whole boycott thing will give people the illusion that they are on control but will cost them more in the long run...

Sponge

P.S. In related news: Tomorrow I am going to boycott air for 2 minutes, to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. If everyone on earth held their breath for 2 minutes we could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by over 12 million tons... ;)

What I dunn understand is how Ryanair is able to make any money at all. UK industry get fuel subsidies from the Government?

Aeroplane fuel is exempt from tax. Even if duty was included on air fuel, they would still make enough profit to succeed, such is the economics.

In Canada it's gone up to $1.11 a Litre. That's absurd considering just 4 years ago it was 52 cents. A gas bill comes up to $60 for our minivan. Thats like over an hours pay of work for my dad, what a rip off.

I would more than love to not have to drive... We have "light rail" here which is a "short" train ride to no where. I can take it to school but here's the comparision.

My Car

To school: 15min. max
From school: 10min. max

Light rail

To school: However long it takes to wait for the train + 40-45 min. + 10 min. walk (10 blocks?)
From school: Same

Bus

To school: Never tried...
From school: 1.5 - 2 hrs. (1 bus transfer)

The problem with here is everyone has the mentality that public transportation is for the poor and the city is ######ed. In the handful of lightrail rides I've only seen a ticket checker maybe 3 time checking for people that payed. Then you have idiots like Schwarzenegger taking funds out of transportation to fix roads and stuff. Well you get the point. The only reason I'd WANT to take public transportation is so I don't have to deal with traffic or parking... :rolleyes:

Get a bicycle, lazy f*ck! 10-15 minutes?? You must live less than five miles from your school.

Right. And after losing $2 billion, Big Oil certainly won't raise prices to make up the difference, uh huh ;-)

Interesting to see the discussion on ethanol; some folks think there's some sort of magic bullet, others realize that complex problems tend to need complex solutions. My 2 cents is this: Ethanol as an oxygenator is a pretty decent deal, if you clamp down on the producers to keep VOCs as low as possible. And three cheers for Brazil...as long as the inherent problems -- corrosion, gumming, transport -- don't come back and bite 'em in the butt.

The thing to keep in mind with ethanol is that its use doesn't really add new carbon to the cycle; the carbon in the ethanol came from what was already in the atmosphere. With "geological" fuels (oil, gas, coal), the carbon being released is a new input; it had been successfully sequestered for hundreds of millions of years, and now we're releasing it...sort of an ultimate time-shift ;-)

Want to restrict your carbon footprint? Drive smaller and less; be somewhere that generates its electricity from renewable or radioactive sources; don't fly; don't breed. That last is the big one -- demand is sure to drop if there are less bodies to do the demanding.

Instead of some (goofy, IMO) gasoline boycott, put some energy into more effective education activities: tell people to keep their tires properly inflated, keep their engines clean & tuned, walk/bike whenever possible, and take vacations closer to home.

S2

More like 20 to 25 thanks... I drive fast. And yeah... I would bike but I kinda don't want to be late for class... not to mention the laptop I have to lug around. :rolleyes:

20 miles in 10 minutes, OK you win :rolleyes: . And yeah, transporting your fat ### and a laptop at the same time probably more than weight than a bicycle could handle. :D

You average 120mph and your not fat and lazy. Got it.

But I think we can all agree that no soccer mom needs to drive a 3.5 ton vehicle that gets <10 mpg to go pick up groceries.

The whole argument that GDP will decrease as countries alleviate their dependence on fossil fuels is garbage. The world is demanding that countries' usage of unsustainable fuel sources be capped, with the view to developing more environmentally friendly methods. This is so countries can ween themselves off practices which have been used for 200 years. Change, on this scale, does not happen overnight. You only have to look at Spain's recent announcement of a solar-farm in its Southern regions for inspiration. There is a moderate concensus on the issue that America and China have disengaged themselves from and looked the other way, citing [like you have] economic reasons.

It's interesting that the two biggest polluters have refused to take any strides towards capping emissions, whilst displaying a laissez-faire to climate change in general. It's funny to think the most prominant campaigner on the issue, Al Gore, has been systematically mocked for raising the issue. I would suggest that the world looks to America in disdain because of the refusal to even accept the problem, let alone tackle it.

Boycotting gas because of price increases is a selfish act, the motives are entirely personal. These two facts cannot be denied. Yet it raises the issue to the public eye, and that can only be the good thing. My hopes are that the American population becomes mobilised and joins the world effort in dealing with rising temperatures and climatic phenomena.

The whole argument that GDP will decrease as countries alleviate their dependence on fossil fuels is garbage. The world is demanding that countries' usage of unsustainable fuel sources be capped, with the view to developing more environmentally friendly methods. This is so countries can ween themselves off practices which have been used for 200 years. Change, on this scale, does not happen overnight. You only have to look at Spain's recent announcement of a solar-farm in its Southern regions for inspiration. There is a moderate concensus on the issue that America and China have disengaged themselves from and looked the other way, citing [like you have] economic reasons.

It's interesting that the two biggest polluters have refused to take any strides towards capping emissions, whilst displaying a laissez-faire to climate change in general. It's funny to think the most prominant campaigner on the issue, Al Gore, has been systematically mocked for raising the issue. I would suggest that the world looks to America in disdain because of the refusal to even accept the problem, let alone tackle it.

Boycotting gas because of price increases is a selfish act, the motives are entirely personal. These two facts cannot be denied. Yet it raises the issue to the public eye, and that can only be the good thing. My hopes are that the American population becomes mobilised and joins the world effort in dealing with rising temperatures and climatic phenomena.
China can be excused to a certain extent for its emmisions. China is an industrializing nation, and as such will produce a large amount of pollution. To be carbon neutral takes money. China must first gain enough capital to invest in new technologies that will reduce pollution.

The United States, on the other hand, is the exception to this rule that industrializing nations pollute. We are fully industrialized, and yet are the largest polluter on the planet. A large part of this is the relatively vast distances between the place of production and consumption and the financial ability of Americans to buy food and other products from far away. But the most devastating reason for the United States' pollution is the apathetic attitude of citizens. Some may complain about the price of gas, but they still open up their wallets without hesitation. they don't even consider carpooling or non- or less-carbon-emitting modes of transportation. The vast majority of Americans have no idea what a carbon footprint is, let alone how it's computed or what theirs is. Most of us simply believe that we're not part of the problem or that there is no problem.

Maybe it is trendy to bash Americans, but all in good reason. I happen to believe it was the British that created the Industrial Revolution which increased efficiency. The Americans just took it a step further with capitalism.

An amazing GDP or high employment is good for the economy, but it is not good for the environment. You need to take a look at the wider picture rather than the narrow-minded capitalist approach.

Fact is that most of the world has highly efficient cars, where America does not. Quit complaining and try to adapt your life to try and save the long-term future of the planet rather than worrying about how much money you earn and what size of car you drive.

I have never read a greater amount of clap-trap in all my time reading these boards. Bearing in mind there have been a few lunatics posting before your tenure that is a damnation of the highest order.

It is not trendy to bash Americans, it is not something one chooses to do. It is often borne as a reaction in which the ideologies of America and much of Europe clash. Yet, this is not the case here. We share the principles of Capitalism with our trans-Atlantic cousins. The Industrial Revolution was capitalism in action. The ideology implies an ownership of capital, hence the name. This was certainly the behaviour of the factory owners of the 19th century. Marxists argue those without capital are forced to sell their labour in the form of wages. There is no distinction between British and American capitalism, they are one and the same.

A high GDP is not a suitable method in measuring the wealth of the country. It fails to account the interests of that country in foreign countries, indeed the measure GNP rectifies this. GDP is the aggregate total of wealth, that wealth can subsequently be divided between ten or ten million people. Similarly, GDP per capita also suffers from the same shortcoming, for that presumes the wealth is evenly distributed throughout the economy; almost never the case.

High employment is tantamount to economic growth, yet full employment is not. There is an optimum number of unemployment which yields the greatest economic benefit. I just did not feel you were making this distinction clear enough.

Capitalism and an environmental programme can work in unison. Yes, the United States is not the best place to see this in action. If anything the system is more efficient in the sense it preaches enterprise to enable an economy to become dynamic. Furthermore a possible reasons as to why America is behind in developing environmental policy is rooted in their scepticism of government intervention, and faith in individualism.

The materialism you refer to in your last paragraph is present in every Western country. There will always be a desire to place your private needs ahead of those of a collective. People of this country believe in themselves first, then their neighbours. The UK is possession-obsessed as much as America.

The Arnold-nator is coming!!!

Just so you know, he's not coming to the White House...to be President you have to native-born.

Speaking of Arnie, what's up with you Brits keeping SkyNet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skynet_%28satellites%29) operational? Greenhouse gasses are one thing; total nuclear annihilation is quite another! <g>

No Arnold-nator isn't coming to the White House any time soon, but as a Governor of the largest U.S. state, California, he can actually do more.

The U.S. Federal government is actually designed to be slow-moving and bureaucratic. As a state governor, Arnold can actually get things done more quickly.

And as we like to say, since California is the Sixth Largest economy in the world, Cal has alot of influence. Arnold as a Republican is also a plus, 'cuz the opposition can't say, look, those wacko Democrats are doing these crazy things...

Hmm... News is reporting large amounts of missing barrels of oil going out of Iraq. I wonder where they went? I wonder who took them... ? :rolleyes:

I have never read a greater amount of clap-trap in all my time reading these boards. Bearing in mind there have been a few lunatics posting before your tenure that is a damnation of the highest order.

It is not trendy to bash Americans, it is not something one chooses to do. It is often borne as a reaction in which the ideologies of America and much of Europe clash. Yet, this is not the case here. We share the principles of Capitalism with our trans-Atlantic cousins. The Industrial Revolution was capitalism in action. The ideology implies an ownership of capital, hence the name. This was certainly the behaviour of the factory owners of the 19th century. Marxists argue those without capital are forced to sell their labour in the form of wages. There is no distinction between British and American capitalism, they are one and the same.

A high GDP is not a suitable method in measuring the wealth of the country. It fails to account the interests of that country in foreign countries, indeed the measure GNP rectifies this. GDP is the aggregate total of wealth, that wealth can subsequently be divided between ten or ten million people. Similarly, GDP per capita also suffers from the same shortcoming, for that presumes the wealth is evenly distributed throughout the economy; almost never the case.

High employment is tantamount to economic growth, yet full employment is not. There is an optimum number of unemployment which yields the greatest economic benefit. I just did not feel you were making this distinction clear enough.

Capitalism and an environmental programme can work in unison. Yes, the United States is not the best place to see this in action. If anything the system is more efficient in the sense it preaches enterprise to enable an economy to become dynamic. Furthermore a possible reasons as to why America is behind in developing environmental policy is rooted in their scepticism of government intervention, and faith in individualism.

The materialism you refer to in your last paragraph is present in every Western country. There will always be a desire to place your private needs ahead of those of a collective. People of this country believe in themselves first, then their neighbours. The UK is possession-obsessed as much as America.

I wasn't the one who brought up the whole GDP arguement in the first place. Yes, the capatilist systems are the same, but the one thing Europeans don't share is inefficient gas guzzlers. And those who use a high GDP and wealthy as an excuse to drive these vehicles makes me annoyed. GDP would remain exactly the same if everyone drove around in smaller engined cars. America could make more of an effort, in the UK I feel there has been a big effort made, all large companies are now drawing up greener futures, most councils recycle, and tax is high on big engine cars and tax is very high on petrol. I don't know what America are doing but they don't seem to be making much effort with their cars.

America trys to act like the big father figure to the world with pretty much all other issues (most probably to protect their oil supplies lol), so why not take a lead in saving the planet? Oh, wait because it doesn't give a stuff about the world, just its own wellbeing, it can't even look after its own citizens, take a look in New Orleans.