home

$4.00 a Gallon and Rising

Gas is $4.00 across the country. Driving to Aspen this weekend, I paid $4.27 a gallon. I knew better than to wait to refill until reaching Aspen, where everything costs more. Sure enough, one station in town was charging $4.65.

It's going to keep rising. I think we'll see $5.00 across the country in July. The New York Times says rural residents are being hit the hardest.

Across broad swaths of the South, Southwest and the upper Great Plains, the combination of low incomes, high gas prices and heavy dependence on pickup trucks and vans is putting an even tighter squeeze on family budgets.

Here in the Mississippi Delta, some farm workers are borrowing money from their bosses so they can fill their tanks and get to work. Some are switching jobs for shorter commutes. People are giving up meat so they can buy fuel. Gasoline theft is rising. And drivers are running out of gas more often, leaving their cars by the side of the road until they can scrape together gas money.

The Democrats need to reach out these rural voters on the gas issue. They make up 26% of the voting public. [More...]

A year ago, NPR reported on a poll saying the Republicans could no longer take rural voters for granted.

Three weeks ago, Rural Strategies reported McCain leads Obama by 9 points in the rural battleground states, although they preferred Obama to McCain on economic issues.

There aren't many needs more basic than food and fuel. Rural voters are a critical voting block in November. I really don't think they care about lobbyists and oil company profits -- or mass transit or carpooling or electric bicycles -- as much as they do about what they pay at the pump.

< Sunday Late Night Open Thread | A New Version Of The Malign Acceptance of Sexism >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    VDH appears (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:24:23 AM EST
    to be telegraphing what the GOP will do.  Blame drill restrictions for both the lack of domstic production and the spiraling tarde deficit ( and therefore the dropping Dollar).

    I'd love to see BTD and VDH go fist to fist on this. See the fight leave the bar and then roll out into the street and then see the town get involved in some sort of massed ruck.

    Nope, the new GOP theme is (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:00:40 AM EST
    going Green.  Yes, you read that correctly.

    Not as promoting environmental concerns, or as a progressive restructuring of our energy policy, but to end our dependence on foreign oil sources.

    McCain alluded to this in his speech, and an acquaintance who I generally consider a fair Republican bellwether on where their policy is going is really into this now.

    I doubt it will get a huge amount of traction this campaign but it could break the near-monopoly Dems have had on environmental issues wrt oil in the future.

    [ Parent ]

    I find it very interesting (none / 0) (#163)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:20:56 AM EST
    that evangelical voters are now starting to get on board with the climate change issue. Pat Robertson and Al Sharpton even did a commercial together about it.

    If McCain gives them a reason to believe that the GOP will take the issue on, that could make evangelicals feel better about voting (R).

    [ Parent ]

    Yep. Green is past being a Dem issue - which is (none / 0) (#171)
    by chrisblask on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:52:58 AM EST
    good for the cause if not for the party.

    [ Parent ]
    Is it foolish? (none / 0) (#159)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:38:14 AM EST

    Is it foolish to believe that increased production will lower the price?  If so, why beg OPEC to increase production?  If not, why is 85% of coastal US off limits to drilling?

    Signature Song
    [ Parent ]

    Increased supply should lower cost, in a sane (none / 0) (#170)
    by chrisblask on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:50:37 AM EST
    market.

    Unfortunately, oil is not a sane market.  OPEC is one big - accepted - anti-trust operation.  Not that increased production wouldn't have a lowering effect on gas prices, it might, but the real way out of this is alternative energy.

    [ Parent ]

    Do you mean (none / 0) (#173)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:01:39 AM EST

    Do you mean replace low cost petroleum based energy with higher cost alternatives?  The reason they are "alternative" is they are more costly.  If they cost less, they would be dominant and petroleum would be alternative.

    Whats good for Archer Daniels Midland is not necessarily good for the US or your wallet.

    Signature Song
    [ Parent ]

    I don't mean "make the problem worse", (none / 0) (#179)
    by chrisblask on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:48:25 AM EST
    that would be silly.

    I mean that for a wide range of reasons we need to swap out our energy sources.  Oil is only "cheap" due to economies of scale - there is no reason to believe other sources cannot be cheaper with similar scale and process improvements.

    I'm as Green as a frog, but not to the point that I'd say we should all stay home and crush our cars.  First and foremost I am a pragmatist and I would rather see improvements in a bad situation than futile efforts to fix it all at once (which I think plays a large part in our past failure to address the problem, and blame myself and other progressives for pursuing exciting and unattainable goals).

    What we need to do is move to more improved solutions, and those are imo likely to include all sorts of things.  Oil is not going away next year, or next decade.  Efficiencies in use must play a very large part in dealing with energy problems, both economic and environmental.

    Nuclear needs to be a large part as well.  It is the only source with a near-zero environmental impact that can scale to replace significant hydrocarbon use.

    Coal needs to be cleaned up and used.  It is the most available source, and if/when it can be used without the massive negative environmental impact, it could play a large economic and enviromental positive role.

    Biofuel needs to be developed further.  Food-based biofuel is a terrible half-step, cellusotic biofuel using advanced production methods (which are being engineered now) could end up being a huge benefit - or not.

    Wind/solar/tidal/geothermal could all play huge huge roles.  Lots of improvements in efficiencies and economics need to be made to scale these to a level where they can dent existing and growing power needs.  I think geothermal could end up being the big play - we are sitting on an energy source of literally unexpendable magnitude and we already know how to drill holes in the groudnd.

    [ Parent ]

    Not accurate (none / 0) (#187)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:04:02 PM EST
    Oil is only "cheap" due to economies of scale - there is no reason to believe other sources cannot be cheaper with similar scale and process improvements.

    Scale is only a small part of the issue.  We have been distilling for millenia.  Alcohol is still more costly than petroleum.  The big factor is that a pound of petroleum contains more energy than say a pound of alcohol.  In addition, the energy required to process petroleum is small buy comparison.  Thats all true regardless of scale.

    Hydrogen powered vehicles make some sense if the hydeogen is produced by splitting water with nuke power, but gets nutty to use diesel or coal.

    Signature Song
    [ Parent ]

    It's that balance of cost/Joule that determines (none / 0) (#194)
    by chrisblask on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:24:53 PM EST
    the economics.  In a strawman argument you could presuppose that it cost $1K to distill a gallon of gas, in which case alcohol would clearly be more economical per Joule.  Currently that is not the case, but in the unlikely case that oil dries up much faster than anyone assumes it will, some price per gallon of distilled gas could be reached which tips the scale in favor of alcohol (and/or combined with lowered cost of distilling alcohol).

    Agreed on hydrogen. The best fuel cycle would have many fewer steps, and cracking H2O to make H2 by way of electricity generated from clean sources would seem to be an easy trump for distilling burnable fuel at all.

    [ Parent ]

    It's about balancing priorities (none / 0) (#176)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:37:55 AM EST
    First, the U.S. simply doesn't have much oil. We have some, but we are just not geologically suited to being an oil producing powerhouse. Second, the price of oil is determined by a simple supply/demand formula in which supply and demand are not both regulated by the free market. In this case, the supply is being limited by aritificial means while the demand is fairly fixed, leading to inequalities which allow producer's to charge more money and make more profit for selling less product. OPEC can limit production (although some think they are not limitign production, but are actually reaching a point at which they cannot produce as well becasuse the best oil sources have been tapped out).  Speculator's can run prices up. Processing facilities can go down for planned maintenance or for recovery from accidents. Heck... corporations can simply not build new processing facilities, which means that the older ones will be guaranteed to be down more often. They have found that they make MORE profit with fewer gasoline production facilities, not less.

    The market is not regulated, which means that there are about a thousand ways for thep people making profits to game the system to make more profits and very little that we can do to stop them, except use less fuel, which the American people are doing. But that takes a while to implement. People move and buy homes closer to their jobs, buy more economical cars, establish car pools. It takes time, but it is happening.

    But don't assume that the U.S. has untapped reserves of oil which can cheaply be tapped to dramatically reduce our need for foreign oil. We don't, and even if we did it would not effect the prices - the players would simply drop production somewhere along the line to keep their profits up.

    [ Parent ]

    Untapped reserves (none / 0) (#185)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:54:53 AM EST

    But don't assume that the U.S. has untapped reserves of oil which can cheaply be tapped to dramatically reduce our need for foreign oil.

    But we do have enough to lower the price.  With gas down to $2.00 or so, it would not matter much what percent is domestic.

    Signature Song
    [ Parent ]

    Probably not (none / 0) (#192)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:19:34 PM EST
    First, it would take years to develop the areas we have oil. We have coastal and Alaskan oil which is relatively easy to access (a few years away), but a lot of our oil is tied up in shale in the West and it can only be accessed economically if oil prices get even higher than they are now.

    Second, in a rigged system, increased supply is not based on real supply, but on how much of that supply is released and how quickly. Oil producers and refineries are for profit enterprises that can control their production in order to maximize profit. If we get more supply from somewhere else, they will restrict supply elsewhere to ensure that prices remain high. In a non-regulated corporate environment, they are responsible only to their shareholders, not to the general public. Heck - Saudi Arabia doens't even have shareholders.

    Finally, much of our oil is now coming from the Alberta tar sands in Canada. This oil is only economically viable if oil prices remain high. If prices drop even close to the point where we can get $2/gallon gas, this source will no longer be available and oil prices will go up even without market manipulation.

    [ Parent ]

    Stooopid is as stoopid does (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by DoggieDaddy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:26:26 AM EST
    Dig - the head of my company was presented with an informal proposal by us working class slobs about going from a 5 day work week to 4 days work week in order for us blue collar peons to save on gas prices.
    The dummy figured we wanted to cut our total hours and thought we had no work to do and not that we would work 5 days condenced into 4.
    Well even after it was explained to him the exact reason - the cost of fule DUH - he said no.
    He only pays 3.19 per gallon and he can get to work so why shouldn't we....totaly, well, unaware of the real world and what's going on in it.
    I should note that as a union shop we forgo our cost of living increases for 5 years because he con-vinced us the economy was stagnant and we all need to pitch in to help the company survive. Of course he gave himself and his exuctives a raise but I digress. Totaly out of touch or just an eleatist or maybe just a jerk...what was the point?
    Oh yeah, the shape of things to come.
    Stoopid decision makers.

    I live in Western NC (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by ap in avl on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:48:52 AM EST
    (Appalachia if our nominee wants to visit).

    Gas prices are one of the many concerns in this area.  Asheville itself is a tourist destination and second-home market for a lot of people who live in Atlanta/Florida.  Median income is in the low/mid $30,000 range.  Home prices/rental fees are inflated to the point that people who work in the area cannot afford to live here.  So many live in several counties over and commute over an hour each way to their jobs.

    That is no longer a viable option.  I hear stories on a daily basis now from people who are squeezed to the point of breaking.  When 1) people can't afford to live where they work and/or 2) they can't find a livable wage close to where they live.....what can they do?

    Add to that the fact that most of them work for small businesses that can no longer afford to provide health insurance for them.

    I'm sure the problems we have here are similar to the ones facing many, many communities throughout our country.

    Western NC voted strongly for Hillary.  The Clintons made several visits here and impressed so many with their compassion and promise to fight for us.

    Our presumptive nominee did not spend any time in our region.  I hope he will now turn his attention to these types of problems.  

    My neighbors feel invisible.  We need change we can believe in. desperately. now.

    Housing prices (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:04:27 AM EST
    including rents, will take the first hits with a bad economy.  

    That's because, as much as everybody says "Well, you have to live somewhere" a lot of people will choose to live in their cars when they can't afford regular housing anymore.  

    Back in the early '80s, there were tons and tons of homeless people.  I used to think that every freeway offramp seemed to feature people begging for money.  

    I remember going to downtown LA late at night to pickup a friend who worked there and seeing a man with a wife and two little kids walking down Broadway -- and this was near midnight.  And the streets of downtown LA were littered with homeless people sleeping on whatever slab of sidewalk they could claim as their own.

    Anyway, it's easier to give up housing before one gives up food.  

    [ Parent ]

    Local newspaper had story of suffering of animals (none / 0) (#195)
    by jawbone on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:25:37 PM EST
    during the 80's downturn. Featured one woman who slept in her car to be able to keep her dog. Life of finding gas stations where she could sponge bathe, etc. Now, with water prices so much higher, that kind of thing will not be much tolerated.

    Main point of story was huge increase in pets dropped off at shelters in NJ bcz people could no longer afford them. Feed the kids or feed the pets, medical for kids or medical for pets? Tough decision to make, but, really, no choice at all.

    Still terrifies me.

    [ Parent ]

    i miss NC (none / 0) (#112)
    by boredmpa on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:32:31 AM EST
    but i'm glad i'm not living there with high gas prices (they beat out my street-cleaning "taxes" by far).

    And I certainly wouldn't be taking joy rides on the blue ridge parkway in this environment.

    [ Parent ]

    Grapes of Wrath time.... (none / 0) (#193)
    by jawbone on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:21:00 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Why not try some new solutions to... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by EL seattle on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:55:16 AM EST
    ...parts of the problem?

    I mean, what about that "Web 2.0" thing I keep hearing about?  

    You'd think that the sort of software that makes Craig's List and Ebay and Facebook so useful for certain things could be applied to organized ride sharing.  ( Sort of a "Flash Mob" meets "Car Pool" ).  It could be based on the average bus fare price, but would often be faster and get right to your door.

    One thing that strikes me is the (for want of a better word) pride that people take in driving alone.  Their daily commute is not just a way of getting from point "A" to point "B" but is a sort of declaration of their own personal independece from the rest of the crowd.  Gas prices will have to go pretty high to break that mindset.  

    it will require higher density (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:02:27 AM EST
    urban planning. But still--That would require a sociological revolution in the US.

    [ Parent ]
    Does your city have casual commute? (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jerry on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:06:14 AM EST
    In the Bay Area there is a casual commute, a group of locations where drivers and riders just show up during rush hours to share rides.  It's a real win-win since by filling your car up with riders you can avoid the tolls AND use the carpool lanes AND feel nice about the environment AND get to work quicker than the rapid transit alternatives.

    It's even encouraged by area officials.

    Google has transit maps.  And I am pretty sure google had some service showing where buses or cabs were in the area.

    And there is this service, I know nothing about it: carpoolconnect.

    [ Parent ]

    I did that for years (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:16:48 AM EST
    you pick up two strangers and drive in, or you can wait in line and get into a car with two strangers.  Whenever I told people I did that, they thought I was nuts.  Most of the time we did not talk.  After a while you got to know the regulars.  

    [ Parent ]
    way back when I lived in thhe East Bay (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:04:03 AM EST
    I used to commute in by bus. It was common for drives to offer rides to folks waiting at bus stops to meet commuter requirements at the bridge. I started out commuting in with my dad and he taught me all the tricks. Several days a week I could count on the same ride.

    [ Parent ]
    I've never heard of anyone having a problem on it (none / 0) (#78)
    by jerry on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:20:30 AM EST
    I don't live there now (sniff), but I never heard of a single problem with casual commute -- strength in numbers?

    [ Parent ]
    I would (none / 0) (#149)
    by Nadai on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:31:01 AM EST
    only do this if I could specify that the other people in "my" car were women.  I'm not getting into a car with two men I don't know.

    [ Parent ]
    barney frank (5.00 / 8) (#70)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:11:00 AM EST
    on bill maher he made it clear the middle class should not be asked to be the only ones to bear the burden of this transformation our society must go through.  I'm with him.

    I regard it as a complete and total failure of the progressive community that they can not figure out a way to create a progressive solution to a global crisis without imposing a regressive set of economic conditions on the middle class.

    Gas was $4.05 last nite and down to $3.99 tonite (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by Amiss on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:26:17 AM EST
    I live 10 miles outside of Tallahassee in a small town where my husband works. Something I would like to see make a big comeback are trainss. From something I saw on the tube, a train can go around 400 miles on a gallon of gas. Why are we not investing in repairing and building new railway systems?

    Because we are building bridges (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:50:43 AM EST
    to nowhere in Alaska

    [ Parent ]
    and it's especially difficult if (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by boredmpa on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:26:24 AM EST
    you're working poor, underemployed, or unemployed.

    I couldn't sell my car because I was looking for work anywhere in the bay area.  I couldn't pay tickets immediately (20 day window before 25$ bump) cause I had to eat and pay rent.  And I wasn't getting enough work so I had to make tough decisions and pray I'd get a job before DMV renewal when I'd have to pay off my tickets.

    Sigh, so finally i get a paid internship in the city, the same day my car gets towed for 5 unpaid tickets over the past 10 months (which more than doubled because I couldn't pay).  So I have to beg for money to get the car out (cause otherwise they keep it for 30 days, then sell it, and then bill me for their loss).  Not fun.

    Anyway, now I get to sell my car, and pray my internship leads to a job.  If it doesn't then interviewing/working anywhere else could be hell.

    I live on Long Island (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:04:41 AM EST
    where the local gas prices are somewhere around $4.23-4.35. Sadly, there is next to no public transportation around here so if you want to do anything, you need a car. You can't walk to the grocery store or a fast food place or the dry cleaners or pretty much anywhere, let alone jobs. If you work in NYC, you have to drive to a train station and depending on which line you're on, they may not run more than every 90-120 minutes.

    If you want to go anywhere but Manhattan, you're pretty much screwed -- when I was a teenager and had friends elsewhere, I would have had to take a train all the way into Manhattan and then switch and go back out again to where they lived which would've been an all day proposition.

    I own my own business and work from home but it also means I have to travel long distances at times. There's no public transportation that will get me from here to Upstate New York (even if I take Amtrak, I'd need a car to get from the train station to where I need to go) or New England. It's awful.

    My European friends do pay more for gas but they also have great public transportation to almost anywhere. Plus the thought of a 6 hour drive for business to them is unbelievable -- in 6 hours, you could be in 3 other countries.

    Wow! That's wild! (none / 0) (#140)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:09:26 AM EST
    I would have thought that transportation on Long Island would have been a breeze.  NYC certainly has good transit.  How did you guys get left out of it?  

    [ Parent ]
    Urban fright (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by ineedalife on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:47:06 AM EST
    Most of the development of Long Island only makes sense if you look at it as an attempt to hold back the unwashed masses from moving East. That attitude is in the past, but we are burdened with the infrastructure, and lack of it.

    [ Parent ]
    And a lot of corporate b.s. (none / 0) (#191)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:19:30 PM EST
    The Long Island Railroad has been promising to upgrade the commuter line I live on for 40 years. It used to be all diesel trains for years and years, even when other lines had gone electric, and we had to switch trains at one of several given stops west of us. Then they went to electric trains past that stop -- again, switching. A few years ago, they invested in these expensive trains that could run on both diesel and electric tracks. And what did they do? Run ONE of them in each direction during peak commutation hours. They're still doing that.

    It takes me 90 minutes to get into Manhattan. The trains only run every 90-120 minutes. I cannot go north or south on the LIRR. I can't go to any points west other than Jamaica, Queens or Manhattan. If I am in Manhattan, I have to leave by 11 pm or be forced to wait until 1 am for the next train (getting home close to 3 am). The train after that is around 5 am. It's insanity.

    We have a culture of driving here -- kids get their licenses at 16/17. Any time I have had a job out here, I've had to drive to it. There are a few local commuter buses which will take you to a few of the local strip malls/shopping centers, but the stops are few and far between and the service erratic. There is no way I could have taken a commuter bus to any job (especially when I was a temp during and after college). There's literally no other way to get to these places.

    [ Parent ]

    This is great discussion. Don't blame us,however. (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by SamJohnson on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:05:51 AM EST

    I really feel like I'm in my living room talking with friends about things that really matter. Since I'm both the doctor and the cook for my family (which includes an extremely diverse lot of people we have made lasting and meaningful friendships with) I've seen the real trauma that rising fuel prices have already caused.

    The cost of oil has very much affected every aspect of our lives. We talk a lot now about how to get by with the increased cost of food. We buy things in cases when they are on sale because we know the price of food isn't going to go down anytime soon either.

    Taking subways and buses to work typically ends up taking at least an extra hour each way to go a distance we could reach in 15 minutes if they are not holding up cars at tunnels and bridges to screen for something, but we're doing our part to not use cars that cost a fortune to own and run in a city anyway. What about those of us who can't afford a car anyway?

    . Don't lecture me on changing where I live or work to help the environment when I wasn't the one who borrowed all the money from other countries which started the whole downward spiral of the economy just to pay for tax cuts for people who make more money than 95% of the rest of us.

    Did I mention that someone started a war through lies and deception and which has led to horrific borrowing of money from other countries as well? Now, based on the devaluation of the dollar people from around the world are buying properties in the US while people in the US haven't really been built affordable housing in a very long time and because we have been turned into a theocracy that worships corporate profit and cheap labor while it profits the corporations they have interests in we should move?

    If dollars are so worthless, why don't we tax people from other countries who buy property to make up for the greed of the elites running this country? Why do only Americans workers and the middle class have to suffer? As if not taking lobbyists' money is going to change corporate behavior. Politicians will find a way around it anyway.

    Global warming and the price of oil and the cost of health care reflect very bad financial management of this country tied to belief in a very market biased, corporate profits will lift us all to prosperity philosophy that didn't have a chance to work for us when corporate profits depended on selling things we really don't need or that we really do need therefore are victimized by a marketplace strategy.

    I suppose the answer is making people suffer so badly that the next time they vote they will rid the country of those who are in power.  So we have Presidential candidates who appeal to voter's fear or machismo, or berate them for being bitter and stupid for who they are: old or white or female or non-college educated or living in a rural area where the price of gas is way more important than gaming any Party's primary rules for delegates.

    We're supposed to vote for a candidate who inspires his supporters to be offended if we should ask that he work for our votes with spin-free solutions to at least some of our problems, or an old soldier who thinks we just need to tough it out while we win the Vietnam War by following financial policies that haven't worked for the last 8 years. Even he is smart enough to be pandering to those whose main concern in life is global warming. It's become like a get out of responsibility free card.  

    I'm amazed (5.00 / 5) (#130)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:23:32 AM EST
    At how annoyed I get at this discussion.  It almost transcends this whole Clinton/Obama thing, I mean, it's larger than that.  It speaks to the real differences in how people think about progress and regress in our society.

    The reason why I'm replying here is you bring up a good point.  In a lot of cases, public transportation doesn't add that much to commute time because of traffic.

    But in many other cases, it does.

    Time adds up.  I just wish more people would look at this issue and realize that taking 500 hours away from a family per year isn't just an inconvenience.  It degrades society.  It's a pretty giant step backwards.


    [ Parent ]

    Commuting Paradox (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Practically Lactating on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:51:19 AM EST
    This is what economists call "the commuting paradox." Most people travel long distances with the idea that they'll accept the burden for something better, be it a house, salary, or school. They presume the trade-off is worth the agony. But studies show that commuters are on average much less satisfied with their lives than noncommuters. A commuter who travels one hour, one way, would have to make 40% more than his current salary to be as fully satisfied with his life as a noncommuter, say economists Bruno S. Frey and Alois Stutzer of the University of Zurich's Institute for Empirical Research in Economics. People usually overestimate the value of the things they'll obtain by commuting -- more money, more material goods, more prestige -- and underestimate the benefit of what they are losing: social connections, hobbies, and health. "Commuting is a stress that doesn't pay off," says Stutzer.

    Link

    [ Parent ]

    What's really dangerous here is that (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:15:35 AM EST
    every aspect of our infrastructure in the US is based on the assumption of cheap gas. We're all spread out, we have little or no mass transit, we're the ultimate car culture. I mean, we have zillions of houses where the most prominent front facing aspect is the garage -- that is, our houses are really for our cars, and we're an afterthought.

    So if oil goes through the roof as it's now looking, we're in deep sneakers (as an old texas teacher used to say). We're hosed. I don't know if there are any solutions except to just hope we survive a massive depression and somehow come out the other end.

    Wow, this is a very depressing post. Let's make the next one about something fun please.

    Bitter question -- (5.00 / 6) (#132)
    by FemB4dem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:39:43 AM EST
    "Democrats need to reach out to these rural voters on the gas issue. They make up 26% of the voting public."

    Umm, how exactly do the Democrats reach out to rural voters when their chosen standard bearer has called us all bitter, bible-thumping xenophobes, clinging to our guns?

    Just asking.

    For A Start (none / 0) (#180)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:51:17 AM EST
    Not repeating what are now GOP talking points, that is if you have not already migrated to the GOP.

    [ Parent ]
    Reaching out... (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by lentinel on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:26:09 AM EST
    Yeah, the democrats should reach out to voters on the issue of the unconscionable price of fuel.

    They should represent some other issues of interest to the voters.

    The first half of this campaign has been concentrating on destroying Hillary Clinton.

    Obama had better take some positions that are progressive and clearly distinguishable from McCain. So far, I see Obama as being reactionary. His votes for the patriot act, support for Lieberman (sullying his reputation as someone against the war in Iraq), his indefinite health plan, his opposition to gay marriage (which I consider an issue of civil and human rights), his backtracking on the idea of negotiating with adversaries without preconditions (now he has a basketful), are all things that make me disinterested in his political future.

    Add to that the disappointing behavior, betrayal really, by the democratic congress and we have a real problem.

    Let's focus on ending the war in Iraq.

    McCain has been pilloried for his "hundred years" comment.
    But do Obama and the democrats really have an alternative to propose? Talking about a withdrawal "maybe" by 2012 - and leaving "residual forces" to supposedly defend our embassy...
    well - that's a ton of commitment. Not much different in my view.

    So - I wouldn't mind being reached out to - but at this point I think it ain't gonna happen.

    As much as $4 a gallon pains me, (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:47:32 AM EST
    $10 a gallon pains me more.  I fear a huge disruption in lifestyle -- really something catacylsmic (probably spelled wrong).  Anyway, I fear something really awful if gasoline goes to $10 a gallon.   As much as rural lifestyles get disrupted at $4 a gallon, imagine everyone's lifestyle getting blown out at $10 a gallon.  

    And that scares me.  

    Retarded Progressives (5.00 / 4) (#162)
    by Dave B on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:20:45 AM EST
    I have seen so many comments on progressive blogs about what a great thing that the high gas prices are.  They are just pleased as punch that this will force a change of habits, encourage public transportation, get rid of those nasty SUV's and trucks, force people to stop driving, force higher density urban living, etc.

    I live in South Dakota.  I could not function in my live with out a pick-up truck.  Neither could the construction and agriculture workers here.  To rural folks, this type of talk from progressives sounds elitist and brain dead, and it will definitely not translate into support for progressives from rural Americans.

    Now, if we want to talk about fools in big cities driving big trucks and SUV's to the corner store or to work, yes there is a lot of merit to that discussion.

    Exactly right (none / 0) (#178)
    by DFLer on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:43:12 AM EST
    Farmers don't have the option, as my farming friends have explained to me, because there are no fuel efficient trucks and machinery available. Believe me, they would love to take advantage of fuel efficiency.

    BTW re diesel fuel...it is now more expensive than reg gas, right?

    [ Parent ]

    Rising fuel costs = (4.83 / 6) (#11)
    by JustJennifer on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:23:39 AM EST
    rising food prices as well.  Even if you don't drive you will be affected.

    My Mom was just saying last night she (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:26:33 AM EST
    paid 4 something for a loaf of bread. Here in NY, they do keep tabs on milk prices. Our news follows to make sure they stay under the cap. Organic dairies are taking a hit, I believe. I checked last years price from the dairy I get my milk from and the price is the same.

    What they don't talk about enough and they should everytime they say the latest gas price, is the diesel increase. I did some math back when the 1/2 tank of gas joke was big re gas tax. $1100 a month, iirc, was the avg savings for a trucker. I also think on the gas tax, they really underestimated people's neccessary driving. Which doesn't help for furthering discussion of ideas, imo.

    Oh, and I just took a loaf of bread out of the oven :)

    [ Parent ]

    I was in one of my favorite grocery (none / 0) (#138)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:50:48 AM EST
    stores last week, where they bake their own bread.  You used to be able to get a bag of small rolls for $1.  Last week?  $2.69.  Seriously.  They used to sell loaves of French Bread for $1.  Now it's $2.69.  All of their bread was marked up to $2.69.  

    That's huge.  That's like a 200% increase on bread.  The government says baked goods went up 9%.  Well not where I am shopping!!

    A lot of other things were up too so I keep trying to snag all the big bargains at the old prices but it's hard!  


    [ Parent ]

    The 9% (none / 0) (#148)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:29:41 AM EST
    was probably an average. But just wow on what happened in your area.

    [ Parent ]
    Anyway you cut it, it is disgusting. I hope (4.75 / 4) (#2)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:14:44 AM EST
    things get turned around soon.  It is criminal that some people are actually having to choose between food and gas.

    I've seen reports that it could go to $10-15 (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:59:08 AM EST
    By this time next year.

    It feels to me like a plan to force pumping oil in the Alaska reserves, and I hear South Dakota.


    [ Parent ]

    Java....you could be right, but by the time (none / 0) (#79)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:22:02 AM EST
    the drilling is complete, and the amount of oil they might get from it, you would have to wonder if it would be worth doing.  How about more electric cars?  

    Earlier when referring to the $6/gal Europeans pay for gasoline, I said so what...meaning just because they do, doesn't mean we want that.  Something has got to give...

    [ Parent ]

    It's an additional nightmare to think (none / 0) (#90)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:30:53 AM EST
    of where all these gas burning vehicles are going to go.

    I hope there will be a conversion kit available so we can just replace our engines when the time comes.

    Is everyone hearing that the fast food restaurants in your areas are having their cooking oil barrels stolen?

    [ Parent ]

    I haven't heard that, but I am not surprised. (none / 0) (#94)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:45:37 AM EST
    Many diesel engine cars are being run by vegetable oil.  When I lived in the Hollywood area of CA, there was a company doing a land office business converting the cars so they could run on veggie oil.  There is nothing like following a car that emits a french fry aroma... :)

    [ Parent ]
    It's very annoying to the trucks that (none / 0) (#98)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:55:22 AM EST
    drive out to the restaurants to collect the used cooking oil. They are catching the thieves on security cameras and showing them on the news here regularly hoping someone will recognize and turn them in.

    I hadn't heard diesel engines could run on veg oil. I wonder if all the cars started sending out emission odors of french fries, fish & chips, donuts, would the population get fatter, or thinner?

    [ Parent ]

    Too funny! (none / 0) (#133)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:17:52 AM EST
    We are all going to get fatter than heck because we are going to think that we are hungry just following that truck spewing Fish & Chips smell!!  

    Thank gawd they don't invent an engine that runs on CHOCOLATE!!!!  :)

    [ Parent ]

    thinner....you can imagine you have already (none / 0) (#199)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:29:32 PM EST
    eaten when following one of those cars, which will come in handy especially if you can only afford gas and not food too.

    [ Parent ]
    ACK! Don't say that! (none / 0) (#92)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:43:57 AM EST
    I'm moving back to CA next spring and will need to drive for the first time in my life! And I remember when gas was .29 or less a gallon. Have no clue why the .29 sticks in my brain.

    [ Parent ]
    nycstray....the good old days will do that to (none / 0) (#95)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:46:12 AM EST
    you.

    [ Parent ]
    That they wiil ;) (none / 0) (#103)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:12:56 AM EST
    Luckily, my consumer use in other areas has gone down considerably and now that I know I'm going to CA, I can plan accordingly. And I have the luxury of planning where I want to live with few restrictions. My dog will be pulling a cart with farm goods if I can work it right! And I 'll have to plan the first yr as remote work until I get fully settled there. The rent increase that's gonna hit me will be bad enough, but doable. Gas? Oy.

    [ Parent ]
    depends on where in CA (none / 0) (#129)
    by Y Knot on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:22:24 AM EST
    ...you're moving, but there's a lot of talk in L.A. about how to increase mass transit.  Some people are even pushing the streetcar idea again. Luckily, we elected a governor who understands the need to put money into infrastructure.  Unluckily, he's an incompetent boob who has dug us even further into debt.  (It's almost like pretending to be an unstoppable killing machine in movies doesn't actually groom you for politics.  sigh whoops, swerving OT, sorry!)

    Thank god I live near a bus line and I'm only 5 miles from my work.  Filled my tank today, it was 4.35 and that was at Costco.

    My next car is definitely going to need to get at least 40 mph.  I hope Detroit gets with it.  I want to buy an American car if at all possible.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm in LA too (none / 0) (#134)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:24:21 AM EST
    but thankfully, I live within walking distance of almost everything I need or want.  My bank is only 2 blocks from my apartment, grocery store is 3 blocks, mall is about 8 blocks, big shopping district is 3 blocks, 7/11 is across the street, the deli/hairdresser/drycleaners is actually on the block where I live.  sigh  It's almost perfect except for the fact that about 10,000 other people are sharing my square mile.  

    Oh!  Did I mention bus and rail?  Bus stops right on my block, and that takes me to the Metrolink depot.  

    I probably could get along without a car except for the fact that I have a Post Office Box that is 7 miles from here.  Well, that and a storage unit.  Fortunately, I don't have to visit those more than once a week.  

    [ Parent ]

    I moved from L.A. to Vegas 6 months ago, (none / 0) (#198)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:26:17 PM EST
    and I wouldn't have left save for the traffic.  Of course I miss it, especially when I have to drive 26 miles to the bakery I like...as for mass transportation, L.A. has done a very poor job of planning.  At one time they considered a monorail, but it was shot down because Bev Hills people didn't want it ruining the look of the city...bet they wish they had one now!

    [ Parent ]
    I lived in LA in the early 80s (none / 0) (#175)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:35:11 AM EST
    without driving  ;)  Now there's a city that should have continued their mass transit plan YEARS ago!

    I won't be doing city living this time around. I'm hoping to be more small town/rural. I think I can still get away without driving a lot and it will be a matter of finding a place that does have the basics in reach distance wise. The first several months I'll be living in the mountains, but even there I shouldn't be driving a whole lot because of my lifestyle.  I'm also hoping to buy an American vehicle if possible. Gas prices are still going to suck though ;)

    [ Parent ]

    Heating oil (none / 0) (#154)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:13:04 AM EST
    You should be using a heck of a lot less of that in CA.


    [ Parent ]
    I have free heat :) (none / 0) (#177)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:41:34 AM EST
    I'm moving from a very sweet deal cost wise. The first place I'm living has a wood burning stove, so I will be able to save on energy there at least. I should also be able to grow come of my food there, which I'm thrilled about.

    [ Parent ]
    How will our Dem. nominee reach out (4.66 / 3) (#4)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:16:06 AM EST
    to rural voters re high gas prices after he ridiculed Clinton and McCain re a gas tax holiday?

    Bingo! (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by davnee on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:28:14 AM EST
    Obama already ridiculed the gas tax holiday and he voted for the Bush Cheney energy bill.  If McCain can spin it right, he can really grab this issue from Obama.  

    He's already started with his speech this past week:  (from Reuters on 6/3) "The next president must be willing to break completely with the energy policies not just of the Bush administration, but the administrations that preceded his, and lead a great national campaign to put us on a course to energy independence," McCain said to applause. ...Obama has repeatedly tied McCain to Bush, but the Arizona senator turned the argument around, saying Obama had voted for an energy bill promoted by Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. McCain did not vote for the bill. ..."If America is going to achieve energy independence, we need a president with a record of putting the nation's interests before the special interests of either party," McCain said. "I have that record. Senator Obama does not."

    [ Parent ]

    Gas tax pandering... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:22:10 AM EST
    ...really isn't the solution.  It sounds nice, but it is pointless.  

     Right now I am paying 4.50 for a gallon.  I don't want pandering, I want a solution.

    [ Parent ]

    ok (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:29:45 AM EST
    whats the solution?

    What the Indiana Illinois cases showed is that the price of gas adjusted somewhat upward, about halfway.  To say a gas tax holiday provides no benefit at all to the consumer iso about as accurate as saying ALL benefits are passed on to the consumer.

    [ Parent ]

    The point is (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by mbuchel on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:41:40 AM EST
    that not only do consumers not feel the full benefit, but the state (or federal) government loses millions or billions of dollars of revenue - hurting road repair and costing jobs.
    I don't think those repercussions are worth a couple of pennies per gallon.  That's why it was such a bad idea.

    [ Parent ]
    But if they get that revenue (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:44:52 AM EST
    by some other method.....

    [ Parent ]
    We need to get our priorities straight (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by otherlisa on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:53:12 AM EST
    and invest in infrastructure projects that actually address the fact that the price of gasoline is going nowhere but up.

    So, let's divert some of that highway work to projects like this one.

    And I thought the gas tax holiday was a good idea, by the way. It's not meant to be a permanent measure, just something to help tide people over while they adjust to the new reality.

    And it puts the onus back on the oil companies, who have been making obscene profits for decades.

    [ Parent ]

    But what makes you think (none / 0) (#14)
    by frankly0 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:24:40 AM EST
    there even exists an easy solution?

    [ Parent ]
    There isn't one (none / 0) (#16)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:26:29 AM EST
    But I am not in the business of false promises.

    [ Parent ]
    A suspension of the gas tax (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:49:34 AM EST
    isn't a false promise, it's real, temporary relief. I want it and I imagine rural voters do too.

    [ Parent ]
    It also encourages (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by brad12345 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:09:42 AM EST
    unsustainable behavior (or would if it effectively lowered prices.)  People bought huge cars they couldn't afford and took on long commutes.  So be it.  And I say this as someone with a long commute (though in a tiny hatchback.)

    In the long run, we need to raise CAFE standards dramatically, develop more efficient public transportation, improve infrastructure, make small tweaks like retiming stoplights, develop alternative means of transportation, make mass market electric/alternative powered cars, encourage telecommuting... etc.  It sucks that people are spending a lot on gas and are suffering on food and heat and so on for it.  But if we keep supporting that lifestyle by artificially trying to lower gas prices, we'll get hit much harder later on.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:55:32 AM EST
    ...with the fact that it is temporary relief.  You pay for it in the end, though. As Krugman said, it is pointless.

     Maybe rural voters who drive longer distances to work will appreciate it.  But it is temporary relief.  Emphasis on the temporary.  

    [ Parent ]

    Temporary relief (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by standingup on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:19:37 AM EST
    when you have children to feed can make a big difference.  Many of these people in rural areas have fewer choices when it comes to jobs and there is no available public transportation.  Twenty dollars may not make sound like much to a lot of people but it will cover a few gallons of milk.  

    [ Parent ]
    Temporary relief (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:24:06 AM EST
    is better than no relief.  

    I get it.  Why doesn't Obama get it?  

    Yeah, you can have grand plans but nothing beats having something that helps now, not later.  

    [ Parent ]

    State taxes are gas (none / 0) (#61)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:05:32 AM EST
    are more than federal.

    But, at the rate the price is going up, the taxes aren't going to make much of a dent in lowering the prices to affordable levels.

    People around here commute long distances to work. To get affordable housing, it was necessary for many to head way out of town. I know many who travel 80 miles a day (round trip) to work. Two car families almost always include an SUV.

    Who can do anything to stop this? Our Oilmen President & VP?

    [ Parent ]

    Durn right we do (none / 0) (#155)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:14:28 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    If you want to offset the price increase of gas (none / 0) (#161)
    by andrewwm on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:52:09 AM EST
    why not just give them a rebate check for the money to buy groceries with then?

    Why do a Rube Goldberg-esque attempt to lower gas prices, but at the same time taxing oil companies (who will eventually pass that tax increase onto consumers), that also has the bad side effect of encouraging more consumption, the last thing we need to do at this point?

    Just give them a check for $400 dollars in the rural areas to buy groceries. They're smart enough to know how to spend it.

    [ Parent ]

    There are easy solutions (none / 0) (#58)
    by daryl herbert on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:04:04 AM EST
    domestic drilling would bring prices down and we wouldn't be at the mercy of OPEC.  It would also create jobs.

    Of course, there are trade-offs (namely, damage to the environment), but if you want cheap gas, that's the easy way to get it.  And let's face it: cheap gas, by itself, means more damage to the environment (because more people will be burning it when they drive).

    [ Parent ]

    I doubt it (none / 0) (#64)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:08:45 AM EST
    There's no consensus on ANWR.

    [ Parent ]
    There has been no consensus (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by magisterludi on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:09:03 AM EST
    on anything relating to the environment and energy for the last several decades. So here we are, at the breaking point. Gas will be 5 bucks a gal nationally by the end of the month. In Memphis people are turning to bikes and, particularly, motor scooters. The suppliers can't keep them in stock. Good news.

    Bad news- rash of gas thefts. Besides siphoning off cars, thieves will puncture high profile SUVs and drain them. The poor are really suffering, it's 10 degrees hotter here than usual. Utilities have increased again and, of course, food staples are spiraling out of sight.

    The very real upshot of this is our crumbling social structure and the mayhem that could occur when desperate people start doing desperate things to survive. Alan Greenspan, obtuse as he is, even acknowledged civil unrest is a very real possibility in this clime.

    While high energy costs may be good in theory, in reality the costs will be unbearable for too many. Something has got to give   and it's not going to be pretty.

    [ Parent ]

    Thieves around here (none / 0) (#168)
    by pie on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:22:18 AM EST
    are not only siphoning gas, but they're stealing license plates.  They put them on their cars, fill up at a gas station, and then drive away.  The cameras catch the license plate, but not the thief.

    Someone in a nearby town told told me that it recently happened to a friend of hers.  They took his license plate off while he was in church.  He reported it as soon as he noticed.  On Monday, he went to the license bureau to get a replacement, and there were 14 other people there for the same reason!!

    Signs of the economic times.  :(

    [ Parent ]

    Consensus as to what (none / 0) (#80)
    by daryl herbert on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:22:03 AM EST
    That it would provide gas and drive down gas prices?  I think everyone agrees on that.

    As far as I understand it, the only debate is whether we should go ahead or not, and how much damage the environment would take if we do go ahead.

    [ Parent ]

    Please be serious (5.00 / 5) (#93)
    by otherlisa on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:45:12 AM EST
    Everything I've read about ANWR indicates that we'd get something like 6 months of oil supplies twelve years from now that aren't even guaranteed to go to US consumers.

    We cannot drill our way out of this problem. We need to make some fundamental, structural changes.

    The changes don't have to be all that painful (though some probably will be). There are a lot of unglamorous, incremental things we can do that will help. I don't have time to google this now, but as an example, California's rate of energy consumption has remained flat since the 70s. Obviously we do drive a lot here so we are getting that savings through conservation measures and stricter regulation.

    We can insist on regulations around energy efficiency and conservation and start putting tax money into better mass transit infrastructure.

    [ Parent ]

    Not so much - 75 whooping cents a barrel (none / 0) (#166)
    by DFLer on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:55:56 AM EST
    If Congress were to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, crude oil prices would probably drop by an average of only 75 cents a barrel, according to Department of Energy projections issued Thursday. [May 22].

    McClatchy article

    [ Parent ]

    heh (none / 0) (#22)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:30:28 AM EST
    the solution is that you stop driving.  It's a terminal solution.  

    You have not been following the fact that high energy prices are green-Democratic policy.

    [ Parent ]

    Well let's see... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:35:15 AM EST
    ...I drive less than five miles to go to work.  I made a choice.  I work one place, live in another place, and I spend relatively less for gas.

     Hard choices.  Fact is, competing demands are not going away.  This was always going to involve a change in lifestyle habits, it was only a question of when.  

    [ Parent ]

    I walk a block to work. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:42:34 AM EST
    So it's no skin off my nose. I 've never enjoyed driving to work. I hate commuting.   I grew up in Oxford!

    [ Parent ]
    I hope you don't lose your job (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:47:11 AM EST
    and end up working somewhere else farther away.

    [ Parent ]
    Pretty dark thing to say... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:49:26 AM EST
    ...and kind of surprised that you would say that, but, if you must say it, my response is that I'll budget for it.  Or try to.

    [ Parent ]
    I Only Get The Blowback (4.66 / 3) (#6)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:18:14 AM EST
    Since I have not driven a car in sometime living in an urban center. The europe comparison is not so bad though, some believe that until the price of oil/gas is exorbitant, Americans will not think differently about fuel.

    Most cultures do not conserve until they have to.

    thepeople who now control the party (4.66 / 3) (#8)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:19:42 AM EST
    believe high gas prices are a good thing (yes they do.  Its the only way to force people to stop driving)  so I don't expect much from the party on this issue until they start losing elections.