digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at marketwatch.com

8 reasons you'll rejoice when we hit $8-a-gallon gas

marketwatch.com — A further price rise as in Europe to $8 a gallon -- or $200 and more to fill a large SUV's tank -- would be a catalyst for economic, political and social change of profound national and global impact. We could face an economic squeeze, but it would be the pain before the gain.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • docphysics, on 05/29/2008, -52/+198We need to ween our dependence on foreign oil. This would do it. :-)
    • skidme, on 05/30/2008, -7/+64wean.

      /spellingnazi
      • cyrix, on 05/30/2008, -7/+46ICH LIEBE GRAMMATIK!!!!!!
        • Berkana, on 05/30/2008, -5/+5If you liebst Grammatik so much, you wouldn't have used all-caps and multiple exclaimation points. ^_~
      • raynar, on 05/30/2008, -11/+15Yea I'll rejoice. Being that it'll take 20 years to have any real development, I'll gladly give big oil my paycheck...stupid article.
      • Charlotte_Web, on 05/30/2008, -14/+2wii-n.
      • GliTCH82, on 05/30/2008, -1/+9This article is stupid and doesn't take into account that the market price of oil is manipulated artificially by controlling the perceived available supply.
      • coyote1284, on 05/30/2008, -1/+3Push th' little daisies and make 'em come up
      • Berkana, on 05/30/2008, -2/+6"spellingnazi"? Psht. The nazis are long gone. You mean "spellingrepublican".
        • DephexTwin, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3Spend some time on the Internet and you'll see the nazis are alive and well.
        • hmunkey, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3@Dephex
          Those "nazis" are just adults living with their parents who have nothing better to do.
        • Berkana, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1DephexTwin: I spent plenty of time on the Internet; I know this much: any group you go looking for on the Internet will appear alive and well, except for maybe the Shakers. It's not like I somehow drift into nazis on the web—if one doesn't look for Nazis, one won't find them. Wannabes don't count, and certainly not in the sense that they'll snoop on you and crush dissent. Nowadays, they are dissenters, not totalitarian spymaster overlords and torturemasters. That role has been taken up by the neocon Republicans.
    • miiiindriiiis, on 05/30/2008, -23/+16Wow, the writer of this article is an ignorant dick.

      I mean just look at #7.

      If oil prices go up so will their credit lines, thats all.

      You'll still be way below the Jones', Chris Pummer, you fat bastard.
    • jmoo, on 05/30/2008, -3/+30So we just keep all the oil on our land and drill any place like Alaska or off shore? What happens when that runs dry in 30 or 40 years? Right back where we started.

      Lets for once just face up to it and work off the massive need for oil in this country.
      • norman619, on 05/30/2008, -9/+7Abiotic Oil. Peak oil may be a load of crap.

        http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/Sus ...
        • darkstar949, on 05/30/2008, -2/+15Even if oil is created via a renewable process, you still have to hope that the process is faster than the rate of consumption - if the process only produces at the rate of one barrel a day, but you are consuming two barrels a day, then you will hit a point where there is no more reserve oil that you can use.
        • norman619, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2darkstar949:
          Ummm... Think about it for a bit. If we have mainly been drilling to the level we expected to find the organic matter which we assumed turned to oil we would have left all kinds of deeper deposits untouched. Your thinking is pretty limited. I know drilling deeper is harder and more expensive but when/if the existing deposits start drying up it will give the oil industry the incentive they need to improve their drilling technology to get at those deeper untapped deposits. So this really makes your argument pointless.
        • Bith8654, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1Norman, it hardly makes his argument pointless, it just means we MAY have more stalling time before we face the situation he is proposing.
        • norman619, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1Bith8654:

          Yes it does. We use the new deposits and leave the old ones alone as they are replenished. This is all assuming the Abiotic Oil theory is correct and if the evidence is real then it most likely is correct so yes it makes his argument pointless since this would mean we could go back and forth between the old and new deposits as they replenished. It means our oil supply may really be virtually unlimited. We've hardly tapped all the Earth's oil deposits.
      • jim3008, on 05/30/2008, -5/+10the oil in Alaska and off shore can only provide us ~2-3yrs supply of oil, which is a lot, taking into account we use ~21million barrels a day,

        i think increasing supply of oil is not our only problem, we should decrease oil consumption
      • cphoover, on 05/30/2008, -0/+5We already have the technology.

        solor panels electrolysis wtf is everyone waiting for.
        • thirteenthcor, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1totally with you, though everyone HATES the idea of using hydrogen in ICE's for some reason, some whine on about "not being 100 percent efficient in energy exchange" probably made by people who have never listened to the roar of a tuned-out 350. I'm the guy who wouldn't mind a fuel change, as long as he can keep his beautiful engine.

          guess i'm "old school" lolz

          worrying about efficient energy exchange and whining about ICE's ITS THE FREAKING SUN FOR GODS SAKE PEOPLE, its not going anywhere for a very LONG time, use as much of it as YOU WANT.
      • jpop, on 05/30/2008, -0/+5It buys us time to work on the issue without destroying what's left of our economy. Of course, that assumes our politicians will work on alternatives during that time...
    • unreg, on 05/30/2008, -16/+90Wow. I can only assume the author lives in some nice lil condo squired in the middle of San Francisco, where everything is minutes away via public transportation.

      Does he really think $8 gas is the answer? What is his answer to the inevitable social upheaval that will occur as people are no longer capable of sustaining their strained finances, choosing between food and energy? Remember, as gas skyrockets, so does the cost of heating and electricity.

      Are we all to abandon our houses moving into suddenly available and affordable housing in the urban centers? Will all those business suddenly relocate also?

      Will affordable, mass produced hybrid vehicles appear overnite at my dealership.


      • norman619, on 05/30/2008, -0/+12Or living in NYC. Subway system goes everywhere.
        • thatsmyaibo, on 05/30/2008, -1/+3Not in Los Angeles. I love public transport but here it just isn't an option.
        • norman619, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2thatsmyaibo:

          Did I mention Los Angeles? My comment was about NYC and their subway system.
        • BECoole, on 05/30/2008, -0/+4What do you pay for rent in NYC?
          Can the average guy purchase a house there?
        • thirteenthcor, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1Same here in Texas.... WHAT mass-trans?! Even Dallas and Houston can't pull it off...
        • RobotCitizen, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1Problem solved. Everyone in the world should move to NYC.
      • boot20, on 05/30/2008, -7/+75Uh, duh...yes...It'll all be free and totally painless! Goods and services won't become more expensive and we'll magically be out of debt!

        Oh, look at me! I'm making people happy! I'm the magical man - from Happyland! In a gum-drop house on Lollypop Lane!
        • ahoyhoy, on 05/30/2008, -2/+15By the way, he was being sarcastic.
        • greevar, on 05/30/2008, -2/+17Dugg for Simpsons reference.
        • PhantomZmoove, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2This makes me think of that Simpsons episode where Homer joins the army. As he is being picked up out front and Marge is asking him not to leave he says to Maggie, "who is going to keep oil under $100 a barrel?? you??" Wow, that doesn't seem like that long ago. :(
      • jezsik, on 05/30/2008, -15/+20Cheap personal transportation has caused our cities to sprawl out of control. Ya know what? You don't HAVE to live thirty miles from work. Even if you did, most jobs can be performed remotely (including, believe it or not, flipping burgers). If gas gets expensive enough, people would live closer to work, cars would become smaller, lighter and more fuel efficient, public transportation would improve, people would look toward more efficient means of heating and cooling their homes ... the list goes on.
        • raynar, on 05/30/2008, -15/+34When you're in the real world, you'll understand that most people HAVE to live farther away from work, because not every town has jobs for everyone..you stupid nutsack.
        • marx2k, on 05/30/2008, -3/+13raynar: So, the suburbs are overflowing with white collar work opportunities?
        • ahoyhoy, on 05/30/2008, -5/+9Where do you suggest people live, then? Overcrowded, expensive, crime-infested popular cities? I'm wondering if this author's dream is for everyone to live in a city, with the distinction between city and country being a sharp distinction.
        • jezsik, on 05/30/2008, -3/+12There are LOTS of cities and towns that are very pleasant places to live and work, ahoyhoy. When you live and work in the same area, you take ownership as part of a community. When you're just there for work, you neglect the place and, as a result, it degrades - that's what happened when people moved to the suburbs. As far as a sharp distinction between city and country, why not? Wouldn't it be great to leave the city and quickly find yourself in a rural area? Instead, we have hundreds of miles of strip malls and housing developments. Yuck!
        • curtisag, on 05/30/2008, -5/+6Allow me to defend my fellow suburbians. We don't live outside the city because we like driving through horrendous traffic to work every day, or spending tons of money on gas. People live in the suburbs because they are better places to live and raise children. And most major cities have a great deal of crime and extremely poor schools which are not good places to raise children. In a bygone era, one could raise a family inside the city, keep your doors unlocked, allow your children to play outside, and not have to worry one bit. When that era ended, people made the rational choice to leave.
        • xB4R7x, on 05/30/2008, -4/+7You're an ignorant prick. Gas prices are outrageous... Some of the ***** you suggested is just NOT POSSIBLE. Some of us live in the middle of nowhere... and have no way of changing it. I go to school near Rochester, NY and I still have to drive 5 miles to school every day. It costs me almost $100 a week, which is how much I make at my part-time job. My ENTIRE pay check is devoted to paying for gas... Luckily my parents are still paying my apartment rent because I'd have to either quit school and work full-time or live on the streets and continue my education if they weren't. And it's all thanks to the CROOKS who are OVER CHARGING for gasoline.

          The car I drive isn't exactly fuel efficient ('94 Jeep Cherokee - 15 mpg) but I can't afford anything else because ALL my money goes into my gas-tank. I ride my bike to school whenever I can but sometimes it's just not possible.

          The ***** you suggested is only possible in a Utopian society... and I think that we all can agree that we don't live in one.

          At this moment, I'm staying in Boston... and I admit that I do love the ability to take the T everywhere... right until I remember that I'm paying $10 a day to park my ***** car... (and that's discounted from $30)

          And since when are strip malls and housing developments "yuck". Cause last time I checked they're a lot nicer than most of the cities themselves.
        • BECoole, on 05/30/2008, -3/+3Oh, geez, I always wanted to live next door to city scum and hear their rap noises.
        • ChuyMatt, on 05/30/2008, -1/+3Ahh... BECoole, You mean BLACK PEOPLE, right? Just clarifying.
        • marx2k, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Curtisag: You do, of course, realize that the reason cities have become crime infested, run-down places is specifically because people who could have spent some energy revitalizing those cities fled, right? And you do realize that as time goes on, the crime and decay radius spreads, right? So the dream house in the dream neighborhood you purchased 5 years ago may be worthless next year because the 'wrong people' are moving next door, dropping your real estate value. So at some point everyone will be forced to make a choice. Keep moving farther out or staying in the community and putting energy back into it. It's really only a matter of time.
        • marx2k, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1xB4R7x: You live 5 miles from school and you can't figure out how to not drive there? Are you serious? I guess you can't possibly be serious. 5 miles?

          And yeah, strip malls and housing developments are "yuck" because they symbolize the homogenization of America. But I guess if you've lived in the burbs all your life, that's what you're used to.

          BTW, What was stopping you from selling your gas guzzler and buying a subcompact? I mean, yeah.. who'd want the tank now... but last year?
        • thirteenthcor, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1so marx2k, what do you suppose we do about the "wrong" people? just move back closer to the cities and displace THEM? What your suggesting, that good people need to move back into towns, is almost as idealistic as this article. This isnt a geographical or a logistical problem, its a CULTURAL/SOCIAL one. There are reason's why places like Japan are "decent" enough to live in, and why if you forget your wallet at a diner there, it may just be delivered to you in the mail, still full of cash.... Its Social.....
        • marx2k, on 05/31/2008, -0/+0Thirteenthcor: Moving back in and taking back the community is a much better solution than moving progressively farther and farther away from the cities, especially if you work there. And if you don't think this is a geographical/logistical problem, then people wouldn't be bitching that they have to drive an hour to work in a crime infested, decaying city. But you're also right, middle class flight IS a cultural/social problem, but also one that the middle class can solve. Unfortunately, people generally would rather just move away than deal with the problem at hand. There does come a point, though, where there is no more 'away' to move away to and urban sprawl becomes large enough where you have major cities begin to intersect with their outlying suburbs.

          I blame generations of middle class communities that live in isolated mansions in isolated (and sometimes gated) communities who don't know their neighbors and have absolutely no sense of community, so when things begin to go south, they drop everything and just... move away. No sense of responsibility to anything outside of their door. *shrug* The "not my problem" mentality it quickly becoming a problem.
      • trunkster, on 05/30/2008, -0/+4http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/216/303

        He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area. Next we'll have an article from someone in New York. And then someone in Texas.

        Here's another one of his articles: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/five-signs-w ...
        • emalen, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1I was with you until Texas. If you're referring to areas with lots of public transit and less sprawl, how does Texas follow that train of thought?
      • jhaks, on 05/30/2008, -1/+9$8 gas is not the answer, it is inevitable. It will be the catalyst for the answer as he noted.
      • jer2eydevil88, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2With prices at the fuel pumps reaching $8 a gallon then other fuels become cheaper and less expensive than petrol. As someone who has a 30 mile commute I would see myself bending over backwards to organize carpools or even buying a vespa.

        It would bring about series cultural changes.
      • greytfriend, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1In response to unreg and jer2eydevil88, I could be a lot of social upheaval. The way we do business now, flying in for a lunch meeting and then flying home, the foods we are able to eat all year round because they are shipped in from South America, country vs. city living as stated above. Certainly, many of the conveniences we take for granted would change. But also much of how we think of the world as one connected place. It could bring up even more nationalism, less willingness of countries to aid those outside their borders, etc. Too much sci-fi for this late at night. Sorry.
    • BECoole, on 05/30/2008, -17/+8No, the Democrats would make sure that we still get all our oil from foreign, even hostile sources.
      • airniqueel, on 05/30/2008, -5/+6I think you have the Democrats confused with the Republicans. In case you forgot, Al Gore, a prominent Democrat, has been campaigning for environmental causes. Which prominent Republican has done that?
        • BECoole, on 05/30/2008, -2/+1Al Gore is a global warming lunatic and hedge fund manager.
          Al Gore is also one of the guys that won't let us use our domestic supplies. We have enough proven reserves to shut out foreign oil for the next 60 years.
      • Dumbledorito, on 05/30/2008, -4/+4Right. Are these the same Democrats who started a fool's errand war with an oil producing country thinking that freedom worked like the end of "Return of the Jedi," that petrolium would somehow be cheaper for their efforts, and that 200k soldiers who can't speak one word in the native language could hold a population of several million? Those Democrats?
        • 5urr3al5am, on 05/30/2008, -1/+6these same Democrats most certainly DID vote for the War in Iraq.. you must be confused
        • Laughsatyou, on 05/30/2008, -1/+4are you trying to tell me that only republicans voted for war, and the democrats are innocent?
          must be nice to be so delusional.
    • minorthreat, on 05/30/2008, -2/+10I think the real news here is the falling dollar. The price they will not have risen so much... its just our dollar keeps getting *****. soon when 1 of our dollars == .25 euros. Gas will cost 15 dollars a gallon over there.
      • Issius, on 05/30/2008, -5/+1if one of our dollars == .25 euros we'd be absolutely fine...
        I think you may have meant 1 dollar == 4 euros or 1 euro == .25 dollars
        • NativeAlien, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2No
        • marx2k, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1Nope. He meant what he said. One of our dollars == .25 Euros. And we're not fine ;)
    • bogdon6, on 05/30/2008, -7/+11It would ween us from dependence on foreign oil only because we would start using domestic shale oil. There's more oil in shale oil than there is in Saudi Arabia. This won't be the end of the internal combustion engine.

      By the way, this guy obviously doesn't ride public transit like I do every day. Public transit isn't great, it sucks. If you like to be packed in hot rail cars, forced to stand uncomfortably, then public transit is for you.
      • 5urr3al5am, on 05/30/2008, -3/+2with all the environmental regulation on drilling and all of the different types of state gas regulations, I blame the Democrats not the Republicans
        • lettruthout, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2Let's take a deep breath and think about this for a second...

          The fact that our air is at least half-way breathable comes courtesy of environmental regulations.

          Don't believe me? Try getting anywhere near an old car that is running - that awful smell used to come from all of them.

          We need a stronger EPA. Not one captured by industry.
      • lettruthout, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2Sounds good until shale oil's dirty little secret comes out: it takes a lot of energy to extract and process it. Some say it isn't worth the effort - especially when greenhouse gases are also considered.
    • wolfpack52, on 05/30/2008, -4/+9we get most of our oil from this continent u..middle eastern oil has only a small market on the US since China and India have found about a great invention called the automobile..Canada, Mexico and the US provide us with most of our oil...and theres still tons of it off shore of california...but the pricks that live there on the coast dont want to ruin the view with a oil rig out in the middle of the coast
      • CiXeL, on 05/30/2008, -1/+4if they built them on the seafloor there wouldnt be a problem
        • Laughsatyou, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1only if it is run by Captain Murphy.
      • lettruthout, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3Apparently you haven't heard of the Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969...
        "Over a 10-day period, beginning Jan. 28, 1969, a blowout of Union Oil’s Platform A spilled crude oil onto beaches from Pismo to Oxnard and beyond. The resulting mess of tar killed upward of 10,000 birds, suffocated marine plant life and left large portions of Santa Barbara County smelling like a petroleum refinery."

        Why should I support risking our coastline so someone can afford to threaten me on the highway with a 4,000 pound SUV that they're driving by themselves? Who's the prick really?
        • marvin69, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1So you don't care if it happens in the Gulf? Just not in your back yard right?!?
          If CA uses the most they need to buck up and start producing. Also lots changed in the 40 ***** years since that accident dumb *****.
        • unreg, on 05/31/2008, -1/+1OMG !!

          One spill, forty ***** years ago. Oh the horror of it all
        • lettruthout, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1@marvin69
          Re-read the post. That could apply to any coast.
          Actually California is a leader in designing and buying fuel efficient vehicles and in trying to force the national government into higher efficiency ratings.
          Every heard of the Exxon Valez spill in Alaska? That happened more recently.
          Calling people names doesn't strengthen your argument.
      • ummagummas08, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1I think I am dumber now that I read that post.
    • Volaitle86, on 05/30/2008, -6/+1no ***** sherlock
    • Dumbledorito, on 05/30/2008, -3/+1Ween?
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muP9eH2p2PI
    • awinn233, on 05/30/2008, -3/+12We need to wean ourselves off of oil entirely, not just foreign oil.
    • chuckDontSurf, on 05/30/2008, -1/+11The spice must flow.
    • AutoTom, on 05/30/2008, -1/+11no it wouldnt, the moment you use alternate technologies the price will drop and it will once again become cheaper to use oil

      lets face the facts people, we are using oil untill it runs out.

      sorry to be a bummer.. just trying to be realistic about our crappy situation
      • BrewBeau, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1I imagine in that case they would pass laws adding taxes and tariffs to oil and vehicles that burn gas to where it wouldn't be cost effective, if they didn't outlaw it all together.
      • Tommyhawk, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1The only reason oil would drop below the alternative technologies is if those technologies weren't more efficient than oil to begin with and therefore didn't deserve to be cheaper than oil. The only real alternative to oil is something which is more efficient than oil, not less. Anything less efficient will always be more expensive. So until we find something better than oil then yes, we will continue to use it until it runs out or until there is so little of it people can't afford to burn it.
        • thirteenthcor, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1Not true, all it takes is a shift in demand to change prices. Efficiency has nothing to do with it, the infrastructure for oil distribution is in place, and the moment something else comes onto the market, instantly there will be competition, which will drive prices for oil down.... AutoTom is right, oil is here to stay, whether we like it or not.

          You do realize that oil has been an industry monopoly for over 100 years? once it gains competition, all we know about this market and industry will change.

          What I would like to see is a venture capitalist pull a "Carnegie": Build a Hydrogen "refinery" using either hydroelectric or solar power, build hydrogen fuel stations, market a converted or new line of cars that run on hydrogen, open conversion shops for existing cars, and sit back and watch the money roll in. That way oil will have a closed distribution, competing monopoly, that can hold up against it.

          if you don't know who Andre Carnegie was, look up what he did to distribution.
        • Tommyhawk, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Efficiency has everything to do with it. If all it took was for something else to come onto the market we would have been off oil about 40 years ago. We already have wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal, nuclear... What else do you need to come on to the market before you realize that oil is still the most efficient energy source and that's why everyone still uses it?

          And if you really think some rich person can save us all from oil you are incredibly naive. The very fact that you know it would take someone wealthy shows what kind of resources they would need. Fact is they would probably lose money trying to do such a thing. The only way it would work is, again, if they're product was more efficient than oil.
    • Naieve, on 05/30/2008, -3/+11Does anyone here realize all of our food and products are shipped by trucks. Internal combustion engined trucks?
      Not coal or nuclear powered railways. Trucks. Oil burning trucks.
      Right now the trucking industry is barely breaking even shipping items.
      What does everyone think is going to happen when they start losing money?
      Either goods are going to double in price, or you aren't going to eat.
      If you think we are about to switch away from trucking, well you need to understand we have a couple decades of work to do on alternative methods to get a new transportation system built up.
      This article is very naive.

      Naieve
      • jhaks, on 05/30/2008, -2/+4I think you are little naive. Gas prices will inevitably sky rocket; it has nothing to do with if people want them to sky rocket our not. Like you said we depend on gas and like any sane person knows gas is a limited resource that becomes more costly to extract as it is depleted. Your comment hasn't even offered a gleam of a solution, just that it will suck to have oil prices increase.

        The only possible solution is to use other forms of energy and become more efficient with energy usage. The sun is the main source of all Earths energy. Fossil fuels, animals, plants, the weather and nearly all systems on Earth are manifestations of the suns energy. We need to harness this energy and use it more efficiently.
        • 5urr3al5am, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2@jhaks -- did you even read their comment? they're not saying that this isn't the case, but why wreck the USA's economy to prove this? why not do it in a sane and normal way, over a normal period of time? why have the democrats thwarted using our own oil? as well as made so many state to state regulations on the different types of gas?
        • Naieve, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1I'm not saying we shouldn't move down that path, in fact I think mass transportation using more efficient methods is the logical conclusion of the highway insanity.

          I'm saying that while you are all laughing and saying how good this is, you are ignoring the reality that we find ourselves in RIGHT NOW.

          Not in 15-20 years from now.

          RIGHT NOW.

          What are we going to do RIGHT NOW?

          Write about the benefits of $8 gas?

          That's sure helping.

          We are hovering over an abyss, and that author is telling us everything is fine. He is naive.

          Oh and while we sit here not doing anything to switch away from a highway transportation system predicated upon the abundant supply of cheap oil, we are actually considering building a super highway from Mexico so they can ship the supplies through the middle of the country ON TRUCKS.

          Naieve.
        • thirteenthcor, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1Doesn't that Highway bill keep getting shot down every time it goes up?
      • Dumbledorito, on 05/30/2008, -0/+6While what you say about trucking is true, it would also eliminate a lot of unneeded shipping. Fiji spring water, for example.

        Beverages would most likely go back to being bottled locally. Hell, we could even see returnable glass bottles again (mmm... soda with no polymer taste). Produce would again be cheaper nearest the source (the midwest for corn and wheat, the south and coasts for citrus). Long-haul trucking would only become profitable for expensive goods, instead of the amazing amount of fuel/energy that we spend on shipping strawberries across the globe.
        • CiXeL, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1fiji water is the radium cocktails and phrenology of the 2000's
        • cannarymburns, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1yep, glass bottles are awesome, lol. the best example is snapple, that stuff tastes god awful in those new plastic containers, thats just gross that we're literally drinking plastic...
        • cannarymburns, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1yep, glass bottles are awesome, lol. the best example is snapple, that stuff tastes god awful in those new plastic containers. quite gross that we're literally drinking plastic...
        • thirteenthcor, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1omfg.... soda in glass bottles *gasm*
      • roosterjm2k2, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2THe thing you have to realize is that, while trucks/trains do burn fuel, they burn a lot less than cars...

        Look at it like this, semi loaded is 45000 lbs of cargo in a 53 foot box trailer (on the upper end of weight). Add to that some more weight for the trailer itself and the truck and you get near 60,000...

        considering the avg car is about 3000lbs, thats 20 times the weight. Trucks average about 5mpg ... so you're looking at the equivalent of 100mpg when you consider what it takes to move 60,000 lbs of cars.

        Trains are even more rediculous... with the newer trains working out to near 400ton-miles per gallon...

        • Naieve, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1Rooster,

          Right now, this very minute, truckers are barely breaking even on loads.
          The price of everything is going to rise with the cost of fuel.
          People think they are having trouble making ends meet now?

          It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact trucks and trains are more efficient. That's already part of the current equation. It's why we don't ship products in cars. And those trains? Well alot of the tracks are abandoned, most will need relaid. In the mean time, you know the decade or two it takes for us to acclimate to the new situation, what do you think we should do?

          Dumble,

          I agree with your thoughts, but they will not work on the large scale. We have these things called cities, large towns, etc.. They are also predicated upon long haul trucking. The surrounding areas of most high density populations cannot support themselves without it. As the demand for local produce increases with a finite supply the prices will rise anyways.

          I agree that rail transportation must be increased, among other things.

          But what are we going to do in the interim if we do not temporarily halt the rising prices?

          First we must diagnose the problem, then we treat it.

          As of yet, no one in power has even begun to care. They just want reelected, they have enough money to buy it whatever the price. What about the 200 million odd other americans who do not?
    • samsonthesaxman, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1All hail Boognish!
    • crazygamer67688, on 05/30/2008, -0/+4that would be like getting america unfattened.
    • DarthTatr, on 05/30/2008, -1/+5Why don't we drill over from the gulf and drink Saudi Arabia's milk shake?
    • thatsmyaibo, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3Let me know how you like paying $8 for gas and your income can only support the rise in food prices and your trip to work. Higher gas prices will only hurt the poor. The government needs to do more to get these programs up and running. Hurting the pocketbook of every American will only hurt the economy further.
      • thirteenthcor, on 05/31/2008, -0/+2Dugg for insight to people who LACK copious amounts of money


        /me
    • dastardlydud, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1What makes you think that domestic oil producers would sell their oil for less than the international price? Oil companies are in it for a profit, and they'll get it regardless of whether they're American or Saudi.
    • KungFooJesus, on 05/30/2008, -2/+1Sorry, but $8 gas would only raise Hugo Chavez and Amenadenajabberwalky's power in the world. Not lessen it. No matter what, we will always have a need for petroleum products. If for nothing more than plastics. The only thing that wuld take power from those who rule those countries are the people (yeah right) or depletion of their oil reserves.
      • thirteenthcor, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1actually, think about this one too: if there really was a shortage spike in petroleum... why haven plastic products gone up as well.....


        /conspiracy
      • KungFooJesus, on 06/01/2008, -0/+0And also the price for motor oil. There is no true shortage, perhaps in refined products. The reason prices are so high are futures traders. People betting that we are on the way to a shortage, not that we're at a shortage. now. It sucks.
    • LemonPress, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1Im all for cuting ties with those Arabs that we made rich.
    • afruff23, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1"We need to ween our dependence on foreign oil."

      What is up with all the economic nativism? Tell me, where is your computer made? What about its monitor?
    • schuder, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2I think the biggest problem this article is missing is that the people hurt most by this are usually the lower middle class. Sure getting off oil would be great, but why doom a huge subset of the population to misery to do it. The city dwellers are fine, they have public transport. It isn't feasible to extend it to rural parts. And people who live in these areas (mostly because they cannot afford to live near cities) hurt. I carpooled with my dad to the city (Boston) every morning to help do our part. Now I'm finally moving to DC, but if you want to see a real revolution (and any real revolution is violent by definition) then push these people far enough.
    • LeeSoong, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3New from Honda:

      The Vamp Hybrid.

      It runs on gas/ethanol and Human Blood.

    • raytibbitts, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2I am already paying $8 a gallon for my gas here in Spain. I am not rejoicing, and it hasn't done a thing for my dependence on my internal combustion engine. It does nothing to inspire my inventive spirit. It makes for richer Arabs, and richer Arabs have MORE, not less, clout. Higher prices means they get higher profits, too. And if they charge more, so can Hugo-why-don't-you-shut-up-Chavez. It hasn't done a thing for my local 'mass-transit' either.
      Don't get me wrong, I'm all for using less fossil fuels, polluting less, using alternatives, when they are appropriate. However, none of the things he cited are going to come about from higher fuel prices.
    • ummagummas08, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1I thought that the US Military used more oil than the whole country combined??
      ***** 'weening ourselves off of oil' - end this ***** war and gas will be cheaper.
    • thecarpe, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Until we figure out how to retrofit the 100's of millions of cars already in existence on our roads and until we figure out how to not totally kill the poor in this "progressive thinking" miopia, we will not reach a solution. Part of the green mindset is to REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE (there are 5 more if interested). Without changing our paradigm away from totally new and totally different, we are just going to continue to parasitically drain resources and leave the poor and the planet devastated in our consumeristic wake.
  • baskannu, on 05/29/2008, -29/+70We all worry about the high gas price. But this is a very nice commentary about the good things for environment and the world.
    • jsmith39, on 05/30/2008, -7/+51My main problem with the article is that I think the author is living in some mental fantasy land where the 'growth pains' between $8 a gallon gas and an alternate energy source means you get 1 apple for lunch not 2, and you have to give up HBO but not cable.
      If/when gas hits $8 a gallon people will be quite literally starving on the streets as those of us with a middle class income stop buying anything we don't absolutely need causing the retail markets to force massive layoffs on the minimally employed.
      We do need to get off oil as a energy sources, and we need to replace it with a viable renewable energy source but we would cease to exist as a nation if we end up with 20-30 percent of citizens unemployed. This is not a 'rejoicing' situation that would take 5-6 months to overcome.
      • marx2k, on 05/30/2008, -4/+12A perfect example on why the US Government should've started ramping down gasoline subsidization 30 years ago
        • jsmith39, on 05/30/2008, -1/+8Should have/Could have/Would have.
          Blaming politicians for making short sighted decisions when I was 6 and most of you weren't even born doesn't actually help the situation. Since there have been so many chances to change our infrastructure/dependencies since the 70's it doesn't even help define the problems root, so why bother?
        • gregfadein, on 05/30/2008, -0/+8"Blaming politicians for making short sighted decisions when I was 6 and most of you weren't even born doesn't actually help the situation."

          No, but it helps prevent us from repeating mistakes.

          If we had to pay market costs for oil during the '70s and '80s, we wouldn't be in this mess.

          Here's hoping we'll be a bit more careful before we repeat the mistakes of massive economic intervention again when it comes to something else.
        • Dumbledorito, on 05/30/2008, -1/+4We won't be more careful. We keep letting the greedy make the same mistakes over and over, ruining it for the rest of us. The S&L Crisis taught us nothing and we got the Mortgage Crisis. The energy problems of the 70's taught us nothing and we got SUVs and inefficiency when we should have done research when energy was plentiful.

          And why does this happen? Because we've let the powerful rig the system to make sure they don't lose anything or pay for their mistakes; the body politic does. They dress any opposition to what they do as "class warfare" or "jealousy," even though they clobber the middle and lower income strata of our society time and time again.

          I'm amazed we've made it this far without imploding.
        • marx2k, on 05/30/2008, -1/+0jsmith: because it's STILL not happening. Are we talking about denser living conditions, better public transportation, telecommuting, biking, removing subsidies, etc? Nope. We're all panicking about how we're going to sustain our single driver lifestyle when oil runs out.
        • jsmith39, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2marx2k: I understand what you are saying but I disagree with the concept of denser urban living. I do agree that we need (desperately) to get away from oil but I don't like the idea of moving into an even smaller apartment because of population density. I hope to one day buy a house that is 'bigger than I need' and have it be located away from urban centers (but not quite the backwoods either).

          I don't like being crowded by people, I don't like never having more than an hour of peace and quiet before a loud neighbor interrupts it. I like the idea of non-gas engines, and smaller cars, and better public transportation but not at the expense of never having a quiet place to live, or not owning a car than will hold my kayaks.
          I don't drive hundreds of miles a day or even a week, and I enjoy outdoor activities that I feel improve my life. The dense urban development move would destroy that.
        • marx2k, on 05/30/2008, -0/+0jsmith39: Right, but it's specifically your wants that has led to urban/suburban sprawl and all the issues that go along with it. I'm sure everyone would like to live away from other people but when your job is in one location and you live an hour away, that doesn't really make any sense. The craving of people to buy houses bigger than they need and to live away from others is partly what has created the problem we are facing now.
      • kh99, on 05/30/2008, -0/+9"My main problem with the article is that I think the author is living in some mental fantasy land"

        IMHO, people take things too literally. I don't think the author believes there won't be any pain, I think he's just looking to the future at what will happen when gas keeps going up and we have to adapt to it, and trying to look at the positive side. It's going to happen eventually, so there's no use whining about the pain that it will cause.
      • CountZepplin, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2so you're saying most people can't afford to just double their gas expenditures? 20-30% unemployment doesn't come from a small rise like a two-fold increase, it comes from a ten-fold or hundred-fold increase in a basic commodity like gas.

        what about people getting out of their SUVs and buying a sedan? instant doubling of gas mileage, halving of the gas expenditures.
        • jsmith39, on 05/30/2008, -0/+4How many people making min wage in multiple jobs (because no one hires full time) do you know driving a SUV? Most of the people I either know, met, or see going to and from work can't afford even a .45 cent hike in gas prices. They are literally just barely getting by as it is. So no I'm not saying 'most people' but am saying a lot of people can not afford to double their gas expenditures. These are people driving ***** 20 year old cars, living 2-3 people to an apartment in their late 20's/30's, eating the cheapest boxed food available, and driving the absolute minimum miles they can get away with and they still are not making ends meet.
      • artisresistance, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1I'm probably considered "middle class". If gas hits $8 a gallon, I won't stop buying things I don't really need, I'll stop buying gas.

        There's great public transportation where I live, I have a bike. I'll buy an electric car if I have to, but I would no longer buy gas. As the first paragraph nails it - "Shouldn't we be technologically advanced enough here in the 21st Century to quit siphoning off the pus of the Earth? Regardless whether you believe global warming is threatening the planet's future, you must admit crude is passé."

        I mean, *****, we're technologically advanced in so many areas, yet we're still using crude?! Yeah, crude is so ***** crude.
        • KidFlash2, on 05/30/2008, -4/+2LOL I'LL JUST BIKE AND KEEP BUYING ***** FROM CHINA.
        • artisresistance, on 06/03/2008, -1/+1LOL I'LL JUST KEEP DRIVING MY SUV AND SPEND $70 A WEEK ON GAS, HAVE A BUNCH OF KIDS, LIVE ABOVE MY MEANS, AND THEN COMPLAIN WHEN I CAN'T AFFORD IT ALL.
    • CaptMonkey, on 05/30/2008, -3/+16There may be some benefits, but I imagine it's going hurt far more than it will help. $8 a gallon gas will at best cause a stagnant economy, and at worst lead to some kind of modern-day depression. Like it or not, the US is built around gas-fueled economy and changing the price on the gas effects EVERYTHING.

      Sure, it will make us look for viable alternatives, but most of those are years away from being developed enough to be able to offset our gas consumption. What do we do until they're ready? Sit at home in a darkened room and wish we had money to use on something other than basic necessities?

      Yes, if we discover magic pixie dust today that is easy to produce and packs a lot of energy into a small package with minimal environmental impact, then the $8-a-gallon gas was a great thing. But I'm not holding my breath.
      • skidooer, on 05/30/2008, -2/+7We'll just move back to localized economies like we did before the automobile. In fact, I live in a rural area and I'm starting to see it happening already. The small towns that were practically dead are starting to prosper again. And we're only at $5/gallon here.

        It will be certainly be different to what we're used to, but it doesn't have to be bad.
        • lisaawesome, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2There are so many small towns in Oklahoma that have been slowly dying the past couple decades as it has become more profitable for the people who live there to commute an hour to a bigger city for work. It would be wonderful to see these dilapidated towns be brought back to life by the necessity of a localized lifestyle. Yes there are going to be tremendous growing pains but I think in the end people will be better off.
    • drmangrum, on 05/30/2008, -2/+5It's very easy to write a feel good essay, it's quite another to actually have to live it. He can make lemonade out of lemons all he wants, but that doesn't stop the fact that on gas' march to $8.00 many businesses will go under. People are already slowing their spending, small businesses are feeling the pinch. There are many families that have already had to move from fresh food to prepackaged crap, or moving from a name brand item to an off brand. There just isn't enough wiggle room in the average budget to be spending as much on gas as their mortgage.

      Everyone wants to get off the oil teat, but this stuff is pure fantasy and wishful thinking. People will start losing their jobs around $6.00 a gallon. There are people who already don't work due to the fact the commute costs more than their wage. It's just a matter of time until people start to hijack the tanker trucks and sell the gas black market style.
      • KidFlash2, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1When gasoline is at $6, diesel will be even more expensive. The trucks will stop running before we see gasjackings.
    • bogdon6, on 05/30/2008, -3/+7The world is not a better place when people are poorer. High oil prices will really hurt the poor. If you want to hurt the poor and make their lives more difficult, great! High oil prices are for you!

      • Laughsatyou, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1and then we can give them more welfare!
        • lettruthout, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2Better to individuals than corporations. How much are we giving oil companies and the nuclear industry?
        • KidFlash2, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Bear Stearns wut?
      • Rickler, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Poor people drive 10mpg SUVs? No, poor people take the bus.

        and holy ***** is digg laggy, i'm seeing my typing lag. crap ajax comment system
    • Plastic3D, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3Another plus is that if current trends continue, Regular Unleaded will be $8 and Premium will be only $8.20 - making it an affordable difference for everyone!!

      I used to scoff at Premium at $1.20 when Regular was only $1.00..

      But seriously, I *still* think it's a bargain to travel a 5 Hour round-trip for only a $60 full tank for a Honda Accord. Think of what the old settlers used to do to get around!
    • MxM111, on 05/30/2008, -1/+5I am sorry but I think most of the points are simply wrong there! 8$ gasoline (and thus $250 per barrel of oil) will make Iran more powerful, not less, will create more global tensions, not less, people living in suburbs will not rejoice, and so on. Even environmental impact is questionable, because if we leave as usual things to sort themselves out, then we start using coal, which is less environmentally friendly.
      No matter how to spin this, increase of the oil price is mostly BAD for the economy.
      • kh99, on 05/30/2008, -0/+4But I think his point is that when oil prices are that high, it will provide economic incentive to develop alternatives and then we won't be buying it from Iran. Really, it's short-sighted of us as a country not to have been working on this all along, but the problem "goes away" when oil is cheap and no one wants to pay for alternatives. IMHO, OPEC must understand this very well, and oil will remain at a low enough price to discourage alternatives for as long as possible. It might be that way right up until there actually is a shortage and there isn't enough at any price, then we'll really be screwed. Or we could look past today's cheapest option and realize we'll be a much more powerful country in the future if we choose now to make ourselves more independent.
    • keyo, on 05/30/2008, -1/+4I did some rough calculations, it's about 6.10 USD for a gallon of fuel where I live, quit complaining.

      What I really want to see, is a way out of this *****. It's called electricity, there are already a number of cars like the tesla roadster that have proven it's capable of out performing petroleum. Every time something like this happens big oil steps in and ***** the people over to keep their monopoly.
      • coyote1284, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Right now, I suppose I could use an electric car for home/work commuting and a "petrol" car for long-distance, but I cannot afford both. Ideally, I'd like an electric vehicle that I can drive for 10+ hrs before having to charge, but currently the battery weight, charge time, and charge capacity make that infesable. I'd also like national high speed rail interconnecting major cities as an alternative to domestic flights. Sorry, I don't particuarly enjoy being trated like a potential criminal, whom can't be trusted with something as innocuous as 20 oz of soda or nail clippers, for any length of time, so I prefer to drive. I suppose I could never travel outside a 60 mile radius as an alternative, but then I'd never go home for Thanksgiving. BTW, I'm not driving a 4-ton SUV as European Diggers would think EVERY US citizen drives. In fact, I'm driving one of your sedans, a 2005 VW Passat, gets awesome gas mileage.
      • keyo, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1I forgot to mention that big oil has a number of patents on batteries. Charge times are not really a problem with batteries, but the power source. Most homes don't have high enough amp outlets to charge cars quickly.
    • Spudster, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Higher gas prices are substantially much harder on rural people than urban. There exists no such thing as public transportation in small towns and people are FORCED to drive everywhere. In cities, there are loads of methods of transportation that allow you to pass paying for gas. Sadly that isn't the case and anyone rejoicing high gas prices should be concerned for the hard effect this will have on rural people.
    • Awsomo6, on 05/30/2008, -0/+0This almost makes me sad that we won't get to $8 per gallon.
      There is a reason that very few new oil projects are being started when the prices are so high. Oil Producers and investors are actually scared that by the time their oil hits the market it will only be worth $80 a barrel. In my opinion that is a far better indicator to go by than the alarmist columnists trying to sell newspapers.
  • Andyschism, on 05/29/2008, -23/+435Just in case it goes down (be gentle diggnation):


    1. RIP for the internal-combustion engine
    They may contain computer chips, but the power source for today's cars is little different than that which drove the first Model T 100 years ago. That we're still harnessed to this antiquated technology is testament to Big Oil's influence in Washington and success in squelching advances in fuel efficiency and alternative energy.
    Given our achievement in getting a giant mainframe's computing power into a handheld device in just a few decades, we should be able to do likewise with these dirty, little rolling power plants that served us well but are overdue for the scrap heap of history.

    2. Economic stimulus
    Necessity being the mother of invention, $8 gas would trigger all manner of investment sure to lead to groundbreaking advances. Job creation wouldn't be limited to research labs; it would rapidly spill over into lucrative manufacturing jobs that could help restore America's industrial base and make us a world leader in a critical realm.
    The most groundbreaking discoveries might still be 25 or more years off, but we won't see massive public and corporate funding of research initiatives until escalating oil costs threaten our national security and global stability -- a time that's fast approaching.

    3. Wither the Middle East's clout
    This region that's contributed little to modern civilization exercises inordinate sway over the world because of its one significant contribution -- crude extraction. Aside from ensuring Israel's security, the U.S. would have virtually no strategic or business interest in this volatile, desolate region were it not for oil -- and its radical element wouldn't be able to demonize us as the exploiters of its people.
    In the near term, breaking our dependence on Middle Eastern oil may well require the acceptance of drilling in the Alaskan wilderness -- with the understanding that costly environmental protections could easily be built into the price of $8 gas.

    4. Deflating oil potentates
    On a similar note, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently gained a platform on the world stage because of their nations' sudden oil wealth. Without it, they would face the difficult task of building fair and just economies and societies on some other basis.
    How far would their message resonate -- and how long would they even stay in power -- if they were unable to buy off the temporary allegiance of their people with vast oil revenues?

    5. Mass-transit development
    Anyone accustomed to taking mass transit to work knows the joy of a car-free commute. Yet there have been few major additions or improvements to our mass-transit systems in the last 30 years because cheap gas kept us in our cars. Confronted with $8 gas, millions of Americans would board buses, trains, ferries and bicycles and minimize the pollution, congestion and anxiety spawned by rush-hour traffic jams. More convenient routes and scheduling would accomplish that.

    6. An antidote to sprawl
    The recent housing boom sparked further development of antiseptic, strip-mall communities in distant outlying areas. Making 100-mile-plus roundtrip commutes costlier will spur construction of more space-efficient housing closer to city centers, including cluster developments to accommodate the millions of baby boomers who will no longer need their big empty-nest suburban homes.
    Sure, there's plenty of land left to develop across our fruited plains, but building more housing around city and town centers will enhance the sense of community lacking in cookie-cutter developments slapped up in the hinterlands.

    7. Restoration of financial discipline
    Far too many Americans live beyond their means and nowhere is that more apparent than with our car payments. Enabled by eager lenders, many middle-income families carry two monthly payments of $400 or more on $20,000-plus vehicles that consume upwards of $15,000 of their annual take-home pay factoring in insurance, maintenance and gas.
    The sting of forking over $100 per fill-up would force all of us to look hard at how much of our precious income we blow on a transport vehicle that sits idle most of the time, and spur demand for the less-costly and more fuel-efficient small sedans and hatchbacks that Europeans have been driving for decades.

    8. Easing global tensions
    Unfortunately, we human beings aren't so far evolved that we won't resort to annihilating each other over energy resources. The existence of weapons of mass destruction aside, the present Iraq War could be the first of many sparked by competition for oil supplies.

    Steep prices will not only chill demand in the U.S., they will more importantly slow China and India's headlong rush to make the same mistakes we did in rapidly industrializing -- like selling $2,500 Tata cars to countless millions of Indians with little concern for the environmental consequences. If we succeed in developing viable energy alternatives, they could be a key export in helping us improve our balance of trade with consumer-goods producers.
    Additional considerations
    Weaning ourselves off crude will hopefully be the crowning achievement that marks the progress of humankind in the 21st Century. With it may come development of oil-free products to replace the chemicals, pharmaceuticals, plastics, fertilizers and pesticides that now consume 16% of the world's crude-oil output and are likely culprits in fast-rising cancer rates.
    By its very definition, oil is crude. It's time we develop more refined energy sources and that will not happen without a cost-driven shift in demand.
    • ekbear50, on 05/30/2008, -20/+4With respect to number 1.

      Keep in mind that the Model T got 20 hp on a 4 cylinder engine using 25 miles to the gallon and no emission requirements. While current models can easily have 10 times that and use much less fuel. This is a stupid piece. We all know that global warming is a sham and this is just a way for Exxon to rape us.
      • evolvingthought, on 05/30/2008, -3/+9this has nothing to do with global warming. Oil will run out FACT. Get used to price increases until an alternative is devised
      • dogen83, on 05/30/2008, -2/+5We all know what? Apparently you know something that is unknown to the vast scores of highly trained scientists who publish papers (the ones NOT funded by think tanks supported by ExxonMobil). Because they disagree with you. Are you, in fact, a highly trained scientist who has published a paper? Or are you instead repeating something you read on the internet or heard on the radio from another source that was also not a scientist?

        Now, I'm not calling you unintelligent, I'm merely asking for credentials. The internet is full of crazy people, you know, spouting all sorts of crazy things about global warming, spaghetti monsters and Rick Astley.
    • RadicalEdward, on 05/30/2008, -1/+22Didn't people say this about every dollar mark? I heard there was going to be mass rioting at $4.00 a gallon. I'm paying $4.25 right now.
      • marx2k, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2Heh, remember when everyone went berzerk because oil hit $100/bbl? What's it at now?

        By early afternoon in Europe, light, sweet crude for July delivery was up $1.07 to $127.69 a barrel in electronic trade on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

        The contract fell $4.41 to settle at $126.62 a barrel overnight, the lowest settlement in two weeks and the biggest single-day price drop since March 19. The contract hit an all-time high last week of $135.09 a barrel.
      • CiXeL, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2im skipping dinner and attempting to carpool but have difficulty with employees who work on varying schedules.
        i only put in a few gallons at a time unless i come across a really good gas deal.
        • IllBeBack, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2Only putting in a few gallons at a time is no solution. You'll just be stopping a lot more for gas, actually wasting more gas in the process. Fill 'er up, dude.
      • rossiohead, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1I would hope that the speed of oil's price rise would make things a little more "real" this time. With a gradual increase over time, it might seem to the consumer like just another effect of inflation. But where the current price is nearly double that of less than a decade ago, most drivers on the road easily remember the old prices. I don't think the same can't be said for $1.50/gallon ($0.40/litre) gas.
    • yuanzhoulu, on 05/30/2008, -14/+1what's with all this cut and paste crap? whatever happened to duggmirror?
      • repmekevets, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2it's a short, all-text submission. it's easier to just paste it in a comment.
    • Ethek, on 05/30/2008, -5/+4I agree with everything mentioned. Lets just hope government does not get involved. The cries from congress to socialize the oil industry will only forestall the inevitable. The efforts to keep the prices down by subsidize and pushing 'selected' (by government) alternatives will only cause prices of food to skyrocket even more as basic staples are used as fuel source. Mass human starvation, a economy paralyzed by delayed corrective actions, handicap people robed of a means to be mobile and who knows what else. This is the world of unintended consequences that stem from too much faith in government to solve the problem. The current culture of corporatism as a government backed monopoly and does not count. Let the free market work.
    • BECoole, on 05/30/2008, -7/+3Complete, utter crap.
      Oil is at a historic high and the oil producers are pulling in more money than they ever have. Doubling the price of oil will nearly double the amount of cash they take.
      • skidooer, on 05/30/2008, -0/+5Do you not have investments of any kind? Do you not think that the guy who invests $200 at 5% should get twice as much return as the guy who invests $100 at the same rate?

        So, when the oil companies increase their investments, why shouldn't they get more returns?
        • BECoole, on 05/30/2008, -0/+6I'm not talking about oil companies, I'm talking about Arabs and Venezuelans.
          If you think the oil companies are making money, you should see what the Arabs are making! Their costs have remained flat.

          I appreciate and agree with your sentiment, though.
        • chaosevil, on 05/30/2008, -1/+0Phh! Not when they are forcing their own market. I say kill all investers and put THEM in the tank.
    • Number23, on 05/30/2008, -11/+26Regarding #2.

      Would it kill you lib-tards to learn the fist ***** thing about ecnomics? Higher energy costs make us POORER, it’s just that simple.

      And, of course, he falls victim to the “Broken Window Fallacy”
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken ...
      • mrsmegz, on 05/30/2008, -5/+5Then enough widows get broken, and some glazier is creative enough to invent a better glass (like lexan), giving him a competitive advantage, allowing numerous new applications, and saving money lives all around. How exactly does this not benefit society and economy?
        • Number23, on 05/30/2008, -3/+3Ok this isn’t complicated; If my windows aren’t broken, I can then deploy the money that I would have used to repair them to a more productive use. Broken widows make me poorer.
        • DreKor, on 05/30/2008, -0/+6Economics is a zero-sum game when it comes to wealth, that's why the broken window argument works. However, you have to consider the scope of your concerns. Right now, the US is hemeroging money to the Middle East, Venezuela, and Canada (I know the last one is surprising). However, if American innovations are responsible for fixing the window (i.e. high energy costs), then much of that money would stay in the US. Furthermore, other nations that are currently dependent on the same petroleum exporters that we are, would, instead, come to the US for their energy solutions. This would actually result in a net gain for the US.

          Unfortunately for Number23, his/her windows are already being broken. Cheap petroleum based energy is no longer an option. The only question now is how, and by whom, will they be fixed.
        • repmekevets, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2@ Number23
          *wooooosh*
        • 140Suffolk, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1Because genius scientists all over the planet have been looking for years. We don't want to freeze and starve until there's a breakthrough.

          Drill Drill Drill !
      • kerguelen72, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2I had never heard of the broken window fallacy before - (I don't know jack about economics) and just read the wiki article - AWESOME!
        Thanks for introducing me to the concept.
        • CiXeL, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2the fifth element on the broken window fallacy
          http://youtube.com/watch?v=krcNIWPkNzA
        • Number23, on 05/30/2008, -4/+5The more you learn about economics, the less likely you are to vote for a democrat, don’t say I didn’t warn you.
        • bpoteat, on 05/30/2008, -0/+4Number23 - http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.ht ...
          This site features a chart of many economic indicators with the average of their numbers under democratic versus republican presidents. Of course the study is slightly flawed in a few ways by not taking into account any other variables but the basic numbers argue that not only is the economy usually not better under Replublicans, it is on average worse.

          While the general tone of your statement is that you know more than the average person about economics and how politics effect it, in actuality it suggests you know very little of both.
        • Number23, on 05/30/2008, -2/+3@bpoteat
          Only a lib thinks it’s a good idea to raise taxes during a economic slowdown.

          He-Whose-Full-Name-Must-Never-Be-Spoken wants to nearly DOUBLE the cap gains tax, that's the sort of thinking that could only makes sense to a democrat.
        • bpoteat, on 05/30/2008, -0/+4Again you show your ignorance of economics and how it is related to political control. Did you even look at the link? If you did you might realize how stupid you are making yourself look.

          Firstly, the basic fact remains that overall better economic times have led by democrat presidents. Period. No beating around the bush or logic involved. That's the hard numbers you have going against you.

          Secondly, who said anything about raising taxes? You are acting like the political rhetoric of democrat = "higher taxes" and republican = "lower taxes" is fact. Reality isn't anywhere near that (as the hard numbers also show). As the republican epitome of fiscal conservatism, the Ronald Reagan administration was responsible for one of the largest tax increases in a non-war time in US history. Well, at least "it didn't pay for welfare" you say. Yeah, at least. We aren't really sure what it paid for.

          In other words, talk is cheap. If I believed the empty promises that Republicans were about lowering taxes, I might agree with your argument. The basic reality is that, historically, the facts are all against it. But, hey, screw paying for programs to help the general american citizen - we've got a war to pay for, right?
        • Number23, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1The analysis is as fatuous as is voluminous (just the sort of thing libs love). The President doesn’t have a lot control over the budget process, let alone the externalities of the global economy.

          Bush began his first term with a mild recession, but data shows it began at the end of the Clinton administration. Blaming Bush for that recession is like charging a relief pitcher with inherited runners.

          Prior to the 94 Rep Congress, Clinton’s budgets had deficits going off into infinity.

          Reagan’s tax cut plan cut marginal rates marginal from Carter’s 75+% to 28%, it was Tip O’Neil and the dem congress that forced the later tax increases

          The bottom line is what party supports policies that promotes growth (low taxes) and which party doesn’t. The other week Helen Mosley Brown was threatened oil exec with “socializing the oil companies”.

          Sometimes the mask slips…
        • veotho, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2I think everyone is ignoring the real threat to economic security here...


          ...Manbearpig.
      • JDoorjam, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2I agree with you that his point #2 is misguided, but stupidity is non-partisan. I'm a San Francisco liberal progressive, but I (and most of us in the Expensive Gas Capital of the U.S.A.) totally understand the relationship between expensive energy and economic hardship.
      • dogen83, on 05/30/2008, -0/+10It's nice of you to lump all liberals into a single group as economically unsophisticated. Must make it easier to vote against us, rather than having to deal with individual decisions made by individual people.

        Yes, the article is misguided. People will starve and/or go bankrupt well before our economy blossoms with alternative energy industries - even though those industries are desperately needed.

        Your ad hominem (there's a logical fallacy for you) attack is irrelevant, however, as we "lib-tards" don't think in lockstep. This author's fallacious belief doesn't reflect on the millions of people who, probably like you, would like to see the price of gas stop climbing at its current frightening clip.

        The next time you want to talk about fallacies, avoid making them yourself. It makes you look like a hypocrite.
      • bhamster, on 05/30/2008, -0/+5Ha ha libtard..... Well dude I think the point is that oil prices aren't going to go down sustainibly, the resources are finite.

        We can gracefully try to switch over to jobs and technologies that we can sell to other countries and profit from this. Instead of oil companies. Create jobs and wealth. And hopefully with industries that are sustainable.

        Or, we can whine about the making oil prices making us poorer, which it will. But i don't see anything in #2 where he says that in the short run we will be richer/wealthier. Your point is really stupid.
      • reaper527, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1from your wikipedia link
        "An example of the costs of war is the many projects postponed or not started until after the end of World War II in the United States. The pent-up demand for roads, bridges, houses, cars, and even radios led to massive inflation in the late 1940s. The war delayed the commercial introduction of television, among other things, and the resources sent overseas to rebuild the rest of the world after the war were not available to directly benefit the American people."

        they do a nice job of forgetting to mention that WWII ended the great depression while condemning it for delaying tv by a little bit.
      • coyote1284, on 05/30/2008, -0/+4Dugg for unintentional "fist *****"
    • inajeep, on 05/30/2008, -1/+5re: #6 Yes it will reduce sprawl or make what's already there worse and people abandoned suburbs. Space efficient housing = multilevel condos/apartments with not enough space for kids and pets. Cities themselves will expand and become more congested.

      Prices will increase for food and practically all materials and stay there because while it's nice to see people conserving gas, food, materials and stuff you buy still needs to get to the stores you buy them from. The first things that need to go electric or improve the efficiency of should be transportation of goods.
      • burningmanstan, on 05/30/2008, -3/+4Space efficient housing = no 4bdrm 3 bath cheaply built mcmansions siting on an acre on barren grass surrounded poorly design landscaping. Of course all built on land that used to be FARM LAND. Its hard to buy cheap local food if you build your house on the farmers land after he was forced to sell it because he could not compete with a giant agribusiness that trucks TV dinners everywhere.

        The first step is to stop building on local farm land as if it is worthless and start treating it as a valuable resource that can provide cities with local crops at much lower transportation costs.

        I don't know where you live but if you have ever been in southeastern PA, outside of Philly even the Lancaster, Allentown area you would see miles of some of the least appealing middle class housing I have even seen. Miles of almost identical, huge but cheap looking houses, browning grass, no side walks, few trees, and no easy access to even the most basic services, you have to drive far to do anything. All of this built on perfectly good farm land. I can't believe this. People bitch about food prices and then build their house in a farm field in key a location for supplying a major metropolitan area. And if they must build on it they should at least try to plan it better. There is no sense of community or town center in these subdivisions and they are never planned around existing towns. I can't see how people consider such places a high standard of living. That's why reducing sprawl through better planning/zoning is a good thing.
    • fjwjr, on 05/30/2008, -7/+10What a moronic story. This guy doesn't have a clue. I am already seeing people having to make the choice between fuel (and job) and food. We are seeing trucking companies closing at the rate of 100 per week. Soon it won't matter if people can't afford to drive to work, work won't be there because they won't be able to afford increased costs and will close. And what happens this coming winter when tens of millions MORE people won't be able to afford heat and six months is too short of a time for them to change to something more efficient (that they can't afford anyway).
      " we won't see massive public and corporate funding of research initiatives until escalating oil costs threaten our national security and global stability -- a time that's fast approaching."
      Doesn't this moron realize that over the past 35 years over 2 TRILLION of our tax dollars have gone to research of alternative energy? What has it gotten us?
      He basically says that $8/gallon gas will lead to world peace. Sure.......maybe after World War Three.
      Why is it so hard for people to understand? $8/gallon gas will lead to another great depression, will make the US look like Darfur and lead to WW III.
      • Aadain, on 05/30/2008, -2/+6I think you are actually agreeing with him but don't realize it.

        "Doesn't this moron realize that over the past 35 years over 2 TRILLION of our tax dollars have gone to research of alternative energy? What has it gotten us?"

        And yet it never worked because the results of that research was always more expensive per unit of energy than a simple can of gas. With gas at $8, alternatives like fuel cells and electric cars become cheaper than gas cars. Also, Federal funding of research is a good thing, but some of the best advances have come out of privately funded research groups or companies, which may now be turning their attention to these issues.

        Yes, $8 gas will create some real hardships for the US, but its something we will survive. Other countries have had high gas prices for decades and they didn't crumble into economic ruin. They adapted, much like the author says we will.
        • kuwan, on 05/30/2008, -2/+2"And yet it never worked because the results of that research was always more expensive per unit of energy than a simple can of gas. With gas at $8, alternatives like fuel cells and electric cars become cheaper than gas cars."
          -------
          And herein lies the ultimate fallacy of the environmentalist idiots. They don't want alternative energy to become cheaper they just want gas prices to rise so high that alternative energy is cheaper only because of the high price of oil. This is not a solution, alternative energy will still be expensive, just not quite so expensive as gasoline.

          For example, say gas rises to $8 per gallon but at this point alternative energy becomes a 'win' because the equivalent expense that you pay for the alternative energy (whatever it may be) comes out to be the equivalent of $7 per gallon. OK, yes the alternative is cheaper than gas but it is still very expensive compared to what we have today and will still have a very large and very bad effect on our economy. Those that think that rising oil prices are a good thing just don't have a clue. It's like saying "I wish the price of DVDs would go up so everyone would start buying Blu-ray." I'm sorry but that's not how it works, what you really want is the price of Blu-ray to go down - unless of course you're a clueless environmentalist.

          The ultimate goal should be to find energy alternatives that are significantly cheaper than what oil costs are today - say you could produce an alternative energy that was the equivalent of $2 or $1 per gallon of gasoline. If you could do that then you'd be a billionaire and that should be the ultimate goal - cheap energy alternatives. By hoping that the costs of gas increase so that they will become higher than the costs of alternatives we'll only get alternatives that are still expensive but only slightly cheaper than oil.

          Cheap and clean energy should be the goal not expensive clean energy that is just slightly cheaper than gas.
        • Aadain, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3To kuwan:

          I agree, leaving the price of alternatives to gas stay just under the cost of gas would not be a real win. But remember, the cost of gas is never going to go down since it is a non-renewable resource. Once it's gone, it's gone and not amount of economics will bring it back. But most of the alternative fuels we currently have are not very mature technologies. Once we start to use them extensively, I'm sure we'll see a boom in improvements and cost reducing changes to them. Cars didn't get very good gas mileage when they first started getting heavy usage, but today we can get 60+ mpg using modern technology.
        • amfort, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1I'm no economic expert, so I'm sure this will be "stupid", but I think part of what has helped countries with higher fuel prices is the ability to import cheaper items from countries with lower costs. I know I have a friend in Holland who says that the economy in her country depends a lot on the economy in ours.

          So, as China and India become more developed, and demand more oil, they are no longer going to be sources of such "cheap" products. And as America's economy weakens, many other economies that depend on us will weaken.

          I just think that we are going to see economic trouble on a global scale in a way that we can't really predict.
        • burningmanstan, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1kuwan, Oil is an established industry with a streamlined infrastructure and supply system. There is no way an alternative with research and development costs and no infrastructure can significantly undercut oil. There are some alternatives that can match oil at current prices. The most promising is biodiesel from algae which is competitive with current diesel prices (according the report from the department of energy aquatic species program)

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_Species_Progr ...
        • kuwan, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1@burningmanstan & Aadain

          And that's where risk and investment come into play. In order to undercut oil people will need to invest significant amounts of money (and thus take on large amounts of risk) into creating the infrastructure for alternative energies. If they are able to deliver a cheap alternate then that risk and investment will pay off many times over. Innovation and competition are the solution here, not increasing oil prices.

          And regarding the Aquatic Species Program, I think its biggest flaw was their focus on the open pond system which was vulnerable to disease and temperature fluctuations. More recent research using closed systems appears to be more promising. At any rate I think Algae is a much better source for biodiesel than are food sources (such as from corn).
        • Aadain, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1kuwan:

          Yup it's going to be a risk, but not as big you are painting it. The higher the cost of gas goes, the smaller the risk to switch to something else becomes. The risk is that there won't be enough uptake of the new fuel/energy system to make it economically feasible. If the only other alternative (in this case gas) is really expensive, the possibility of people not switching drops, thus reducing the risk. I'm not saying it will be like flipping a switch or happen in a week, but it will happen.

          If someone comes up with a reliable method for producing, transporting, and storing hydrogen that people can buy for $3.00 a gallon (for this example, just assume that amount of energy in gallon of hydrogen = amount of energy in gallon of gas, which is totally and completely wrong, but makes the example easier), don't you think people would start buying hydrogen cars and industry would start switching over their production system to use hydrogen? If gas was still around $2.00 a gallon, there is no way that would happen. But if gas was at $8.00 a gallon, you bet people would start switching. And with more money and research, companies dealing in hydrogen might find ways to produce it cheaper, or to store it longer, and drive the price down further. But you need to get over the initial introduction of the new industry before those kinds of events become possible.
        • fjwjr, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1"Yes, $8 gas will create some real hardships for the US, but its something we will survive. Other countries have had high gas prices for decades and they didn't crumble into economic ruin. They adapted, much like the author says we will."
          I think "some real hardships" is a bit of an understatement. Other countries developing over decades while dealing with high fuel prices is a lot different than a country whose entire economy (right or wrong) is based on oil suddenly being slammed with it.
          It amazes me that idiot liberals (I'm not saying you're one) are basing a large part of the presidential campaign on nationalizing healthcare because 40 million people are uninsured. Yet, they don't give a damn that those same people may not make it through next winter because they may not be able to afford heat. It's better that 40 million (or more) die from hypothermia because it would be better for the environment. Insane!
    • dullly, on 05/30/2008, -2/+7The millions of poor who will inevetibly die of starvation with 8 dollar gas, will be a small price to pay for the future of the planet. Also, this will help with global over population.
      • andreegal, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2I can't believe this.....stupid stupid stupid...
      • jpop, on 05/30/2008, -2/+2You do realize that 8 dollar gas is bad for the environment and planet right? People are less likely to go the extra mile to dispose of nasty stuff when it costs them an arm and leg to actually do so.
        • amfort, on 05/30/2008, -0/+4Well, buddy, why don't you help the planet out and go first. Either stop eating and using energy, or just go jump off a bridge. Why are the people in the future more important that the people that are here now? You look a starving African in the face and comfort them by letting them know that at least people in the future will be better off.

          Every human life has value. We need to worry about the people who are here today.
    • The_Red_Monkey, on 05/30/2008, -2/+3I keep reading about urban sprawl in America being a problem Apparently many of these people have not gone for many drive across the country. I live in Salinas, CA which is the largest town in my county and its under 200k people. I drive south and I do not hit another town over 100k till I get to Atascadero which is about 100 miles away. Until then there is virtually nothing.

      Driving to Kentucky there was virtually nothing. The sprawl is a few cities in the U.S. Most areas are still pretty rural. According to the CA state my town in rural.

      And to add on I am no chemist, I went to college to study politics. So my question is if we can make a great synthetic lubricant then why is it such a problem making a synthetic petrol? Anyone have info?
      • burningmanstan, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1The impact of sprawl definitely varies by region. On the northeast coast there is higher population density over a larger area and people are spreading out through very poorly planned subdivisions. All of south eastern Pennsylvania is relatively flat and viable farm land. The Amish still do very well there. Unfortunately demand for housing outside of Philly has increased land values and many farmers are just selling out to developers. People are developing these farms instead of redeveloping old industrial sites, mainly because developing farm land is cheaper. The farm subdivisions are poorly planned and are often located far from the original town. Infrastructure: sidewalks (nonexistent), parking, roads, and services are all poorly planned in a frantic free for all. Houses are poorly constructed to get the most square footage out of the buyers dollars. Its hard to describe how these subdivisions look. But it would not look very welcoming to someone from a well planned small town. I checked out Salinas on google maps, it looks very well planned. Farm land is still farm land, any necessary expansions took place in very well planned subdivisions. In contrast take a look at the Lancaster, PA
        (pop 55,000: not including the sprawl outside of town) aerial photographs on google maps, you will see the results of poorly planned development.

        Google maps Salinas: http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls= ...

        Google maps Lancaster:http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls= ...

        In response to your fuel question:
        Creating synthetic oil is very energy intensive and that makes it very expensive to produce. However as oil prices rise synthetics from sources such as syngas become more viable. However, the source of the energy needed to run such operations must also be clean and viable.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngas

    • samoan27, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2Reason #9: you'll be able to afford it because it won't happen for another 20 years. Fear mongers don't understand equilibrium. There are plenty of fuels that our current technology can produce for much less that $8 a gallon and will the moment it becomes financially justifiable. If it costs $4 to produce a gallon of vegetable oil from algae (that's a guess not a fact) and deisel sells for less than $5 after tax, no one's going to build the plants necessary with that much risk on such a small margin of profit, but if the margin gets closer to 50% you better believe they will.

      Anyone who believes the cost of fuels will continue to go up forever probably has three mortgages on their house thinking property value would go up forever too.
    • diggerphelps, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1It's CBS Marketwatch.
      Not exactly the kind of site to succumb to the Digg effect.
    • Salanth, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1You're awesome for posting the story here! I'm so glad I don't have to open another tag just to see what this digg is about! Thanks so much!
    • rizzo2008, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1I disagree with point #1. We can make perfect gasoline and diesel substitutes from algae oil and it provides 10,000s of gallons per acre on non-arable land with waste or salt water (no agriculture disruption and no need to use freshwater). The internal combustion engine will still be widely used for the next several decades as petroleum substitutes are put in place. Plus its carbon neutral and pulls CO2 out of the atmosphere and back into the fuel.

      The internal combustion engine initially had nothing to do with big oil and the Model T was supposed to run on ethanol/alcohol fuels while Rudolph Diesel's engine was supposed to run on plant oils. The reason the internal combustion engine is so widely used is because it is an excellent way to power cars and despite heat loss produces lots of power with a relatively small amount of fuel for hundreds of miles with no fill up. Just because a technology is "old" doesn't mean it is bad or that there is not room for improvement (keep in mind that nuclear powerplants (and future fusion plants most likely) use a steam turbine that has been around for the same amount of time but that does not negate its usefulness. If we can find a petroleum substitute they will be around for a long time.
    • artisresistance, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3I agree completely. Let this ***** go up to $20 a gallon for all I care. I'm ready to move on to a technology more appropriate to the present day. I'm willing to withstand major inconvenience to get there.
    • CrossCanyon, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Anyone remember this issue?

      Wired Issue 13.12 | December 2005
      Why $5 Gas Is Good for America - By Spencer Reiss
      The skyrocketing cost of oil is sending pump prices soaring. It's also subsidizing research into technologies that can change the energy game.
      http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.12/gas.html
      and
      http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.12/energy.ht ...
    • SambekZX, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2Oil will not reach a price at such a rate that will cause everyone to flee oil as a primary energy source in the near future. OPEC will make sure that they flood the oil market with more supply at the right time if they feel that the price elasticity of demand for oil is going up too fast. They have learned their lesson from the oil glut in the 1980's that followed immediately after the energy crises of 1973 and 1979. The skyrocketing oil prices in the late 1970's spurred much innovation in transportation efficiency (the advent of the economy car in the 1980's and the death of pony cars), rapidly reducing demand and causing an oil glut that sent the OPEC economies to near bankruptcy. Almost 30 years have passed since then and I'm sure the OPEC members have got this down to a science.
    • ProphetPX, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2@ Andyschism,

      Are you, SIR, a Freemason?

      Do you really believe that we will finally see "order come out of chaos" by the predictions or thoughts that you just now posted about?

      Do you really think that an OIL and thereby, a DOLLAR economic meltdown is only in everyone's best interests ??

      I very much FAIL to see how, DESPITE your rather HAZARDOUS optimism, SIR.

      Honestly I believe you are merely blowing the "Happy Smoke" up our COLLECTIVE ASSES with all that hogwash!
  • DDDavinnn, on 05/29/2008, -35/+248A positive spin on this issue is long overdue. This progressive thinking is just what we need.
    • 1randomguyO8, on 05/30/2008, -3/+6reducing our reliance on middle east oil would be great but it cant happen over night and if prices hits $300/barrel over night then good luck trying to make ends meet.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/30/2008, -2/+4Reducing our dependence won't happen any other way unfortunately. Our current government does not seek to direct our energies towards solutions -- only to covering up their failure. If there is still a lobbyist with a fat check -- the oil will still flow.

        On the other hand, businesses will force the issue towards alternative energy at this price. People make the assumption that we cannot move off of oil quickly. If we spent half of what we spent on Iraq on a new energy infrastructure -- we could do this in 2 years.
        • greevar, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Honda is testing their hydrogen powered sedans on the public in California this year. If things go well, we might see it become a production model soon. To be honest, it's no where near as ugly as the Prius. http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/
    • ispellkonfusion, on 05/30/2008, -3/+7I agree. I always tell my friends that the cost of gas being this high is a necessary evil, but they are so consumed in their microcosmic world that they don't see it. I agree that it does suck, and as a college kid I know how hard it is to save even a few bucks, but it's this oil crisis that's going to be a catalyst for our government to actually DO something about it. Hopefully? :-/
      • jackkerouac, on 05/30/2008, -12/+5You are a ***** moron. How about people with two kids and have to travel 30 kilometers to work every day because it's the only job they can find? Higher oil prices means the middle class stops buying non-essentials, thereby putting millions of lower class people out of work and on the streets.

        Christ - after you get out of college and grow up a bit, come back.
        • tehHardcorez, on 05/30/2008, -0/+5I've randomly moved between 3 different states (with a girlfriend) and we were both able to find decent to excellent work within 15 minutes of an apartment we could afford. It's possible, people just lack the motivation to make their lives better.

          Quit being a negative ***** nancy.
        • bingostud722, on 05/30/2008, -0/+5You are the ***** ***** that complains about everything but doesn't try. Everything is gloom and doom and its people like you that hold back society. If you just sit there and make excuses you aren't helping anyone. Make some real suggestions and maybe people wont think you are a complete retard.
        • laserdog, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3Life is change.
        • artisresistance, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1And change is evolution. If I believed that life has meaning, the meaning would be to evolve into something greater. We're moving pretty fast now.
    • drmangrum, on 05/30/2008, -2/+6Finding the positive in a bad situation is admirable, but to ignore the very negative side effects is naive. Either salaries will need to drastically rise to compensate or there will soon be a lot of jobless and homeless people. People are already thinking of purchasing much more fuel efficient vehicles, but they themselves aren't cheap. Alternative energy has been looked at for decades, but scientists can't even agree which route to focus their attention on, they're like a kids with ADD hyped up on sugar and caffeine.

      We know what needs to be done. Most are taking steps to protect themselves, but there is going to be a LOT of misery during the transition years.
      • bingostud722, on 05/30/2008, -0/+5Its the pain before the gain. I dont think the point of the article is to ignore the negative, it just points out the positives. No one criticizes the gloom and doom articles saying we should look at the positive side as well, but when a positive article comes on to the scene everyone wants to shoot it down.

        Yes ignoring the negatives is naive and stupid, but progressive thinking is the only real way through it.
      • AngelaQ, on 05/30/2008, -1/+4Not only will there be lots of homeless people who cannot afford to commute to where the jobs are available or move from their now-worthless homes, but there will be loads of employers who cannot find people to work for them. After 10 years of this things will pick up again? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
    • bogdon6, on 05/30/2008, -3/+8Progressive thinking is what we need, but this isn't it. High energy prices will really, really hur