digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

Reduce Consumption of Gasoline - Don't boycott Gas

dailyfueleconomytip.com — Instead of forwarding the May 15 boycott email to everyone in your contact list,forward the following note instead:The only way that we will be able to reduce the price of gas is to reduce our demand for gasoline..

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Cussons, on 10/12/2007, -2/+36It is about time i used my bicycle....
  • b1111, on 10/11/2007, -13/+17Gas prices are never going to go down again. Peak oil is coming. You should start learning about it.

    http://www.energycrisis.org/
    http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
    • vanbacon, on 10/11/2007, -19/+7WRONG SO WRONG

      We're not running outtah Oil I repeat we are not running outtah oil. We're only running outtah the really cheap crap. that pools underground. We actually have trillions of barrels more that hasn't pool into any vast reservior Infact on of those is in canada.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands
    • jtorkbob, on 10/11/2007, -17/+7Zealot, meet zealot.
    • b1111, on 10/11/2007, -0/+35Did I say that we're running out of oil? I don't think I did. But yeah you are right, we are running out of cheap oil... that is the whole problem.
    • abanana, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9we are running out of oil because its not renewable, unless you want to wait a few million years, but we have enough to use cheaply for several more decades

      I wonder if at the turn of the 20th century people sent around leaflets saying "boycott coal, invest in alternatives like oil" Oil is what is available, no matter how much we hope the worlds switches to alternatives overnight it simply isnt gonna happen, sadly.
    • DAGONthehauge, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1Zealot, meet zealot.

      Oh, that reminds me, have I told you oil shill and you oilcrash trekkie about this thing called "singularity" yet?
    • amrqt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3The thing I worry about is that gas is in higher demand but that doesn't mean all petroleum products are. You would think that as oil companies have a higher demand for gasoline, other oil products would become cheaper because they are just bi-products. These are the chemicals that we use to produce plastics and solvents.

      Should the price of all petroleum products go up because the price of oil is going up due to gasoline consumption? I worked for a soap company that claimed falling profits because of higher oil prices. I would think that higher demand for fuels might mean higher amounts of leftover chemicals. Maybe we should approach this oil gouging outside of just fuel. Chemicals should become cheaper because they are a 'waste' product of fuel products? I would like to see the government examine the profit margins. These chemicals can be in more demand, but what are the figures.

      Just a thought. Maybe I am wrong. Tell me.
    • ISIfunded911, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2Bicycle, shoes, solar power to split water into hydrogen and oxygen!
      This just got buried:
      http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_CIA_a_Terrorist_Organization_2
      By the CIA? Could we have the logs of the buriers? Did a spike of buries come from Virginia?
    • KungFuJesus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5This is why we need to pursue more nuclear power, as well as wind, solar, and wave power.
    • aikimann, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1FUN FACT: The US has more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia. We've got about 3.3 TRILLION tons of the stuff right here. It's in the form of oil shale. And it only costs about $40/barrel to pull it out of the ground. Problem is, oil companies setup the infrastructure to process it in the 70's during the oil crisis only to have the price of oil drop back below the $40 mark. So, they got burned on their investment and aren't keen on doing it again. Plus, if we did, the middle east would just increase output so that barrels of oil would go for $35 to make it so that it wouldn't be profitable. So ya, we're definitely not running out of cheap oil any time soon.

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

    • aikimann, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Wow, being dugg down for presenting accurate facts. What does that tell you about anti-oil advocates?
    • b1111, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2aikimann I'd like to see the source of your "accurate facts"


      Shale Oil
      "The production of oil from oil shale has been attempted at various times for nearly 100 years. So far, no venture has proved successful. One problem is that there is no oil in oil shale. It is a material called kerogen. The shale has to be mined, transported, heated to about 900 degrees F, and have hydrogen added to the kerogen to make it flow. The shale pops like popcorn when heated so the resulting volume of shale after the kerogen is taken out is larger than when it was first mined. The disposal problem is large. Net energy recovery would be low at best. It also takes several barrels of water to produce one barrel of oil. The largest shale oil deposits in the world are in the Colorado Plateau, a markedly water poor region. So far shale oil is, as the saying goes: "The fuel of the future and always will be." Fleay (1995) states: "Shale oil is like a mirage that retreats as it is approached." Shale oil will not replace oil."
      http://egj.lib.uidaho.edu/egj09/youngqu1.html
  • epiccollision, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16as long as consumers are willing to bend over, can you blame to oil companies?
    • DAGONthehauge, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7No. Nationizing oil industries, arresting oil executives and putting them in prison will sure wipe that smirk off their face.

      Just imagine what will happen when oil costs 9 dollars. That would be before 2015, especially if the dollar nosedives. At some point oil industries will be nationalized - even in capitalist whorehouse US. In the process I am sure big oil execs are more likely to die of lynchings rather than merely prison.
    • amrqt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2See, consumers are bending over for a single product of oil. It is called gasoline. If you looked at the signs on the road, diesel is not moving much. I bet the commuters are subsidizing diesel prices, but you would be paying more for all the stuff in Walmart otherwise. What about other oil products like solvents and oil bases? Since fuels are in demand, should the cost of these products be cut?

      I am sure that there is a surplus of these oil products, but the market is not paying attention.
    • nickfromdc, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4"No. Nationizing oil industries, arresting oil executives and putting them in prison will sure wipe that smirk off their face."

      How exactly does nationalizing oil industries solve the problem? If the US, for example, were to nationalize its oil industry, all that would change would be the receipient, not the cost. Besides, the governments that have nationalized their oil industries [Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuala] don't seem to be doing a lot of public good with that money.

      Also, the dollar is largely stable bcause of oil. Should OPEC require oil to be purchased in Euros, for example, the demand for dollars would plummet, and that would pretty much be the end of the Dollar.
    • DAGONthehauge, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"Also, the dollar is largely stable bcause of oil. Should OPEC require oil to be purchased in Euros, for example, the demand for dollars would plummet, and that would pretty much be the end of the Dollar."

      That's desirable for me, right? I am a european.

      However I wasn't describing a rational process: I was describing a lynching mob. What IF the US population starts to really HURT, in a few years and they demand action. What if this causes riots, petrol station owners being burned with a car tire around their neck, and other spiraling violence? I don't mean to say it's rational - I suggest that the US is so badly organized with suburbs and crap, that if oil gets expensive enough normal people would freak out and demand blood. I mean, everyone has guns, how you gonna stop them? This has Civil War written all over it. I mean Americans actually gonna starve to death in the hundreds of thousands if oil costs 10$ a gallon.
  • InsultComedy, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3Peak oil, the myth that jacks up the prices. If peak oil was real, we would have cars that would run 100 miles per gallon. But the Model-T literally gets the same miles as a new SUV. The inkjet or credit-card scam.
    • 15charmaxwtf, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1It's the environmentalists that spread the peak oil *****, not the oil companies---well, at least that's what I thought. There's loads of the stuff, and if there was going to be a shortage people would be hoarding it, ready to sell it when the price goes higher (the people who did that would know a hell of a lot more about it than environmentalists). So, when that happens, as you say, there would be a lot more incentive for the market to create new ways of doing things that don't need so much oil, or need no oil at all.
  • jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5we will most likely have higher and higher gas prices as time goes on. Demand is increasing way fater than supply. We can never really run out of oil as any hydrocarbon can be (expensively) made into oil...we can currently due it with coal but It's not really economically feasible until at least $10 per gallon.

    Also, even if all vehicles tomorrow ran on Solar power and we used ZERO gasoline...we would still have to import millions of barrells of oil per day as only 45% or so of our oil consumption is used for transportation.
  • supermanred, on 10/11/2007, -9/+10If you really want to hurt big oil, stop voting Bush and Cheney into office down there! Maybe then the oil companies wont have a free ride around every law imaginable. Oh, and your kids and neighbours wont be sent to the slaughter in a war to secure oil fields when they should be fighting those that attacked America.
    • HaxorTheWorld, on 10/11/2007, -12/+5Who the ***** dugg this guy up? He saying the the only reason we went into the war was because of oil. That's one of the lowest grade conspiracys there is. Why would the government kill thousands of their own citizens?
    • Sp4nk, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10We could've just bought the damn oil from Iraq for a ***** cheaper than what a war costs to get it. Think about it.
    • DAGONthehauge, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Citizens? What's more expendable than low education nebraska farm boys?

      OFCOURSE the US went to war to consolidate oil from its client states. To erect military bases. To keep a gun cocked at Saudi heads. To ascertain milutary control and maintain intimidation. To keep its dollar prepped up. To maintain employment in a time when jobs are being outsourced and evaporate through "increases in efficiency" by the millions - EVERY YEAR IN THE US ALONE.

      Welcome to two tiered society - undermployed servants and really rich old white people. That's the US to be.

      If you don't like it vote something else than Democritan or Pepublocrat. ... ohh you can't, oops.
    • ozydingo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@haxortheworld

      why not? No, honestly, not trying to troll, and not saying that it's true, but use a removed perspective: spare yourself for a second of your own moral values and assumed principles, and be 100% objective, and tell me why it is bad for a government to send thousands of its citizens to their death if it gains an economic and/or political advantage with not enough public outcry as the cons to balance out the pros?

      Again, not saying it's true (or that it would be excusable if it were true), just saying that it doesn't make as little sense as we might instinctually believe
    • laserblazer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Halliburton is getting Iraq's oil, thanks to the Bush administration.

      They refine gasoline for about a nickel a gallon and charge Uncle Sam the prevailing rate (Stateside) to fill up all the hummers, tanks, etc.

      For Halliburton, it really is all about the oil.

      For you, American citizen, it's about paying more at the pump so Halliburton can charge your government more. Talk about a lose/lose!
    • EpilepticPuppy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Serious? Cripes....I feel like I am taking crazy pills.
    • gothelder, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1If you want to really hurt big oil you gotta hit em where it hurts. IE, After they buy the oil and before they sell it to you.

      Just Hijack the occasional fuel truck. (make sure you disable the sat tracking system of course). That way not only do you save money on fuel purchases, you cost big oil lots of cash. A typical tanker truck carries 7500-8000 gallons of various fuels. A clever sort could make lots of cash selling fuel for 2 bucks a gallon to friends and neighbors. Added bonus is its very unlikely that you would be turned in by prospective customers because of the whole robin hood syndrome linking up with the screw the faceless corporation mindset.

      Of course their insurance eventually will start to rocket up, the price at the pump goes up, more hijackings occur and eventually people can only afford to purchase stolen fuel or as I do now, ride the bus.

      /is there such a thing as a "Perfect" vicious circle?
  • jbelkin, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13Gas weighs 6lbs a gallon so only buy as little as you need.

    Buy gas in the morning or on cold days ...

    "Because gasoline expands and contracts based on temperature, the industry uses a standard temperature -- 60 degrees Fahrenheit -- as part of its definition of a gallon. To the industry, a gallon of gasoline is the amount of fuel that occupies 231 cubic inches at 60 degrees.

    But at 75 degrees, the same amount of fuel occupies 233.4 cubic inches, according to one of the lawsuits. At 90 degrees, the gas expands to 235.8 cubic inches.

    The standard gasoline pump doesn't take this into account. So when the fuel gets warm, the gallon you buy has less energy content than it would at 60 degrees. The reverse happens when the gas is cold -- you get more energy content than you would at the standard temperature. "

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/06/BUG9DOFRGT1.DTL
    • ricksite, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11Gas is stored underground where the temperature is constant. Nice try.
    • laserblazer, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2@ricksite,

      The gas goes through quite a few pipes into the dispenser before it gets to your tank - above-ground pipes. Gallons of it sit there and warm up until you pay.

      Nice try, but the underground tank argument is just crap. Sorry pal.
    • schnikies79, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5@laserblazer

      The pipes stay cool from the volume of cooled fuel that is pumped through them. When they do have time to warm up, they are quickly cooled again after just a few liters of fuel. They are not painted black and in the sunlight.
    • Jonsey, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I don't know about you... but my gas pumps always say "Corrected for volume at 15 degrees C" so that argument doesn't make sense to me. They can measure the mass of the fuel flow and then convert it to litre/gallons based on a certain temperature
  • jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4has anyone actually gotten this e-mail...I keep hearing about it and it appears to everywhere....but for all I know it is a giant myth that there is even an e-mail out there like this
    • Hawker400, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Yeah, I've received it from at least 4 or 5 retards.
    • SlicerDicer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3yes I have gotten it
    • jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I wonder who started this e-mail...someone who actually thought it would work or someone who thought there were a lot of gullible people out there
    • eliezerlp, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4plus numerous facebook groups and some ppl have actually told me in person...

      and @jmpeagle's second comment - This has been around for many, many years checks http://www.snopes.com/
  • BIGmog, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12It's easy to complain but take a look at gas prices around the world and you'll find that it's much cheaper in America.
    • jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12and we should thank God for European socialsim for taxing there gas so much that there demand is much lower....imagine how much higher gas would be in the U.S. if they eliminated the gas taxes over there that would essentially cut gas prices in half causing demand for oil to skyrocket
    • DAGONthehauge, on 10/11/2007, -5/+5I am willing to take a 100$ bet that this "socialism" which you abhor is gonna save you all from dying of starvation in sooner than 20 years time.

      Read "the end of war" by Rifkin. There is no alternative to welfare reforms with 20%+ unemployment rates and no work in sight, ever. You will need to simply give people money for just living as you sure as hell can't pay them for something else a robot is gonna do with zero errors, no unions, 24 hours a day at one-tenth the cost.

      If the US don't, hell, there's is always civil war.
    • jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6@ DAGONthehauge

      what the hell are you talking about?
    • dagamer34, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Elsewhere besides the US, there are infrastructures set up to where you don't NEED a car to survive comformably. In Japan, people take the subway to get anywhere and everywhere. Same in Europe. The US is odd in that people regularly need to travel long distances, but it's too scattered right now to create a meaningful rail system. Overhauling entire cities just for that isn't an option.

      So we are just stuck with higher gas prices. Boo hoo.
    • DAGONthehauge, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Let me spell it out -

      You are in a revolution since the middle 1800s. That is increase in efficiency because of industrialization. Industrialization that allowed the worlds population to leap up to 6 billion. This whole industrialization was made possible in the first place by that goddamn oil; a condensed, highly efficient source of energy.

      So now it is the early 21st century. Jobs are drying up,, even in China. Every industry can do with 5000 people in 2007 what they needed 10.000 people for in 2000. If you dont believe me check the numbers. Retraining into higher jobs only guarantees some 10% of people a new job. The rest becomes what... burgerflipper? In the US unemployment, when you count people in prison and people having dropped out of the job market (i.e living with their parents or under a bridge) is BIGGER than unemployment in the European Union. Plus people in the US work uncomparably harder in the US than in the EU. You americans make less money, work harder and are more unemployed now than anytime in the last 50 years.

      So this efficiency is going to increase because at every step corporations cant increase income (i.e. grow) by making more products - there aren't enough people to buy more products. So what you do? You give out credits like there is no tomorrow. People in the US have negative savings ratings. Nearly anyone has massive debts. Everyone has houses they can't afford and wont be able to drive to from work when oil costs 5+ dollar. This happening at the same time jobs are being lost like there is no tomorrow.

      So the US is going to hit a crisis that will make the situation even worse. But at the same time technological advancement isn't stopping. The rest of the world will keep doing research, consumping, producing. And efficiency increase and lay-offs didnt just stop with the cotton picker, after which a few million blacks were layed off.

      This ties in with oil in the most unpleasant manner. Oil empowered the lower classes and allowed a middle class to form. That era is over. In a few years jobs will either be service industry that is difficult to automate (manservants, waiters) or high-tech jobs only the really rich can afford to study for. Nearly every job that cant be automated will disappear because of market pressures.

      However the US is ideologically un-a-ble to do something about exploding unemployment. You can't it's not within your colonist nature. It will have to HURT real bad before you people will think about 3-day workweeks or basic incomes.

      So... anticipate a nation with massive squatter camps, gang warfare, massive police presences, 5 million people in prison, more anti-terror ***** (they sure saw THAT coming didn't they?), unaffordable oil and luxury goods, a crashed dollar and lean public services. With 300 million and unrestrained immigration. With everyone owning guns.

      Have fun.
    • jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3@ DAGONthehauge

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      Speiclalization is what creates jobs...increased productivity makes EVERYONE better off. Absolute poverty rates for the first time ever have been falling even as population has been rising. The unemployment rate when including prisoners and those out of the labor force is actually still nowhere near that of the European Union's unemployment. Technology is creating jobs at ridiculously fast rates. The movement from agriculture to manufacturing saw similary doomsday predictos because now 1 farmer can do the work of 1000 farmers from a few hundred years ago. Every transition makes everyone better off.

      Do you know what the biggest complaint companies have right now is? Labor shortage. Unemployment rates especially for skilled workers have been falling all over the world and it is accelerating driving up their wages at over 4% per year in the developed world and over 7% per year in the developing world.

      I looked into that book you mentioned. He seems to suck at extrapolating regressions and noticing changes in heteroskedasticity. I don't even know where he makes this trend up as everytime productivity jumps, so does the number of jobs. There are million upon millions of jobs today that didn't even exist 20 years ago and the trend is accelerating. Capitalism is going from commodity markets to niche markets.....meaning we will see thousands of small firms and horizontally integrated large firms and see the death of large vertically integrated firms.
    • DAGONthehauge, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2@impeagle

      I noticed you didn't read the book and NEITHER responded to any of my other ..."problems" ... I mentioned?
    • jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2@DAGONthehauge

      what problems? The unemployment you are talking about doesn't exist. Rifkin's ideas disappeared over 7 years ago. The book you mentioned was first around in 1995, he did some lectures for a few years but the giant globalization of the past 10 years showed his extrapolations to be wrong. He hasn't done anything of merit in the past 7 years (maybe ironically he lost his job).
    • aukxsona, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Dragon...people will need to specialize more so. I am aware that a typical person with a Highschool diploma or an AA degree won't be able to make it. However those who choose to go the long haul and specialize to a high degree...say a cardiologist will be richly rewarded. Plus America invents new jobs everyday. For example we now have precision chemo therapy that blasts cancer instead of radiating the whole patient. It costs about a couple million for the machine, but patients pay 10k a shot. You make your money back in three or four years. This means at yr five you have .5 to 1 million in pure profit. Not bad eh?

      There are more...
    • MihaiM, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I pay 1.1E/liter of gas in Romania. That's about twice as much as US citizens pay. I drive a 10% car but I still love driving.

      I think an intermediary step should be switching to LPG and then to bio fuels and electricity.
  • xSEED, on 10/11/2007, -6/+10don't use SUVs. use bikes, then you'll lose all that fat americans
    • HaxorTheWorld, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4Pretty much everyone I know is either normal thin or as thin as a toothpick, stop using stereotypes asswipe.
    • bperin, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2Good one, making broad generalizations makes you sound smart. Ironically you don't say where your from. Is it one of those countries that doesn't run the ENTIRE world... I guess we do pretty good for being fat.

      idiot
    • bperin, on 10/11/2007, -9/+1sorry double post
    • DAGONthehauge, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3Here is another stereotype, dumb ***** americans

      Next time do not vote Democrat or Republican.

      Oops you can't.
    • ozydingo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7He never said all americans are fat or use SUVs, but we sure as hell have a higher percentage of obesity and a higher usage of SUVs (warning: not backed up by a source I can remember to quote, but I challenge you do come up with figures that say otherwise. I believe the UK is tailing the US for second place in terms of population obesity). And he's right, if we as a soiety started to frown a lot more upon obesity and unecesarily large vehicles we'd solve a lot of problems right there. (and don't give me any of that "I need a bigger car to be safe in case i get into a car accident" crap, you're basically volunteering to do more potentially lethal damage to others while making the entire system of roads on which you drive that much less safe for everyone else, all for some ***** comfort of being more safe yourself just in case you get into a crash.)
  • nexah3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8I'm gonna pump a ***** ton of gas on May 15.

    If you seriously want to cut down on gas consumption: walk, ride a bike, or buy a hybrid
  • marcushe, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3No no no no. Boycott gas on May 15: If you lower your demand for gasoline, they will just continue to raise prices because their profit margins will be smaller.
    • b1111, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Umm...no.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand
    • jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6what??? That doesn't even make sense. If the oil companies worked as an Oligopoly, their profit maximizing price would be where marginal revenue equals marginal cost (assuming collusion). They can only change prices but not the demand curve...if they raise prices higher they would actually get less profits.
  • jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7yes, let's punish the companies that manage to import/produce 5 BILLION POUNDS of oil per DAY and then distribute to tens of thousands of separate fueling stations sprawled across the United States so that we can have the convenience of living miles from where we work.

    Gasoline is still by far one of the cheapest liquids you can buy...cheaper than milk, OJ, etc...
    • eliezerlp, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5dugg for comment on the cost of other liquids.

      Interesting how much a gallon of Visine® costs!
    • Summader, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4or a gallon of water.......of water.......you know....the stuff you have on tap.....water...what's a gallon of Aquafina run ya?
    • kawvalleykid, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4You mean the same oil companies making record breaking profits EVERY quarter,in ANY business?
    • jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@kawvalleykid
      why do you consider profit to be wrong? Is cheap gas some sort of unalienable right that should not be infringed upon? They are in a fairly low margin business...they just deal with enormous quantities.
    • darkslide29, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6It better be cheaper. To get me to and from work is two gallons of gas.
      I don't drink a gallon of OJ in the morning.
    • jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"It better be cheaper. To get me to and from work is two gallons of gas.
      I don't drink a gallon of OJ in the morning."

      sounds more like the fault of the auto companies and not the oil companies.
  • AriZoney, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3The problem is that all the ideal solutions are really impractical and the practical solutions aren't happening fast enough.
    For one thing, screwing around with zoning laws isn't a guaranteed fix. My city is a zoning district gone mad, Commercial residential and industrial criss crosses in what's been explained as an attempt to create "urban villages" where everyones needs are within reasonable distance. Of course, that does nothing for students like myself who do not live on campus and people who work 30+ miles away from where they live. My work is in reasonable distance personally but the city's #1 employer is a good 20 miles outside the city center too close to an airport for anyone to want to live. Many engineers have their lives invested there and few other opportunities exist in this city.
    In 110 degree heat it isn't plausible for them to motor around on a quasi legal engine fitted bicycle either. That kind of thing might be okay for me (though I don't do it because I'm not a big fan of getting run over) but for a lot of people it really isn't. I mean, how would you like it if your lawyer showed up to court to defend you drenched in his own sweat and stinking of burnt gasoline? There are a couple of my reasons for that, silverdicer. Though really my own personal one is that I'd prefer not to be hit by a car while riding a bike. Just a personal thing.
    Now, please don't take this to mean that I don't agree with cutting down our consumption. Frankly I think getting off foreign oil the best thing this country can do for itself. Every time I see a travel channel special on the extravagant hotels being built in Dubai I can't help wondering what that money could go to here at home.
    Bikes and zoning aren't going to cut it though. In the end they create extra problems and pose new dangers without fully addressing the consumption issue. Yes, if half the country started biking everywhere tomorrow it would reduce our consumption drastically but no matter how much you may preach the gospel of the cycle, that will not happen. People like getting places quickly and in comfort. That's why they drive. When those things are not important then maybe they will bicycle, but have you ever tried to change someone's priorities that drastically?
    Perhaps because the environmental issue isn't tantamount to me, I badly want to see hydrogen fuel cell or practical electric cars hitting the road. Honestly, the only thing stopping me from buying a Tesla is income. Though their business model assures me that in the near future I'll have my chance...
    If there's any silver lining to this cloud of three dollar gasoline it's that there is now a market for alternatives. We've gone from the disastrous EV-1 to viable hybrids, planned electric and fuel cell vehicles and ethanol. Though I don't personally think hybrids or ethanol are decent solutions the fact remains that change is occurring. Just because everyone isn't running out and going hippie wanting to break big oil's kneecap however they can doesn't mean nobody cares.
    Oh, and as far as hurting big oil? You can't. Boycotts only hurt the stations and station owners (who are not big oil) and even a reduction in consumption isn't likely to bother them much. They'll just charge more for what they do sell. Take the environmental restrictions, for instance. The EPA requires that American gasoline be treated with all manner of additives to be friendlier to mother earth a process which costs quite a lot. But the oil companies don't foot that bill, they just send the cost down the line until it reaches the consumer at the pumps. These guys have been around since the 20's pulling all manner of sleazy ***** to line their pockets with solid platinum, what makes you think they're going to just go away?
  • bperin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Not going to the pumps for one day will do nothing, people will just fill up the next day or the day after that That ridiculous figure of how much they will "lose" means nothing because it's not like you're using some gas alternative your just not getting gas on one day. Its like saying you have to read 30 pages in a book per week, but don't read any on monday... well you'll just have to make up for that missed reading on a later date. Like the post says theoretically decreasing demand would cut their revenue, but then again so would increasing supply. OPEC is a known cartel any way you look at it. The only real long term solution is with a new theoretical energy source IMO.
    • bperin, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1@jmpeagle

      You're just plain wrong, by controlling the market supply of oil they can set their price no matter what P>MC firms cannot enter the industry however (not free market) so they obtain monopoly profits.
    • jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@ bperin

      What are you talking about? Do you know anything? Did you even read my post? This is the height of ignorance. You claim the exact same thing I do but some how manage to state a mathematically impossible fact. I made the inference that oil companies acted as a monopolist through collusion, which means they would maximize profit at marginal cost equals marginal revenue. If they increase price anymore above that point, they automatically begin losing profit as it would be above the monopoly price, which by definition is the profit maximizing price.
  • bigjimwalker, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3There are a variety of reasons why this "boycott" is a bad idea.

    1) You are not actually changing your need for gasoline. By not buying gas for one day out of the week, all you do is shift your need for it. That being said, those who don't buy gas on the 15th will instead buy it on 14 or on the 16. The gas companies will see no change in profit at the end of the week.

    2) Let's say everyone, and I mean everyone doesn't buy gas for one day. You think gas prices are high now? Wait until you see the huge markup on the day after the boycott.

    The problem with this "boycott" is that's not really a boycott. In order to change the gas companies price, the entire nation would have to either stop buying gas completely for a long length of time. The problem is, the nation is built upon oil. We go to jobs, go to entertainment, heat our homes etc. All of that is gas dependent and guess what. The oil companies know that. They can see the emails circulate, laugh out loud, and then light their cuban cigars with a 100 dollar bill. The only way I can see actually changing their minds is if you boycott ONE company, say Mobile. If Mobile is boycott and no one ever buys gas from a Mobile station, they would be forced to lower prices to regain customers. If they have to lower gas prices and attract customers, the other gas station companies should have to lower theirs to stay competitive.
    • AriZoney, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Actually, they'll just sell less gas and wind up taking a loss on each gallon because they dropped their prices. Other stations will go down some but don't count on them giving up a margin, especially if they know Mobile is under boycott. Then one of their competitors will eat them and we'll have a giant bigger than standard oil.
    • jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2boycotting one company doesn't work as oil companies routinely sell to their competitors. They don't care who they sell it to whether it be their own distribution network (which they don't even own so they wouldn't take a financial hit) or another companies as demand for oil would stay the same...all their oil would still be sold. Also that would most likely increase gas prices as search costs would increase as people avoided Mobil drove to other gas stations instead of just the most convenient thereby increasing gasoline consumption.
  • bloodguard, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Done and done.

    I drive a Turbo Diesel so this is going to be a piece of cake.
  • tearor, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4They've integrated oil into so many things in everday life, there will always be a market for it. I was just reading how airflights are up. Nothing will stop our false dependency on oil now. It's even controling our politics and our freedoms. Oil is more popular than Jesus!
  • swordphish, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9I say we switch to pogo sticks...or jetpacks.
    • darkslide29, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3and how the hell do you plan on fueling that jet pack of yours??
  • jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1digg down
  • Toast1185, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Yikes! Every anti-oil crusader seems to forget one thing. Regardless of how high we think oil prices have gotten, it is still simply too cheap to ignore oil as an energy source. 'Alternative' fuel sources are still far too expensive to be viable. So either gasoline must become more scarce, or these alternative energy sources must be less expensive. Regardless, there will always be people in search of easy traveling across long distances (so bicycling is out) which currently makes gasoline an effective resource. If you buy less gasoline, you are simply making it less expensive for someone else to purchase it. (It's a simple collective action problem, and that assumption is generous in assuming that all people have a problem with consuming gasoline)
  • bperin, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2@b1111

    I don't know to what post you are referring to, but that graph shows what a demand shift would do, a supply shift would move left thus lower price, increased output.
    • jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Wow you are wrong AGAIN!!! A supply shift that increases output moves supply to the RIGHT. Notice how quantity is on the X-axis. How would moving towards the origin INCREASE output? It wouldn't. Take your ignorance elsewhere.
  • oxigen, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I've got an olde four-straight-cylinder Ford Ranger. My SUV/Truck-hating friend scolded me for buying it, but the reality is I've had it for three months now and it gets nearly the same mileage as my mom's Focus. My secret? Well first, it's a small four-cylinder engine. There's No AC, I change my oil every 4,000 miles, keep a clean air filter, don't have a bunch of unneeded junk sitting in my bed, I avoid driving during rush hour, I take it easy on the gas pedal, keep my engine clean, I ride my bike to work, and during the summer I usually ride my Harley nearly everywhere which gets about 64 MPG (I can run it on E85 too).

    In an average week I spend $20-30 on my motorcycle and truck combined in a given week.
  • bperin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@jmpeagle
    WOW, i'm not quite sure what devry is teaching these days but you're wrong. You think that firms don't set P>MC? impossible??? It happens all the time because if market demand increases (OIL!) then this is exactly what happens. Why do you think people get into businesses, they do so when they see lucrative prices P > MC... If P = MC then they are making zero economic profit (obviously that doesn't mean no profit but thats different) . I would like you to please explain macoeconomically how sectors grow. Only in a free market increased firms would increase supply resulting in a new equilibrium of around the same price with greater output. But in this scenario when these oil producers act as a Cartel they can do whatever the ***** they want!

    Also, I think after reading 80% of these posts you can find someone else to call ignorant.
    • jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@ bperin

      you are officially F-cking retarded. I said MARGINAL REVENUE equals marginal cost. Marginal revenue is NOT PRICE dumb ass when a firm is a PRICE SETTER. Marginal Revenue is the derivative of revenue function. Seriously...you have got to be the dumbest person ever. Anyone who took 8th grade calculus would know this. MR=MC is the quantity setting price that MAXIMIZES profit. If you raise it above that you lose profit. You are done responding to me because I am starting to think you are merely pretending to be mentally retarded because no one can possibly be this dumb.
  • coagen, on 10/11/2007, -4/+0When the ***** are people going to stop posting big oil propaganda on digg?
    What the ***** is wrong with you idiots.

    Build A JOE CELL. USE WATER INSTEAD OF GAS.
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Bill_Williams'_Joe_Cell
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3284393389204681480&q=joe+cell
    • jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3that is just an inefficient hydrogen powered car. It uses electrolysis to separate hydrogen from water and hydrogen is a combustible fuel like gasoline. The amount of energy required to get an equivalent amount of energy to one gallon of gasoline is the amount released by 1.5 gallons of gasoline. Unless we literally build algae farms that naturally produce hydrogen when given sunlight and water, hydrogen power would cause just as much dependence on oil and other hydrocarbons as it would merely switch usage to the electricity grid instead of in vehicles.
  • bperin, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3@jmpeagle

    You truly are a douchebag ...how does an increased supply shift increase output and decrease price? Did you actually ask that. Are you ***** serious.

    I could take the 5 min to draw you a graph but its almost 12 and I have things to do, I would love for you to reply though so I can have something to show you later or in the morning
    • jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2You're an idiot. I said increasing supply shifts the curve to the RIGHT, which it does...find any graph that say differently. I dare you. Seriously....I bet you went to public schools or are currently in one.
    • jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Thank you for no longer replying....I hope you now see that I was right all along and you were wrong all along. Just do the world a favor and never ever have children.
  • pyrotix, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Preaching to the choir? I feel like most people participating in the May 15 boycott don't drive anyway.
  • markmayhew, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5i haven't driven in over 12 years. I bike, I don't even miss driving.
  • bupublue, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2www.publictransportation.org

    If you don't know what's available in your area for mass transit, this site will tell you. If you have access to a good system, please use it; I guarantee you it's cheaper than buying gas.
  • orangekid13, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2public transportation ftw! they're driving anyways, why add to the pollution when you don't have to?
  • truthteller8080, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0yes i agree, to Reduce Consumption of Gasoline don't drive ur dam car
  • Zer0kill, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I have been stationed in Japan for over two years now and the more I see the gas prices rise in the states, the more I realize how good the mass transit over here is. I don't really use my car anymore, my wife uses it mainly because we have a child but besides that we walk everywhere. I believe that their is a stigma in the US for using public transportation( you are only poor if you ride on the bus or train).
    • Goldbricker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I don't think it's so much of a stigma attached to riding public transport as it's just not practical in this country. It's too large and not densely populated for public transport to be effective.
    • bupublue, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0@Goldbricker

      It completely depends on where you live. Here in Portland we have a light rail system that connects several parts of the city w/each other and the major suburbs, streetcars in downtown, and bus service that goes literally everywhere (city and all the suburbs plus out to some of the surrounding small towns.) I live in the suburbs and I don't have to drive anywhere. It might be easier for us to pull off because we don't have sprawl, but I know we're not the only city in the US with a good system.

      http://www.publictransportation.org
  • d3vmax, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1If you reduce gasoline/ petrol consumption, the oil companies will increase the oil prices even more as to make up for the loss and es. the billions they have invested in oil drilling and exploration platforms. Our best bet to get them off our backs is to find an alternative source of energy which I am sure they will spend a lot of money to subdue.
  • DAGONthehauge, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Reading all above arguing for and contra market mechanisms, prices rising or dropping based on boycott, rising demand etc etc

    It sure sounds like a 1985 argument in the Moscow Politburo arguing over whether or not all these peace demonstrations happening in Europe will probably produce a socialist revolution there. It's all ideology crap this whole free market bull, not real science. It's faith based reasoning.
  • davidlow, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Reducing our gas consumption won't effect the price, but it'll reduce Big Oil's revenues. To reduce the price we would have to change demand in a way that shows a greater dependence of demand on the price, like being better price shoppers.

    In fact, by reducing the use of gas for our less essential activities, we ensure that the remaining activities, the essential ones, are immune to price increases. Big Oil will then see that prices increases become a MORE profitable option for them.
  • CoffeeGoddess, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1According to Snopes, this half-baked idea for a one-day boycott hasn't affected station sales anyway. Every time someone sends me the stupid email, I send them there. I haven't got one in a couple years now, so it must be working.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/nogas.asp

    Telling people to ignore the boycott is sort of silly then, but Americans should still be encouraged to use public transport more, that I won't argue with.
  • hiscity, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Starting a new job, a year and a half ago, I figured gas would be $5 by now. So, I moved to where I can walk to work within 4 minutes (!). I'm delighted and amazed that gas hasn't gone up so much yet. When I'm not doing work related travel... I'll usually fill up about once a month.

    As for reducing demand ... it's better to target one producer and many not buy from them for over a month. The CITGO boycott was instructive.

    You want half-price gasoline, just send a request to Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro, for a 1/2 price credit card at CITGO. Chavez will likely give away gas at half-price to those that will league with Him against the US and capitalism. He's nationalized oil companies, banks, media outlets, etc. to be able to get you his neo-communism prices.

    (Not sure how long the cartel will let Tio Hugo get away with undercutting prices though, so best to get in with him now. They say he also offers low cost heating oil during winter.)

    What better way to drive down prices than work with the "neo-comm's" !? Chavez is in bed with not only the the Oil Cartel but also the Chinese -- so expect to see more "economies of scale" when he "nationalizes" adjacent countries like Columbia, Trinidad & Tobago. South America has always wanted to be a worker's paradise: free medical, free education, guaranteed jobs for life, neighborhood organic farming, eco-friendly 1 toilet tissue per use toilets, rationed food supplies to combat obesity, super-tight security at airports to protect against terrorism, the list just goes on and on....

    You want cheap gas, just ask Tio Dulce, Hugo Chavez.
  • emt1451, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I have pulled an additional 50 miles out of each tank by accelerating slowly and staying under 75 on the freeway.
  • seancanada, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I'd imagine the type of person participating in the no-buy day is also working on reducing their dependance on oil.
  • FAT_PIGGY, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I'll keep my LS2 sorry
  • elbobsa, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Many places have their nerve centers in the middle of the city. The middle of the city is usually a high crime zone. Decent people generally leave the city when they see their property values plummet, and to keep from getting robbed, raped, burglarized, or murdered. This causes people to have to commute farther. It is simply a sad fact of life. Add to that all the illegal aliens driving their junk prone-to-break-down POS cars, and you have a recipe for multiple traffic jams. Traffic jams hit people in their wallet, waste gas, and cause more pollution. Why should American citizens have to suffer because of a problem created largely by invaders?

    All of this to worship at the alter of diversity and multiculturalism. It isn't worth it. Sometimes, a solution is right under your noses, and you miss it. Call me a racist (I'm sure some of you want to). I don't even consider it a pejorative anymore.
    • hiscity, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Here's a thought experiment.

      Let's say the terrorist get smart and produce the perfect bio-weapon that makes people not only sterile but also lose the desire for sex. And they deploy it on the US. With a zero birth rate ... how does the country replenish it's population?

      Adoption? Cloning? Immigration?

      Back to this world. That weapon has already been deployed in part. Birth rates are down. Contraceptives become more effective all the time. Asia has 6 times the population of North America. Chinese population restrictions could evaporate as chinese communism implodes the same way soviet communism has. The Chinese are very family oriented -- their population could go exponential without the restriction. What to do when Asia has 10 times or 20 times the populace of the US?

      For those that take contraceptives who don't want more children... the only practical answer is open immigration!

      As for world resources not being able to keep up with population growth -- there's a whole solar system to draw on. And space tourism is in its infancy along with space commerce.

      So would you prefer the new US populace to be increasingly Hispanic, Chinese, or Indian?

      Or the US could have lots more babies. Personally, I like that approach best, though adoption is good too.

      It doesn't bother me that those who don't want children will dwindle and be forgotten. The problem is largely self correcting.
    • bupublue, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0@hiscity

      Um. We currently have 300 million people in the US. Do you honestly think we need more? Do you live in a very small town in the middle of Oklahoma or something? Because I'm trying to comprehend how one who lives in the US could possibly think we need more people, and that's the only thing I can come up with.

      People who don't want children will not "dwindle and be forgotten." Do you think everyone with a functioning set of reproductive organs should go out and make as many babies as possible? If you do, you might want to take a look at Africa and see how well that philosphy works.

      http://www.populationconnection.org

      Btw, have fun gathering resources from the rest of the solar system. That will be interesting to see considering we can't even send a manned mission to Mars yet.
    • hiscity, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You got no vision bupublue. Look at all the wide open spaces in Google Earth -- even in China.

      Do you deny that birth control methods are improving?

      As for space, I clearly pointed out that we're just getting started -- including tourism and commerce. Granted they still can't find Scotty's ashes last I heard. Space travel is here for the millionaires now and folks like Hawking, now.

      You don't have to go to mars to get resources. The biggest long storage deep freeze (near cryogenic) is in all those 10s of thousands of square kilometers in craters on the moon that are never exposed to sunlight. That's a major new industry all by itself.

      As for the Chinese, I lived with two students from mainland China who were working on MBAs. Let me ask you this, would you rather have 1.2 billion Chinese as enemies -- or as competitors -- for your jobs, properties, benefits, and women ?!!

      Whether Americans have babies or not -- Asians definitely are. And they eclipse whatever is going on in Africa.

      All it takes is the collapse of Chinese communism for China to quite literally out compete the world.
      Except perhaps for those from India. Just even 3 children per couple in China would bury you.

      Take a tour and find out what's happening:
      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22more+*+in+china+than+in+the+us%22
    • bupublue, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I'm rather fond of wide open spaces, thanks. I don't feel the need to fill every last square mile of earth with human flesh, nor every last square mile of the US, for that matter. I'm really not even sure what you're suggesting at this point. So China's got a huge population; that's pretty obvious. What's your point? That they are going to suddenly break free of China and start invading us? How is an increase in US population going to stop that from happening? We could have five billion people here and I'm willing to bet that people would still be flocking here from other countries, assuming we'd not yet collapsed under our own weight.

      And I'm well aware that contraception is improving; as a woman without a lot going on financially, I'm damn grateful for that. Would you suggest I start having babies I can't afford to take care of for the good of the State? Of course then I'd have to go on government assistance and be a burden to the State. So your scenario doesn't work for me in any case. I'd rather keep the population down to manageable levels through birth control and better immigration laws & enforcement so that the majority of us will not have to live in squalor, like they do in countries like China.
    • bupublue, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Sorry, I missed the part about competition. A pretty easy fix would be to stop outsourcing 99% of our factories and jobs to Asia. I doubt a country like China could even survive if we pulled all of our operations out. Not that it will ever happen. But making more babies isn't going to fix it either.
    • hiscity, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Long before they invade the US, they'll likely invade Australia.

      As for buying up the US, that's another story. Or even siphoning off the coal, fuel, and other resources needed for a rapidly expanding economy.

      If you had the money, would you have children? And the more money you had, would you have more children?

      It works the other way too. If the US were to have 3 children per couple, then they could compete with China and India as long as China keeps a 1 child policy. (Though they really don't effectively enforce it.)

      To me, it's just obvious. If I only ever plant one field as a farmer, then I can't compete with the gal that's planting 2, then 3, then 4... and so on. That's my point.
  • bonerfide, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I carpool to work everyday with my girlfriend and drop her off at her job to save gas.The thing that I find interesting is that I live on a river and I see all these boats going up and down everyday. Seems like the cost of gas doesn't affect them or if they have enough money for a boat they can afford higher priced gas. It just seems to me that they are wasting gas and raising demand! My gas is spent towards getting to work to put food on the table.I wish I could telecommute but the boss is old fashioned and won't let us.

    Also now that the weather is warm you see a lot more motorcycles on the road. Just driving around going nowhere.
  • RandoTheKing, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I love how most of you say don't use your car or buy a car when in fact 80% of our jobs are 20-30 minutes away. Not all of us live in NYC where we can walk to our job. Sorry! We have to take highways to get places.
    • hydratedsquash, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I acknowledge that a gas boycott wouldn't work, but cutting consumption will. Buy a car that gets 30+ mpg, carpool, ride your bike for anything close, these are things that anyone can do and should to save money, help our environment and show oil companies that they need to change.
    • andrebsd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"Buy a car that gets 30+ mpg"

      Well that doesn't always make sense... I can buy a new car right now, say something small, for I dunno $14,000. But I can also keep my current car that gets 20mpg and spend a bit more on gas. Many people seem to forget that they can buy a new car that gets better gas mileage, but in the long run it'll still cost them the same amount of money unless they plan to keep the new car for over 5 years or so.

      So if it costs the same then I'd much rather drive a used 7 series, than drive a new Nissan Sentra or something like that. Now I know some people like new cars, that's always fine, but to have people that go around saying "well you can just buy a new car" doesn't always make sense. I'd take a few year old car anyday... the insurance is cheaper since I won't be forced to get full coverage and I won't be the person taking a massive hit on depreciation.
  • 666dorado, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0let's get to the bottom of this blogger's anger: he hates stupid chain letter junk emails, and so do i.

    but i think his anger is misdirected and his logic is flawed.

    BOYCOTTING GAS = REDUCING CONSUMPTION/DEMAND, albeit for 1 day. i don't see the difference.

    if i stopped smoking or drinking for a day, does that necessarily mean that i will go out and drink or smoke double in the future to compensate, or to meet some arbitrary quota?

    don't forget that also that there are cash flow issues that could cause problems if total revenues for a single day are significantly reduced.

    the point of a boycott is to send a message to the oil companies. whether it works or not, who knows. couldn't hurt to try.
  • EzraT1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1yeah but Gas isn't comparable to smoking and drinking. If you don't by Gas one day you will just have to buy it another day because your need for gas grows as much as you drive. Your need for a smoke doesn't continually increase and one smoke is often enough to compensate for a day or a 100 days of not smoking. 20 dollars worth of gas doesn't compensate for 50 dollars worth of burned gas.
    • 666dorado, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0yes, but you're making the assumption that driving is necessary. it may be for some people and business, but for example, i work at home, so any driving is want vs. need. i think the concept of boycotting gas purchases may be a bit oversimplified or misunderstood. for me, a reduction in driving/gas consumption would be implicit with a boycott of gas for a day. i'm not going to drive til my tank is empty on a day that i might decide to not buy gas. so if choose not to buy gas for whatever period of time, i'm actually reducing my driving by default.

      let's say instead of boycotting gas for 1 day, i boycott gas for 1 year. am i still 'shifting' demand/consumption to the future? what if i boycott gas for 10 years?

      according to the logic that boycotting gas for 1 day doesn't achieve anything, than neither would boycotting for 10 years, it's just a question of scale.
  • proliance, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Last I heard oil companies make about 3 cents on the gallon. Feel free to find the facts and prove me right or wrong, but I'd really like to know the answer.
  • andrebsd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Personally I think it's absolutely ridiculous... I'm a poor 20 year old college student and I still figure there has to be better things to worry about than gas prices. I can go around worrying, complaining, etc... but it won't do me any good.
    • 666dorado, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0you're absolutely right, there is nothing you can do about it, as long as this administration supports/endorses the price gouging by the oil companies. gas consumption in our country is an addiction, so the only way to fight it is to stop cold turkey, but that's easier said than done. these price hikes were in the works at least from day one cheney stepped into office (aka secret energy task force meetings). it's not a coincidence that exxon/mobile profited the most in corporate american history a couple years ago, and continues to do so:

      http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/performers/companies/profits/

      high gas prices an equivalent way of quietly raising your taxes to subsidize the oil industry. excuses like problems with 'refining capacity' are smoke and mirrors. what about the light truck exemption for fuel standards, what's that all about? and it was only a few years ago that they were claiming that the technology didn't exist to make a gasoline engine get better gas mileage. all lies.

      for god's sake, we put a spacecraft into orbit around a moon of Saturn, and they were making THAT claim?!
  • froggy57, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0In 1970 the Russians started drilling Kola SG-3, an exploration well which finally reached a staggering world record depth of 40,230 feet. Since then, Russian oil majors including Yukos have quietly drilled more than 310 successful super-deep oil wells, and put them into production. Last Year Russia overtook Saudi Arabia as the world's biggest single oil producer, and is now set to completely dominate global oil production and sales for the next century. We gratefully accept credit cards here: If the opening paragraph of this report started by claiming that completely unlimited crude oil reserves exist inside planet earth, readers might be tempted to regard the entire text as preposterous ghostwriting for a novelist like Frederick Forsyth. If the report then went on to claim that the Russians have exploited this stunning reality for nearly thirty years, right under the largely unwitting noses of western intelligence, readers could be excused for mistaking the author for a lunatic, or perhaps as a front for spy novelist John le Carré. The problem here is that unlimited oil reserves do exist inside planet earth, and the Russians long ago developed the advanced technology necessary to recover these unlimited oil reserves in an efficient and timely manner.
  • DigitalDud, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Try studying some economics, oil industry profits are cyclical. They're currently in a boom, in a year or two they will be losing money again. The government receives significantly more revenue from the oil industry in taxes, over a trillion in 20 years and the taxes continue to grow. If you want to decrease gasoline you should stop the "boycott the capitalist pigs" rhetoric and support reduced taxes on oil companies.
    • aikimann, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1digitaldud is right. The other year when Exxon had "record profits" (never mind their profit margin pretty much stayed the same, but most people don't know the difference) they paid about 3 TIMES that in taxes to the government. So, while congress holds hearings to find out if gas execs are price gouging (so that you'll think they're looking out for you) they're making billions of dollars a year in taxes from the oil companies, and taxing the hell out of gas itself. The government makes more money on a gallon of gas than the oil companies; about 3 times as much.

      The government is screwing everyone over on the front and back end of this whole deal, and you still vote to reelect them because they hold hearings in front of cameras where it looks like they're going after the "evil" oil executives. Some people need to pick up an economics book, pay attention and quit being sheeple.
  • poop69, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3BUY GAS FROM CITGO .. TAKE IT OUT OF THE NEOCONS' POCKETS AND PUT IT INTO CHAVES.. HAHAHAHA PUT THIS IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT , YOU NEW WORLD ORDER SCUM
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.