1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Gas out on the Internets?

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by slappy4428, May 3, 2007.

  1. Simon_Cowbell

    Simon_Cowbell Active Member

    If there is double the business the next day, this means nothing.

    People have to stop using the car for 300 miles or so for this to work.
  2. SoSueMe

    SoSueMe Active Member

    Point of Order hit it on the head. In a nutshell: STOP USLESS DRIVING!

    It's still supply and demand when it's all said and done. And we idiot North Americans (myself included) keep on driving; for coffee at 10 a.m., to the bank at noon, to work, for coffee while at work, whatever. It goes on and on.

    Starting in June, the Mrs. Sue and I and cutting our driving way back. She works in the next town over, she'll be stopping for groceries, at the post office, at the store, etc. on the way to and from work. I'll be doing the same.
  3. Pastor

    Pastor Active Member

    Hybrid efficiency works in the reverse of regular cars. The hybrid is best during stop and go city driving. The deal is that when the car is stopped at a light no gas is being used while the regular car next to you is running the engine idle. If someone was doing a lot of highway driving a hybrid would not be a very intelligent purchase.

    I will also point out that PoO is spot on with the rundown list. It is all about maximizing your time and being efficient.

    I remember working a summer job at UPS while I was in college. They spent quite a bit of money in their researching department analyzing trips and maps. Their purpose was to streamline the drivers' trips in such a way as to remove back tracking and inefficient turns (for example turning left in NYC, which is a newer change). The end result was an incredible decrease in fuel consumption and fuel expenditure.
  4. alleyallen

    alleyallen Guest

    Not that I'd support the idea, but wouldn't reducing the speed limit also reduce fuel consumption?
  5. trifectarich

    trifectarich Well-Known Member

    You have to understand that oil companies can charge $3 or $3.50 a gallon because they can and, at this point in time, there's nothing anyone can do about it except keep buying their product. The oil companies are concerned with one thing and one thing only and that's making as much money as they can. Period.

    If orange juice went up to $10 a gallon, we all could say, "Fine, I can do without this for as long as I have to. I can drink grapefruit juice or cranberry juice or milk or water or something else." It's not this way with gas. It's not as though we all can make the gas stay in our tanks longer by only going to work three days a week instead of five, or not picking the kids up from school after band practice, or maybe I'll take the bus.

    If everyone cut back on their driving just 10 percent, then we'd send a message that would create an impact. But we're too selfish to do something that requires sacrifice.
  6. Lugnuts

    Lugnuts Well-Known Member

    Crass is right. It gets 40 mpg in the city.
  7. Jones

    Jones Active Member

    I have a hard time understanding the anger, particularly American anger, over the price of gas. I know it sucks to pay a lot for it, but -- these are private companies, looking to maximize profits. They are under no obligation to keep their product affordable. And if people are going to pay four dollars a gallon, they're going to charge four dollars a gallon. That's basic capitalism.

    Even more basic: Until demand goes down, prices will stay up.

    In Europe, gas prices have always been artificially high to discourage use. Part of me, then, even thinks high gas prices are a good thing, because it might actually change how people consume -- it might force people to change their bad habits.

    Of course, my commute is from my second floor to my attic, so easy for me to say.
  8. Point of Order

    Point of Order Active Member

    Two words, Jones: Energy Bill.

    It was a damn government giveway to the pollutant energy industry and oil tycoons. Our government allows them to pollute at will, ruining the (public) environment, yet puts no meaningful obligations whatsoever to pay for the privilege, or to find another way to operate that doesn't threaten kill us all (either through pollution, or through dependence on Middle East oil).

    If there was an end in sight to infrastructural dependence on oil, I'd feel a lot better about the current prices.
  9. Jones

    Jones Active Member

    Sorry, Order -- remember I'm Canadian, so I need you to talk slowly. I don't get what the Energy Bill is.
  10. Point of Order

    Point of Order Active Member

    In short, I'm pissed because we could do something to change this perdicament. Maybe not tomorrow, but in the long run. Good energy legislation could have set us on the right path, but it turned into a bad piece of legislation, in my humblest of opinions:


    Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) spoke in opposition to the bill including references to the occupation of Iraq and serious flaws in the policy of the energy bill.[12]

    "Our dependence on foreign oil will not be reduced as a result of this legislation. As a result, we have not reduced the prospect of going to war once again in the Persian Gulf in the next decade."

    The Senator referred to the relationship between the energy bill and terrorism.

    "the Senate is about to pass a pre-9/11 energy policy. After 9/11, it became clear that energy policy was a national security issue and that reducing our dependence on foreign oil had to be a national security priority. That hasn't been done."

    "So today Americans continue to pay what I call a terror tax--the price we pay in insecurity for our dependence on foreign oil. I call it a terror tax because when each of us pulls up to the corner gasoline station and pays $2.40 a gallon, or so, for gasoline, a portion of that money goes to foreign governments that in turn send it out the back door to Islamist extremists who use the money to perpetuate hate and terrorist acts."

    "This legislation does virtually nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil."
  11. Jones

    Jones Active Member

    Gotcha. Thanks for that, PoO.

    I still say that people need to change their driving habits, but I can see where you're coming from with this.
  12. Point of Order

    Point of Order Active Member

    Oh, I agree with you about higher prices forcing people to change the way they consume, by the way. I love to drive but I've been watching my mileage like a hawk lately.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page