The Senate is feeling the gas pinch...

[Omega X]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/...ion=cnn_latest

----------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The Senate Energy Committee will hold a hearing next month to determine reasons for the high cost of U.S. gasoline, the panel said Friday.

Driven by tight supplies and U.S. crude prices near $65 a barrel, average retail gasoline prices hit a record $2.55 a gallon this week, according to government data.

That's about 68 cents higher than just a year ago and the biggest weekly increase on record, which has triggered fears that high energy costs could hurt U.S. economic growth.

Lawmakers admit there is no short-term fix to pain at the pump, but are nervous about political fall-out.

"Today's gasoline prices are taking a severe toll on Americans' pocketbooks," said Republican Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico, energy panel chairman. "Consumers are anxious."

The September 8 hearing will focus on global oil demand, refinery capacity constraints and the impact of futures market speculation on energy prices, Domenici said in a statement.

The panel said it has not set its witnesses.

"Clearly, we need to have the very best advice and counsel on what actions can be taken to help lower the cost of gasoline," said New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman, the panel's senior Democrat.

U.S. consumers use about 9 million barrels of gasoline a day -- about 380 million gallons worth.

Every penny increase in gasoline prices means that U.S. consumers pay about $1.39 billion extra at the pump each year, according to panel data.
----------------------------------------

Hehehe, its about time someone in the Senate cries over the gas prices. ITs getting pretty out of hand.

P.S.
People who don't live in the U.S. and has something to say about it all, just keep in mind about standards of living costs and inflation before making a comment about gas prices.

[tuckerm]

its finnally getting to the beautiful people.

[Warrior of the Light]

I'm looking forward to over 25 years, when all oil reserves will be empty.

yay for nuclear power

[drewbar]

Here's an idea. Stop giving tax credits to people who buy SUVs and ignoring the people who buy hybrids.

[dlinkwit27]

Originally posted by Warrior of the Light
I'm looking forward to over 25 years, when all oil reserves will be empty.

yay for nuclear power

haven't people been saying that for like the last 50 years?

This reminds me of a West Wing episode though. A senator wanted a higher gas tax because gas was too cheap. Cheap gas meant that nobody wanted to research any other form of energy.

Maybe with these price surges we will start to see more alternatives pop up.

[General Geoff]

I forsee the use of ethanol becoming more prevalent.

[drewbar]

As of right now, Ethnaol is not economicaly viable, as it takes more energy to produce. Other, cheaper, alternatives will be come more popular such as Bio-Diesel

[Omega X]

I think that Bio-Diesel is the way to go until Hydrogen technology catches up.

[General Geoff]

Biodiesel.. pfft. It's just diesel. if anything you should call the diesel they have at the fuel pumps "petrol-diesel." Rudolph Diesel originally designed his engine to run off peanut oil, and as such "biodiesel" is the original diesel fuel. It's petroleum-derived diesel that's the new innovation for that.

By the way, I never said anything about Ethanol being a do-all,end-all fuel that will end energy concerns world-wide. It just happens to be a very clean-burning, non-polluting, renewable resource that also happens to work with gasoline engines with minimal modifications (unlike diesel, which only works with diesel engines).

[Omega X]

I think that there was a reason that people stopped using Ethanol back then. I just can't remember why...

[MegaRock]

Originally posted by drewbar
Here's an idea. Stop giving tax credits to people who buy SUVs and ignoring the people who buy hybrids.

No kidding but better than that the people who own and operate the most gas guzzling vehicles should have to pay a tax for the additional gas usage their vehicles consume as well as the extra pollution the vehicles emit.

That way if you're so bloody rich you don't care about how much gas costs as you drive your Hummer down the road then you shouldn't mind the extra tax overhead. Right now it's mostly a demand vs. supply problem and like above SUV owners get tax credits for using alot of gas whereas those with hybrid or even good economy cars get nothing but higher and higher prices because those who can afford the higher prices just keep paying and using.

[zootm]

Originally posted by General Geoff
Biodiesel.. pfft. It's just diesel. if anything you should call the diesel they have at the fuel pumps "petrol-diesel." Rudolph Diesel originally designed his engine to run off peanut oil, and as such "biodiesel" is the original diesel fuel. It's petroleum-derived diesel that's the new innovation for that.

Yes, but "diesel" in common usage refers to oil-derived diesel, so it needs a seperate name.

[ertmann|CPH]

bah, we recently hit a magic mark of over 10 DKK per liter for ledfree 95 octane. Which is the standard gas around here.

that's

6,21 USD a gallon

which actually made me think that rising oil costs will be less severe in Europe, as we can just lower the taxation for a substancial period when gas prices reach an (for europeans) unacceptable level. and on top of that, fuel efficiency has been an important factor when people buy cars over here for a long time...

looks like the "green" taxation plan is paying of...

hopefully, the prices will stay like this, forcing americans to buy fuel efficient cars, slowing global demand for oil significantly, and hence lowering gas prices for all of us, or even better, accelerate the development of mass produced cars running on more enviromentally friendly fuel.

so i'm quite happy with the current development, only downside is the planetickets get's more expensive.

Originally posted by Omega X
P.S.
People who don't live in the U.S. and has something to say about it all, just keep in mind about standards of living costs and inflation before making a comment about gas prices.

huh? living costs is pretty much the same in europe, and last time i checked inflation was slightly higher over here too...

[MegaRock]

Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
6,21 USD a gallon

[dlinkwit27]

Originally posted by MegaRock

$6.21

[Omega X]

Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
huh? living costs is pretty much the same in europe, and last time i checked inflation was slightly higher over here too... [/B]

Check the rates on the british pound over the american dollar vs. population density and demand. Not to mention that here earnings have not caught up to inflation in a long while.

Plus other factors come into play like mass transit which SUCKS here if you are not in subway cities like New York or monorail areas like Cali cities.

Rural areas feel the tightest pinch because the majority are near the bottom of the earnings ladder. The national average is about $2.50 in most areas. If you live in a big city minus Houston, your average should be atleast .45 to $1.20 more per gallon. Houston gets the benefit of close quarters to the refineries. But there is no benefit in rural areas where most have to really budget to get to where they need to work which sometimes is guarenteed to be atleast 20 to 30 miles away, if not MORE.

Last time I checked, most of Europe had real good public transportation.

[zootm]

Most of Europe does, yes. I believe that the "American" thing to do in the case that you can't earn enough in a rural background is to go somewhere you can earn more. This is the gist of a capitalistic system.

And the inflation etc. issues are to do with a certain administration pissing the country's economy away, surely? Hmm.

[ertmann|CPH]

what zootm said, and well, still, it's not like we don't have low income groupings in rural areas, and they still have to cope with 3-4 times the gas prices as their us counterparts. Allthough admitedly the minimum wage at 13,5 USD/hour seems alot higher than the federal US rate of 5,5 USD/hour

[rockouthippie]

Euro gas prices at mostly tax, so it isn't a fair comparison. These taxes were used to develop transportation infrastructure we can't really have in the US.

Because of the size of our country, and the fact that we fell in love with suburban living 50 years ago, make transportation solutions in Europe that wouldn't be practical here.

I have a light rail train three miles away, but you have to walk the three miles, or sometimes you can walk 2 and take the bus for a mile. But the bus doesn't run most of the time. Your car would get jacked if you left it at the park and ride.

Then before you find any shopping or entertainment you've gone another 20 miles into Portland. It goes somewhere near the silicon farms out here, but again you are looking at a long walk.

The train isn't particularly safe either, as it has a jail on both ends of the run and the line that goes to Gresham runs right through an area known as "felony flats".

I think they should have put a wall around that part of town, not built a train to it.

Pretty much, in the US, you need to drive.

[General Geoff]

Like rockouthippie said, the infrastructure of the United States is based quite entirely on personal automobiles. You can't get rid of them, the best you can do is make them more efficient.

[zootm]

The arrogant unwillingness amongst many to do so seems a little backwards, however.

[ertmann|CPH]

indeed...

[rockouthippie]

No, it isn't arrogant unwillingness, it's a matter of impracticality. England is about 2/3 rds the size of California.

Our cities are built on a suburban idea. I don't see how you'd change that. Most of the land-use plans are from 1970's ideas. You can't just start bulldozing houses. They have to fall down a bit.

This means a car or a lot of walking. I am gonna fix my 100 mpg motorcycle...

[ertmann|CPH]

what's wrong with busses?

[Spazz333]

If we had busses I'd use em but all we have here are cross country. No in town bus system unless you count school busses for the kiddies.

[rockouthippie]

And taxi companies are usually like calling up the three stooges.

[Jay]

you guys should come to DFW Texas for a little dose of why public transportations doesn't work in the states.

It's because there are high ties politically to car dealership owners in my area. The other part is it is impractical, especially in a sprawling community. The only people getting public transporation are the richer communities where their voice is a little louder.

There is also lots of division over who should be in charge, this is the same thing that occured in the love field, DFW air port debacle. Is still occuring with the wright ammendment, but that is another story.

Also most communities are simply not going to put forward the money to build such systems. This means higher taxes and people squerm at anything that raises taxes around here, even if it would do them good in the end.

[zootm]

Originally posted by rockouthippie
No, it isn't arrogant unwillingness, it's a matter of impracticality. England is about 2/3 rds the size of California.

Go back and read my post again, then comment on it when you know what I was talking about.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by zootm
The arrogant unwillingness amongst many to do so seems a little backwards, however.

You're right (though for a second, I read your post as rockouthippie had). I drive a pretty fuel efficient car (~31mpg highway, ~25 city), and I get annoyed at these people driving around huge SUVs because, you know, they need it, to, um, transport their ONE CHILD around.

God damn.

[Omega X]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
You're right (though for a second, I read your post as rockouthippie had). I drive a pretty fuel efficient car (~31mpg highway, ~25 city), and I get annoyed at these people driving around huge SUVs because, you know, they need it, to, um, transport their ONE CHILD around.

God damn.

Damn True!

[Jay]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
...you know, they need it, to, um, transport their ONE CHILD around.

You know... there is an obesity epidemic. Let's try to stay sensitive to the needs of the fat kids.

[zootm]

Fuck that man, they should be able to roll at least half the way.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by KXRM
You know... there is an obesity epidemic. Let's try to stay sensitive to the needs of the fat kids.

Fuck that! I'd strap that motherfucker to my roof.

[Phyltre]

Originally posted by zootm
Most of Europe does, yes. I believe that the "American" thing to do in the case that you can't earn enough in a rural background is to go somewhere you can earn more. This is the gist of a capitalistic system.

And the inflation etc. issues are to do with a certain administration pissing the country's economy away, surely? Hmm.

Sorry. If you live somewhere where you can't make enough money, you CAN'T move to an area with a higher cost of living! It takes a lot of money initially just to move, much less move UP the ladder. Maybe if this were a textbook world where everything happened perfectly your idea would work, but you have to have money to break away from poverty (which is what rural areas are closer to.)

[ertmann|CPH]

i think zoot's post was ment to be read as a slight hint of sarcasm.

[zootm]

Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
i think zoot's post was ment to be read as a slight hint of sarcasm.

I love when people stick up for me

But I'm being serious here, the "capitalist" answer is to move to somewhere where you can make a greater wage. If you have not the money to do that, do or sell what you can until you do. Creating a loss is always thought of as avoidable, and those who do are always disposable, effectively.

[Phyltre]

Originally posted by zootm
I love when people stick up for me

But I'm being serious here, the "capitalist" answer is to move to somewhere where you can make a greater wage. If you have not the money to do that, do or sell what you can until you do. Creating a loss is always thought of as avoidable, and those who do are always disposable, effectively.

Right, that's the textbook answer. But that's only the theoretical answer, not the practical one. The more you need to move, the less you will be able to.

[zootm]

The next textbook answer is that it's not the system's fault if you were too slow to jump ship...

[Spazz333]

The textbook is bullshit. It doesn't work the way it says it should. If the textbook explained the system right there wouldn't be jumping the ship "just right" because if everyone did it just right it would screw up the text book answer.

[Phyltre]

I get it. You're saying that we should blame entire communities for where they live, and rub it in their faces that their lack of money keeps them from going to an area with greater opportunities.

Then, we should tell them that had they "jumped ship" at the appropriate time (which could have been two years ago, or seventy-five years before their birth) they wouldn't have this problem. And that anyone who doesn't move because they want to stay near family is nothing more than a socialist. And that really, they have no one to blame but themselves.

It's not like there weren't warning signs posted around the neighborhood saying that soon the place wouldn't be economically advantageous..