By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
When you say everyone do you mean everyone in the US or everyone in the world? It's pretty tough for these emerging economies to conserve much gas when they still have a relatively small percentage of their population driving cars. Unless you are suggesting that they don't allow any new drivers.
Let's say you're just talking about the US. If we all used 5% less we'd save less than 1 million barrels per day. With our population growing at 1 1/2 percent a year it will only be a few years until we're back where we started. As far as the oil companies are concerned this won't impact their profits. The domestics will still sell all that they can produce and OPEC will just have to temporarily cut back on production a little to keep the price where it is. This doesn't really represent a loss to OPEC since the oil is still in the ground. It represents deferred revenue.
Everyone who agrees that oil is a finite resource must also agree that we are currently driving down a dead end. The idea of conservation represents suggesting that we slow down. Some people would like to open up more areas for drilling. That represents extending this dead end. I personally believe we have the ability to develop alternatives that ultimately won't involve sacrifices to our lifestyles that the advocates of conservation want to impose on themselves. Unfortunately the only way we'll aggressively develop these alternatives is if market conditions create a powerful incentive to do so. I'd personally rather make the relatively short term sacrifice of paying much higher prices for fuel than the long term sacrifice of conservation, which will only serve to delay these high prices.
Device promises to save 60% at the pump
Let's take the deconstruction of the claims over to Gas Saving Gizmos & Gadgets so we don't completely hijack this discussion. Thanks.
Environmentalists' Wild Predictions
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some environmentalist predictions that they would prefer we forget.
At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."
In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."
Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 "... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."
It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, there's a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.
Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?
Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.
Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
Back that up with sources please.
Does 95% affect your conclusions? I thought the whole theory behind the debate is that the Earth (and the atmosphere) is delicately balanced and can be easily thrown out of whack.
So even if 99.9% of the greenhouse effect is from water vapor it shouldn't matter...it's the 00.1% amount emitted by selfish, thoughtless, SUV owners that are destroying our children's future
not like it matters to me...i like it warm...96 out now
The environment isn't so much sensitive as it is incredibly complex....it's an equation that makes our most advanced ciphers look like 2+2=4. With any construct that complex, changing one value by a minuscule amount could POTENTIALLY have far-reaching consequences...or it could turn out to be nothing.
For all we know taking any more oil out of the planet could impact surface stability, just as an example. No one really knows because the variables are too complex, so all we have are a bunch of relatively educated guesses.
That being said, not taking care of your planet, like not taking care of your house, is a dumb move if you want the thing to last.
Though i suppose we could take all the hot air from the environmental debates and convert it into an energy source, thereby reducing our dependence on foreign oil. :shades:
It is pretty complex...usually I'm just making things up... :P
"That being said, not taking care of your planet, like not taking care of your house, is a dumb move if you want the thing to last. "
You're probably right; not like I'm against taking care of it...I do like to get out hiking with the kids and get annoyed when I see garbage. Lazy people...garbage is for the landfill...
For the whole CO2 "thang"...It does seem strange to spend huge amounts of dollars to reduce the last tiny particle of CO2 from our exhaust emissions only to have China build new coal plants every week...or have the rest of the third world burn wood and dung for a heat source.
If the thought is global...then it does seem like a waste of money; and that is where it gets me. I'm all for people wasting their *own* money...buying fur coats for dogs...lypo for their cats...stuffing the mattress, is all ok with me. "Extra" emissions should be an option. "I don't like CO2" "I'll get the CO2 reduction options for $1,500"
Took me a second (well, several) - good one!
As I mentioned before, we cannot forget that half the world gets subsidized fuel. The reduced price keeps consumption artificially high. At some point countries run out of money and they are forced to raise the price, usually in big chunks. Indonesia is close to cracking. India appears to be waiting until elections are over with. Iran, China, KSA & Venezuela? Mexico is going to have major problems in the next few years. There are plenty of safety valves that will pop if prices inch higher. I don't think we need to go much higher or much longer before these countries will react, or should I say POP! :surprise:
In the U.S. demand is starting to level off. Enter the words 'gasoline' & 'demand' in Google news if you want to read up on what is going on.
We don't want to upset the Chinese too much. I didn't know until recently that the money for the economic stimulus checks we're all supposed to get is being financed by a loan from China. :surprise:
Keep 'em happy or they'll raise the interest rate.
The Catalytic Convertor was added several years after they got the lead out. Its primary purpose is to remove NoX, CO and HC from the exhaust. These are not the killers that air borne lead presented. I can remember not being able to breathe when I would go visit my grandmother in LA during the 1960s. I moved to Alaska in 1970 to get away from the lousy air and throngs of people.
For 50 years after its appearance on the market, leaded gas continued to power America's love-affair with the big luxury cars Detroit was producing. But in the 1960's scientific evidence made it clear that airborne lead was a serious health hazard. Efforts were renewed to outlaw lead in gasoline, with federal restrictions governing the lead content of motor fuels coming into effect in the 1970s. Lead exposure, we now know, can cause a wide range of illnesses in adults and poses especially high risks for children, affecting their neurological development, growth and intelligence.
Of course, the voices of caution ignored in 1925 were absolutely correct. Leaded gasoline was good for car engines, but bad for people. Although today leaded gasoline is banned in the U.S. and other industrialized nations, it is still in use in many developing countries, where in large cities it is considered a grave health risk to children.
Motorcycle emissions have been regulated about as long as automobiles.
Motorcycle emission standards were first established in 1978 by the EPA and have remained unchanged since the 1980 model year. Those standards are 5 grams per kilometer hydrocarbon and 12 grams per kilometer carbon monoxide (5 g/km HC and 12 g/km CO). Only one state, California, received permission from the EPA to set its own lower standard because of its unique smog problems and, in several stages, reduced its motorcycle emission standard to 1.0 g/km for 50-699cc and 1,4 g/km for 700cc and above motorcycles. The current California emissions standard is therefore 3 1/2 to 5 times cleaner than the Federal one.
Here is a website that Dr Williams writings appear on. I find him most enlightening and very bright. I am sure he can back up any statistic he uses.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/archive.shtml
If my recollection is correct, leaded gasoline was still for sale in CA even after the catalytic converter was mandatory equipment on new vehicles.
He may be enlightening and bright, but that doesn't mean he's providing facts 100% of the time. In fact a lot of bright people make it a habit of lying a lot....specifically people associated with that magical city of Washington DC. :shades:
On top of that, his experience is on economics and socio-economics, not biology, geology, meteorology, climatology, or any other sort of science related to environmental research. Yet he's saying he as an economist knows more than, say, a biologist? I'm sure he'd be pretty POed if a geologist decided to lecture him about economics.
As for "the fleet", we may be using less gas than in 1972, but we aren't using less gas than in 1982, and that's a quarter century ago. That aint progress. :-(
As for the "even if we conserve we just defer oil company profits" thing, I am just talking about a limited action to put downward pressure on gas prices for a year or two. Obviously, in the long run we need to stop using the stuff because China won't, India won't, and even at their current usage the oil is going to be in short supply from here on out.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Catalytic converters hit most cars in 1975 but Honda made cars as late as 1980 and maybe a couple of years later that met pollution mandates without a catalytic converter. As late as the 1979 model year they still had filler necks that allowed you to pump leaded gas into them. In 1980 the US mandated that you had to have the narrower filler neck that allowed only unleaded gas to be pumped in whether you had a catalytic converter or not.
The reason I can rattle this all off is that I had an 80 Accord that I picked up in 82. It didn't have a catalytic converter. Talking to the service manager at teh Honda dealership one day this subject came up. He brought up two ways I could go about running it on leaded gas that he couldn't tell me (wink wink). One was to order a 79 filler neck and change it out with the 80. The other was to just punch the little restrictor that narrowed the neck. It would land harmlessly in the bottom of the gas tank the rest of its days and I could use leaded gas. All this because leaded was a couple of cents cheaper.
I passed on all that. Getting lead out was the right thing to do and within a few years the point was moot.
I remember owning a 1984 motorcycle that I bought new. The valves required leaded gas, which became harder to find in later years but Sunoco stations still sold it.
I think you can still buy leaded gas additive at places like AutoZone.
I don't forget this as I am living in one such country. Even though oil prices increase, gas prices will still remain cheaper in many third world countries. China will soon be the world first car exporter to those countries as models are starting for as low as 3000 USD, so car usage is set to explode and so will be gas consumption.
Oil producers use the huge profits of oil to subsidize their own markets. This is the case for Gulf countries, Russia, Venezuela, Sudan, Chad, Algeria, .... or to their allied countries. My own uneducated guess is that these kind of subsidies will increase along with barrel price. As those regimes aren't exactly democratic, they can't allow uprisings because of gas price and will do the necessary to keep prices dirt cheap.
>In the U.S. demand is starting to level off.
I trust it does, but will need much much more to have a real impact on prices. More pressure and means should be put on alternatives.
The way things are, had I known, I'd have purchased a V-6 Cadillac STS or CTS instead of the DTS Performance. I've been even thinking about a Chevrolet Malibu 4 cylinder or hybrid should my '88 Park Avenue die. I really feel bad for the young lady at work who just got a new Dodge Charger Hemi. At least she's got an old Mitsubishi Galant on which to fall back.
Think of how many other people are deferring or canceling large purchases on account of fuel prices. Multiply this many times over and you can see a massive effect on the economy.
If by "my country", you mean my home country = France, about 70% sold passenger cars use diesel which is 10-15% cheaper than gas due to a slight tax advantage. local gas price is 2.4 USD/Liter, that is about USD9 per gallon. Diesel is below USD 8/Gallon. Gas and Diesel quality are the same as in the rest of Europe throughout
if you mean my country of residence =China, then 95% passenger cars use gas, although some pick-up trucks use diesel. I saw some price lists mentioning VW diesel powered tourans (MPV) but did never notice any such diesel version in the street.
China government regulated gas prices are about 3.3 USD/Gallon whereas Diesel is about 2.6 USD and 60 cents more per Gallon in my area to offset free highways.. Gas is unleaded and diesel is the highest possible in sulfur as such price can't afford more expensive low sulfur. Needless to say truck pollution is more than a serious problem here.
A $3000 car (a wholesale price, not an end-user selling price) would look like this one:
http://www.alibaba.com/product-free/11528078/Mini_Passenger_Car.html
a very small 8-seat MPV as we find plenty in China. Very rustic and reaching 70mph with those is a scary adventure.
The comment about short minded thinking is kind of funny. After thinking about it for a bit I realized that it is the people that are panicking over the recent gas price increases that are the short term thinkers. I am not going to panic about the recent gas increase. I knew it was coming. The budget has plenty of room for the recent increase. Prices could double and we would only take a modest hit.
I am a long term planner. Over ten years ago we moved to our current home. The commute for both of us is 5 to 10 minutes door to door. The old commutes were 45 to 60 minutes in good weather. Everything in town is just a few miles away. We decided against moving to a larger house out of town because of the longer commute and we are within 10 years of paying this house off. When we bought the house I had them put in a 92% efficient furnace because I knew it would payoff down the road as natural gas prices increased. We traded in our mini-van for a lightly smaller SUV that gets 10 to 15% better mileage.
It is the people that thought prices would not go up that are in trouble. Prices have been going up for 4 years now. People should have been prepared. There are a lot of clueless people out there that will be in trouble, but I'm not going to shed a tear over the idiot that bought an Excursion or some other gas guzzler and now finds themselves in trouble.
If the squirrel doesn't plan for the winter he or she is a going to be a DEAD squirrel.
The correct answer to the question: What will you do when gas price rises above $4 a gallon? should be NOTHING for most people. Most people should be able to ride out the increase for the short term.
It really depends on which countries we are talking about. Some have deep pockets like China and KSA. Indonesia doesn't have enough money to keep prices low. They are looking at a 30% price increase. They also have 230 million people. The price increase will put a bit of a dent in demand.
India is another large user that has problems. The Indian oil company is losing $80 million US dollars a day because they are forced to sell fuel below cost. How long do you think they can keep that up?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601091&sid=azfgwTGPCduA&refer=india
"so car usage is set to explode and so will be gas consumption."
I agree that car production is scheduled to increase dramatically. Gas consumption will increase in those countries, but there will be some other person in another country that will take the hit. Even folks in the "rich" U.S. will need to adjust.
Sadly that is rare in our country. I would not have retired if I could not afford double digit inflation with my retirement income. I could cut way back from my current lifestyle and still eat healthy and enjoy life. Problem is the younger generations think they have to have it all right now and do not save and plan for the future and possible blips in the economy. Such as the dot.com bubble bursting or the housing debacle in parts of the country. I guess the price of gas is not of great concern to me either. I just hope my 401K funds are taking advantage of the current oil market.
But Lemko, would you have been happy with one of those smaller cars? FWIW, the EPA rates the DTS at 15/22, whereas the CTS and STS are around 18/26. Keep in mind that these are the new, dumbed-down-for-2008 numbers. I imagine 15/22 would be more like 17/25 using the 1985-2007 rating methodology. And 18/26 would probably be 20/29, or somewhere thereabouts.
That's enough to make a noticeable difference if you do a lot of driving. But how many miles have you put on that DTS since you bought it? Don't you use your '88 Park Ave for most of your driving? According to the EPA's website, in 15,000 miles of mixed driving, the CTS or STS might save you about $300-400 per year over the DTS at today's prices.
In your situation, I'd say you're best off just buying what you REALLY want, and not making a sacrifice just in the name of higher MPG. If you bought a CTS or STS, merely for improved fuel economy, then in the back of your mind, you might keep kicking yourself for not getting the DTS you REALLY wanted all along!
That is funny. Back in 1790 the population was 3,929,214. (current population is 304 million) Our founders did not have to worry about maintaining an interstate road system or leaking gas station tanks. Things have changed a bit. What we need is smart government and a more educated population. People are the government in a democracy. Individuals usually have too much freedom for the amount of intelligence and common sense they have. They are greedy and buy big vehicles they don't need. They waste gasoline. They do not look at the big picture.
' It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. "
What a dumb statement. Sometimes the so called doomsayers hit the nail on the head. Sometimes those same people are wrong. Usually the truth lies somewhere in between the extremes.
Your buddy there seems to think Laissez-faire capitalism is the ultimate economic system. I wonder how well the system will work as oil supplies and other resources get tight. Capitalism has worked well for the U.S. over the last 100 years or so, but then we also had abundant, cheap resources. There was also plenty of room to grow into. People are stepping on each other's toes more and more. States and people are fighting over land use, pollution, oil drilling and water. The next 30 years or so will be interesting. After that I plan to be pushing up daisies or traveling through space as a dust particle.
rather it's about minimizing the footprint you have on the planet long after you have left. It's about choice that's left to the individual.
Ever see National Geographic's story on consumption in America vs other countries? We are a country that is mass marketed to with so many things we could do without. We consumer so much more than we need. Some confuse this consumption with comfort and freedom to choose, but at what cost to your health and the health of the planet.
A good start for conserving is to look at what you as an individual and figure out how to change for the better.
You probably need to check on that.
The oil market here has really picked up. Anyone having mineral rights in the Middle Bakken area is making a killing. Lots of farmers and ranchers are becoming millionaires. Many are not quite sure what to do with all the royalties.
Recently, I heard one story of a woman that received a rather large check ($100,000 or so) that sent the check back because she thought it was too high. The oil company folks had to hand deliver the check. The story might be a bit of a rural legend but I have the feeling it is true. I suspect this has happened a few times.
Even the towns are doing well selling water. The fracture process they use requires a lot of water - hundreds of thousands of gallons. One town re-did their water dispenser/salesman to handle two trucks at once (5,000 gallons/truck).
My local station now has 87 octane at $4.099 and diesel at $4.759.
That's about as naive a statement as I've ever heard
Just put your faith in big daddy and he'll take care of everything.
Somebody much smarter than me said this, “The problem is not the abuse of power, but the power to abuse”
“Our founders did not have to worry about maintaining an interstate road system or leaking gas station tanks.”
They didn't worry about it because constitutionally it would be illegal to worry about it..what mandate is there to maintain a road/rail (education!) system?
“They are greedy and buy big vehicles they don't need. They waste gasoline. They do not look at the big picture. “
I suppose the government should tell the people what they “need”. Sometimes we buy food we don't “need”...sometimes my wife buys clothes she doesn't “need”...where's big daddy to tell us how to match our spring fashions...and to prepare our lunches
“I wonder how well the system will work as oil supplies and other resources get tight. “
It will get more expensive (going under your assumption that the resources are getting tight)...what is the alternative? What should have been done...artificially raise the price of gas over the last 50 years so we never would have had cheap prices?
We may have indeed different visions on what "cheap" or "subsidized" means
I understand gas comes with the following price structures :
(price of Barrel + Transport costs + Refining costs + Distribution costs) =A + (Tax) =B
I understand that you consider subidizes start when B becomes a negative amount -you gave one example with Indian oil loosing money-
My vision is different though. I consider that if B is a positive amount inferior to A, then oil is subsidized.
I consider that there are costs coming with oil other than immediate economical costs represented by A. These costs are difficult to count and can be debated, but I would list them as
1) Political costs
2) Human /Health costs
3) environmental costs
and I consider B should be at least equal to those added together and that imho should be valued as much as A.
For reference, gas price is made of more than 2/3rd of tax in Europe, instead of less than 1/3 rd for the US.
Therefore I consider that US is subsidizing gas, but to a lesser extent than developing countries with an A value either negative or slightly positive.
Because gas is not selling at its true value, my vision is that barrel price will continue to rise pretty unchecked with its consequences on gas price.
Well, for road, rail, and power, it's part of the infrastructure relating to our national defense in order to power facilities and transport goods. Since you're asking and all. :shades:
What should have been done...artificially raise the price of gas over the last 50 years so we never would have had cheap prices?
Interesting and valid idea that has been successful in many countries...people forget that the power of the tax system is a great tool: instead of simply legislating that people MUST conserve or else, just make it more or less appealing through extra taxes or tax rebates, as the case may be.
Sorry a common misconception by many....
The Founding Fathers did foresee such issues and specifically wrote the solution into the Constitution. It's called the Interstate Commerce clause. It's intentionallywritten broadly and vaguely giving Congress the power to oversee and determine the rules for that business activity.
Education is different.
I suppose the government should tell the people what they “need”. Sometimes we buy food we don't “need”...sometimes my wife buys clothes she doesn't “need”...where's big daddy to tell us how to match our spring fashions...and to prepare our lunches
It will get more expensive (going under your assumption that the resources are getting tight)...what is the alternative? What should have been done...artificially raise the price of gas over the last 50 years so we never would have had cheap prices?
No the government will not tell you what you 'need' but they can and will tell you what you are 'allowed' in order to be fair to all citizens. It's only a privilege to use the roads built by the cities, states and Feds. You have no right to use them. If at some time due to the growth of our population the roads are too narrow and too few to handle the flow of traffic you and I might not be 'allowed' to use them as much as we'd want. We might be required to stay at home, carpool, use mass transit.
Similarly if due to our growth and the reduction in availability of petro-fuel you and I might not be 'allowed' to purchase whatever quantity we wish. We might be limited soon to say a max purchase of 15 gal once a week per driver.
87 octane was $3.759, so it still has a little ways to go. I'd imagine there are parts of Maryland where it's $4.00 by now, though.
That certainly would have produced a better infrastructure for longterm viability than what North America has right now.
I think many people do not realize just how much tax is at the wellhead. I would say Norway takes the most in the EU at 93%. When Norway sells a barrel of oil for $100 the crown gets $93. Much is put in reserve for the future of the country when oil is gone. The states that produce oil in the USA get a big chunk of each barrel of oil. That gas tax from the states and the Feds is a pittance in todays market. Currently AK and TX are flush with oil revenues.
The community (that's y'all) does very well directing the flow of conversation without someone setting the alarm for 5 am so posts can be skimmed. :P
But you can always email one of us to get out attention, and we'll review a post quickly (or as soon as the coffee starts flowing though our veins).
Politics does influence the price of gas. But we do have a Politics board if you want to expound on something that's not quite topical in here.
The reported average gas price around the country is $3.67 a gallon, so I guess I'm happy that Boise is pulling down the average at $3.65. Unless it went up overnight. Gas jumps above $3.67, oil passes $126 (Yahoo News)