Progressives should welcome higher gas prices

[BigDaddy44]

Isn't it obvious? We are addicted to oil, and our addiction is fueling other activities that are wreaking a horrible toll on the earth (global warming, increased rate of extinctions, etc.)

The only way to break this addiction is to stop using the product. What we are now starting to go through are withdrawal pains. They're rough now, but will ease over time.

I think we have to adopt macro as opposed to micro thinking. Micro thinking laments how expensive food is, how much it costs to get to work, etc. etc. I'm going out on a limb here, but to me thats conservative Republican thinking. Short term, whats in it for me, I only care about mine, etc.

A long term, macro, progressive view is that we have to radically change human behavior if we're to save ourselves and the planet we live on, and that a small sacrifice right now is worth it to get to that change.

Imagine a US with $10 a dollar gasoline. Less travel. More food grown locally. More small factories turning out locally made goods. Revitalized cities with people walking or talking public transportation. Is any of this bad?

Soooo...... I scratch my head at those who want to man the pitchforks and storm Exxon/Mobil headquarters because gas costs too much. Quite frankly, for our long term survival, its vital that prices stay high so we can tame this addiction once and for all.

Anyone with me?

[Freddie Stubbs]

1. This is similar to the argument in favor of free trade

Sure, it may be painful for some people now, but in the long run everyone will be better off.

[Bake]

29. In the long run, as economists say, we are all dead.

Higher energy costs have a greater impact on the poor and working class than on the wealthy. The rich can continue to jet away to their favorite vacation spots, heat and cool their mansions, drive their Hummers, etc. They don't feel the cost increase nearly as much as the working stiff who has to choose between gas to get to work and groceries.

It's that pesky intersection of competing interests.

Bake

[mdmc]

2. Bleeding heart tax and spend big gov. liberals want higher gas taxes

A progressive is some made up word that moderates use to describe themselves without admitting to being a bleeding heart tax and spend big government liberal.

[Terry in Austin]

35. Your irony may be a little bit too subtle

Might want to add a "sarcasm" tag for us gullible types...

[mdmc]

80. Honest to God my friend

Gas is never going back down, it will always increase in price.
We are going to need to make a radical change in our living.
We need more regional economies, less national and international trading (regional economies can be carbon neutral, worldwide trade uses lots of carbon).
We need light rail and trains to replace the personal auto.

People that reply that "they care about the working poor" are "progressive". Liberals look at real solutions (sometimes tough and unpopular) to reduce poverty, thus embolden the working poor.

Joe Leiberman and Hillary Clinton are proud progressives. Ted Kennedy is a liberal.

[Terry in Austin]

96. I agree

I agree with what you're calling for here -- oil decline and regional/local focus are very much in our future. I guess I was kind of thrown by your take on liberal/progressive/etc. terminology.

Personally, I would identify with "progressive" -- a good bit to the left of "liberal," which I take to be essentially centrist and status-quo. For me, Clinton is very much establishment/status-quo, and Lieberman -- ferget it! Anyway, YMMV. Rock on!

[KamaAina]

101. You used "Joe Lieberman" and "progressive" in the same sentence?

The Joe Lieberman (I-Ignominiously Defeated in Dem Primary)?!

That's a mighty strange definition of "progressive". :shrug:

To try to boil it down to a sound bite: Progressive = populist; liberal = corporatist (e.g. Hillary).

[rpannier]

3. So the poor, elderly and people who live on fixed incomes away from the cities are to do what?

The US has crappy mass transportation.
If you live in a rural, or semi-rural place you will be f*cked.

[treestar]

19. Mass transportation could develop in response, though

[dysfunctional press]

31. we'd be better off developing alternative energy sources for personal vehicles.

our society and it's infrastructure is built around the auto.

[Selatius]

49. Not really. Nobody has advanced an argument that mass transit bus fleets don't fit the bill.

American cities are more sprawling than cities in Europe, but long distances isn't a problem not addressable by buses.

[dysfunctional press]

55. you must not be very familiar with the rural parts of the country.

if bus fleets were feasible, they'd already be in use.

[Iris]

56. It was reported recently that for the first time in history more people live in urban areas than

rural. It makes sense to address areas where there are large populations, which would result in freeing up more fuel for people who do not live in urban areas.

[Selatius]

62. I live in Mississippi. You think that I don't know what rural looks like???

The problem with rural areas is that in many cases, they are economically depressed. Saying that "if bus fleets were feasible, they'd already be in use" is akin to saying that "if good schools were feasible, they'd already be there," and that's not the case in many rural areas, simply because of a lack of funds. That is why public education sucks in states like Mississippi. No money.

Besides, as the other poster pointed out, at least half or more of this country either live in towns or cities at this point, not in rural farm country. This isn't the 1940s anymore.

[dysfunctional press]

65. our society is not designed around mass transit-

the money/effort that would need to be spent trying to build and HEAVILY subsidize workable mass transit for far-flung communities would be better spent in developing better ways to power personal vehicles than gasoline driven internal combustion engines. the technology is already available for fully electric cars that would meet the needs of the vast majority of suburban drivers, especially.

we live in an older subdivision several miles outside of a far-west suburb of chicago...of the 75-odd families in our subdivision, no two people that i know of work in the same place- people go off to work in all directions- carpooling might be feasible if some people work similar hours close to or along the way of each other, but i don't see any scenario where mass transit could be made effective for the people in this subdivision- and that would be the same story in many many places around the country.

[Selatius]

67. I would assert the amount of money needed to subsidize mass transit is nowhere near...

the amount of money the US government spends on war. Otherwise, the EU would have shitty mass transit. Outside of Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid, the budget alloted to the Pentagon is the largest item out there. The latest figures available had 55 billion alloted for the Dept. of Education, for instance, yet the latest figures for war spending came out over 600 billion a year. Amtrak barely gets 1 billion a year. You want to identify where the money would come from? There it is. The problem is the US government would rather piss away money blowing up nations and dicking around with countries with lots of oil than do something different.

I am honestly astounded by the sheer level of resistance towards mass transit here. I'm living in a sub-division right now, and I can honestly tell you the problem with my city is that there is no mass transit. The result is highway 90 where I live is a nightmare every day simply because it would take 40 or 50 cars to move people the same thing 2 or 4 buses could do with multiple buses and multiple routes and stops. Sure, everybody could have an electric car, but then instead of urban gridlock with cars that run on gas, it's cars that run on batteries. Let me tell you one thing: Nobody wants the freaking LA Freeway running through their neighborhood, but that's what's gonna happen if people refuse to get off the idea that everybody should have a car. I'm not saying I'm against the electric car. I believe it's a hell of a lot better than what we have now, but I see electric cars as a stop-gap measure towards transitioning to mass transit. By no means am I seeking to totally abolish private transit, but I want there to exist an option to take the public route should a person not be able to afford a car or the resulting thousands in out-of-pocket costs associated with ownership.

Has nobody been to Europe? Per capita, the costs of everybody buying a car, buying insurance for that car, buying tags for that car, fueling that car, paying for maintenance and repair of that car, nevermind paying for the thousands who die each year on the interstates and roads, is higher than it would to collectively maintain a fleet of buses, simply because the government would have awesome negotiating power in terms of keeping costs, especially insurance, in check. That's the very reason why a lot of people want single-payer health care, simply because if the government covered everybody in a non-profit plan, it would have awesome negotiating power against pharmaceutical companies who wish to gouge. An individual, alone, has nowhere near that kind of bargaining power.

It's not just a quality of life issue. It's about saving money in the long-run.

[dysfunctional press]

78. you should probably consider moving to europe, then...

or to a major metro area.

because they already have want you want, and the rest of the u.s. most likely never will- our society/infrastructure/lifestyle is based around private vehicles.

[KamaAina]

102. The budget allotted to the Pentagon isn't even the whole story

Think about the huge fraction of our national debt created by the endless wars -- and the billions needed to service that debt.

edit: header

[Eric Condon]

76. The real problem is that this link pretty much sums Americans up to a tee

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38644

[alarimer]

82. What these "progressives" mean, is fuck them, I've got mine.

Selfish assholes.

[Individualist]

97. Precisely!

[Beer Snob-50]

4. yours is an interesting way of thinking

however, there are consequences to these high prices that affect those who cannot afford it. Higher transportation prices mean higher food costs which affect the poor as well as those of us who can afford it. It affects the cost of transporting other goods and services across the nation which affect those who cannot afford it as well as those who can.

[catnhatnh]

5. I'd guess Exxon-Mobil, and several Middle Eastern countries are with you...

...Struggling Americans, not so much.

[Not Me]

6. Just think of what we could have done 5 years ago if we instituted a $1 tax

on a gallon of gas to drive a viable alternative energy program. At the time, gas here was $1.23 a gallon.
The RWers would have gone wild.

So now here we are, paying almost $4 a gallon (with that money going to unstable/unfriendly foreign governments, AND no energy policy in place.

[bowens43]

7. to hell with the poor, right?

[OwnedByFerrets]

8. The problem with applauding $10 a gallon gasoline.....

is that children will go hungry, families will go without and will suffer for it. Survival of the fittest or is it class warfare? High prices on gasoline do not affect the rich at all.

[Gman]

9. Your heart's in the right place but

this would complete the transition to a two class society, rich and poor. Government subsidies drive what is grown by farmers. The global economy has forced plants overseas where it would likely remain cheaper to produce goods and ship them here.

Yeah, there'd be a lot of people walking, but probably not to work as the price of energy would prohibit all but the largest companies from operating, hence catastrophic unemployment.

I think the best answer is to force a windfall profits tax with tax incentives for research and production of alternative clean energy sources. We're already paying for the R&D as oil company profits are the highest since the first fish crawled out of the ocean and grew legs. We're the consumer. The oil companies have the shareholders.

[undeterred]

10. And we should welcome fascism

because it makes us appreciate what we've lost.

[Marrah_G]

11. Since you are cheerleading the distruction of my family, no I am not with you.

If it reaches 10.00 per gallon, I will no longer be able to feed my children or heat my house.

People like you cheerleading this bullshit without any sort of safety net for the working class make me sick.

Fuck you and your elitist attitudes.

[BigDaddy44]

16. Pardon me?

I am cheerleading the destruction of nothing. What I am discussing PRECLUDES the destruction of the earth. And who said anything about not having a safety net for the working class?

We have a choice. Save the earth or retain our existing lifestyles. You can't do both.

Profanity looks cool, but it does nothing to further your argument.

[treestar]

20. This is not true

You would still figure out a way.

You can't be that dependent on Big Oil for your existence. If you were, you'd have to go along with whatever they wanted. Sign up to go to Iraq. Support the invasion of Venezuela. After all, you and yours are the only ones that matter, right?

[Romulox]

21. The cheap labor "progressive" says, "you would still figure out a way..."

:puke:

[lutefisk]

23. Everybody has bootstraps, right? Just pull youself up... or something.

The only people who suffer in America are lazy, right?

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[erebusman]

54. wow....

Marrah_G,

Let me explain some things to you.

I used to work for an Oil Company (yes sorry .. I needed a job). This was about 6 years ago.

They had these very very smart guys called Geologists who told me a lot about oil.

One of the things they told me is that the United States past it "oil peak" in the 1970's. From approximately 1970 onwards, each and every single day after .. we had less and less "reserves" left. And that which we did have was harder and harder to get.

Instead of being smart about things our country , our leaders, our corporations came up with a great idea (for the poor people of course ...) lets take other country's oil reserves and use that up really cheaply too! That way we wont have to change our habits and we can let poor people buy oil really cheaply!

So that worked out... for a little while.

The only problem was the Geologists knew that we would pass the world-wide oil peak sometime in the 2000's. Most likely in 2006-2008 time frame.

Unfortunately those really smart scientists were probably right. Every indication is that we have passed world peak oil.

That means "no matter what" every day from here on out, there will be less oil available every day. And each day that demand goes up, and supply goes down guess what happens to the price?

Thats right, poor people get screwed because we made retarded decisions 30 years ago.

So what the poster is trying to say is; we know we made stupid decisions in the past. But why are we continuing to make really stupid decisions right now? We know Oil is going UP AND UP. But we are not spending money on alternates? Why? Why?

The most simple answer available can be stated in two sentances
1) Because its more profitable for the powers that be to make you pay more than it is to find a clean , cheap renewable resource and;
2) Because it doesn't cost enough yet for people to scream loud enough for us to force a change as a society.


Perhaps if the price goes up a little faster - maybe, just maybe we will make the change sooner, rather than much much too late.

So the desire to things change is what prompted this post. Not a desire to drive you further into poverty.

In fact; the desire to have cheap, clean, renewable energy is something that would directly benefit poor people. I would think you should be interested in that as well.

peace and good will to you and yours

erebusman

[Marrah_G]

72. I am interested in cheap renewable energy

But that is not going to happen in the next five-10 years. Until that happens I still have to get to work. I still have to feed my children. I still have to heat my home. With rising gas comes rising food and heat prices. I am a single parent and come fall I will have to take on a second fulltime, low wage job nearby just to heat my home this coming winter. If the prices double yet again I am not sure how we will get through it. I have no extra money, there is no savings. My daughter borrowed an old ren faire dress of mine for her senior prom.

I wish I could take a bus to work, I wish I was physically able to ride a bike to work, I wish I could buy a prius. I wish our communities were set up differently. But they are not. As the working poor I have to live in the here and now.

I am scared to death for my children.

The OP might have all the best intentions, but there is a cost, and those costs fall on mothers and children like my family. Those screams you spoke of will come from people like us, people who will be the least able to buy the new technology as it comes available.

I understand your post, I really do. But others need to know that there is a very human cost to the things they are wishing for and they should never be thrown out in such a flippant and uncaring manner. I KNOW it is going to hurt. To hear those who are supposedly on our side speak of it in a gleeful tone hurts as well.

[erebusman]

89. point taken

I hear what your saying marrah, there was a 2 year period in my life when I hung on by my fingernails. My average meal cost .25 cents, or I skipped it (top ramen, generic macaroni and a few other pasta products were all I could generally afford).

I had my license taken away because I couldn't afford a fine, I was working close to minimum wage and had to walk to work & the grocery store. Its possible I could have afforded a bus ticket but it would have come straight out of my food budget... food was the only "flexible" area of my income. If i needed to get by on less of anything it was food. You can't get by with less rent the landlord doesn't appreciate that very well does he?

ANY expense that was more would have ripped my hold to the bottom rung off and sent me plummeting. So your right throwing ideas out flippantly in disregard of what it will do to the least amongst us isn't very admirable.

Perhaps a better idea is we should nationalize all of our oil industry and dole oil out like foodstamps. Every citizen above driving age would receive their monthly allocation of oilstamps. If you happen to have more oilstamps than your family needed you could sell the excess off for additional income. Sort of like the carbon-trading ideas that are floated around (or actually being used in some countries).

I don't feel this idea is too far fetched, we have our government provide essential services as it is ; fire fighting, police, national guard, military. Why cant energy be an essential infrastructure portion of our country that is stabilized by the government instead of profit reaping oil corporations. Who gave them the right to drain my country (and other peoples countries) of all its natural resources for their personal profit?

[BigDaddy44]

93. What about food?

Could the argument not be made that food is an essential infrastructure portion of our country that should be stabilized by the government instead of profit reaping agribusinesses? The family farm is dead. Huge agribusiness have taken over, and we're getting stuck with ridiculous food bills.

[erebusman]

103. i dont know honestly

the first thing most people will do is scream "communism/socialism" to these kind of ideas.

The primary problem we face in the united states is we've all been socially programmed to think that any kind of socialism or communism = godless aetheist = bad = mccarthism = evil = go to jail. You follow the process pretty easily , we've all seen and heard it havent we.

The problem for me is semantics of those terms are stopping the richest nation in the world from taking relatively inexpensive steps towards assuring its populace is taken care of in the simplest ways. Food , Shelter, Healthcare. Any nation that can not provide those to its citizens ... well its not doing its job fully in my opinion.

[The2ndWheel]

12. Most of us exist because of cheap energy

"we have to radically change human behavior"

That's also a very dangerous road to go down. Then again, so is evolution and diversity.

Cheap energy increases our impact, and that will be the case even if we ever end up in a windy solar utopia. Cheap energy allows us to do more things, and the more activity we do, the greater our impact environmentally. We can't escape that.

Like I said, most of wouldn't be here without cheap energy. So the more expensive the energy gets, the tougher it will be for more and more people. We can't escape that portion of physical reality either.

[roody]

13. Yes, I agree.

[TooBigaTent]

14. As someone who worked on a DOE-funded solar energy and conservation project

back in the Carter years, I have known that we have underpaid (at least, directly) for energy for a long time with the resulting consequences.

Our energy "efficiency" is a joke. Our cars are heavier than they were 30 years ago. Our gas mileage is no better than it was in the 70's. And we continue to waste a finitie resource.

Our European neighbors have had to deal with reasonable costs for decades and they have developed many ways of improving the situation.

And while I agree that there will be hardship and that the rich will not suffer (but then, do they ever?), it is NECESSARY for Amerika to join the 21st century and become smarter energy-wise. Until we do, we will continue to be a burden to the planet. A comprehensive plan (not fromthe pukes) can lessen the pain, but it cannot be eliiminated.

To those decrying the burdens that will result, what do you suggest? How would YOU get US out of this?

[Frustratedlady]

15. Your argument has some merit, but the quarterly reports of obscene profits

by oil companies overshadow it.

Only when this country is crippled will they be happy.

It appears to me that the oil companies have not made good economic decisions in the past to stay ahead of situations like we have today. They look down on us for complaining...what did they do for years when they had to cinch their belts to meet EPA standards, after polluting this country for so many years?

Let's look at the salaries these oil execs make and what they do with their profits. I would imagine they are pretty sizable. If we're going to fight our way out of this problem, we all fight.

[EstimatedProphet]

17. The real issue is not that gas is so expensive

The real issue is that the auto/oil industrial complex has left us, through manipulation of the government and unfair/unscrupulous business practices, with no alternatives but to pay for the high gas costs. They've worked very hard to make us all dependent on cars for just about everything, and now they're tightening up the thumbscrews just like any pusher would do. Had we invested in alternative energy in the 70's when we first realized things would turn out this way, the problem would have been solved long ago. We didn't however, because Big Oil/Auto rigged the system. They knew it would come to this. The difficulties could have been avoided for everyone.

[Rosemary2205]

18. I'll echo the others - high gas prices screw the poor.

You are looking at 30-40 years minimum to go back to local goods and services with all the raw materials local also -- if it can be done at all. In that time period you'll only acheive successfully starving off the poor.

[fishwax]

22. I don't see less travel as a good thing

I think mobility is important, though it would certainly be better if people had more efficient means of traveling.

As for more local food, revitalized cities, etc., we may or may not see those as a result of higher gas prices--but while I'd certainly like to see more local food, more people walking, and more opportunity for public transportation, I don't think it's non-progressive to express concern about the fact that more and more Americans are having difficulty putting food on the table.

[krispos42]

24. "Revitalized cities"

What, housing prices in cities aren't high enough for you? $2,000 a month for a decent live-in closet or a roach-infested studio apartment isn't enough for you?

If we had continued to raise the CAFE standard during the 80's and 90's, even just a ½ MPG per year, it would be at nearly 40 MPG and the price of gas would be even cheaper. The truck-based SUV craze would never have occurred and the steady increase in horsepower we realized during the late 80s and 90s would have been reduced in favor of better fuel economy.

Furthermore, if we had fought the globalization and pro-corporate policies of Reagan, we'd still have plenty of manufacturing here and smaller, more diverse, more locally-owned corporations.


We COULD have gotten everything we wanted without having to pay these ridiculous prices for gasoline, but conservatives were in charge, not liberals.

<on edit>

Oh and those millions of gas-guzzling SUVs are not going to go away overnight. Their prices will fall, meaning that poorer folks (like me) that need a "new" car will be forced to buy a used SUV because we can't afford a new fuel-sipper. In my particular case, my parents was to sell me (or maybe just give me) an SUV to help me out. My current car is 19 years old and slowly falling apart, so I really can't pass up a 5-year-old well-maintained SUV that can give me fifteen years of service with little or no monthly payment. BUT... I would be going from 23mpg to 17mpg, and that's going to hurt.

Used SUVs and pickups are flooding used-car lots, and it's going to be the people with cash problems that are going to wind up buying most of them because the price is right. And stuck with the fuel bills.

[BigDaddy44]

30. What cities are you talking about?

I'm talking about Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh......

Not every city is NYC or San Francisco.

[krispos42]

33. I'm in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area

And a quick internet search for a one-bedroom in southern Minneapolis (not by downtown or the U) pushes a grand a month.

I'm nearly an hour north of the downtowns, in the boonies, and I'm paying almost $650.

[Selatius]

51. The sad part is there is a movement to entirely eliminate rent control in many urban areas.

Boston, for instance, removed rent control laws, and the result was gentrification. The poorest were most impacted by this change. This, despite Massachusetts' reputation of being liberal. I guess they're only liberal when it comes to middle and elite people, not the working poor.

[krispos42]

66. People have to spread out

I frankly don't see much appeal of living in a big city, myself. They are turning into authoritarian police states, frankly, because there are so many people there it's a target for terrorism and, by gawd, we can't allow that, can we? Police-monitored security cameras all over the place. Licence-plate cameras, toll booths that automatically bill your credit card (and incidently leave a permanent trace of your travels, invasive police checks of your person and baggage. And it's only a matter of a few years before those cameras are tied to facial-recognition software and a permanent record of all your travels.

And this is in addition to the crowding and taxes and permits and high rents. Plus, the crime is usually higher and the schools not a good.


Plus, coastal areas, where most of the big cities are, are natural-disaster prone, and with global warming and rising sea levels thrown into the mix, I just don't see how encouraging migration and development of the heartland region of the country is not a good idea.


Yeah, I know, I know, they are wonderfully cosmopolitian and diverse, with centers of higher education, culture, science, and history, find dining, sporting events, etc. However, unless you have gobs of money, these are not things you can do on a frequent basis.



But, sadly, nothing is really going to stop the transition of big city real estate prices from going up and up and up until and unless we get a real, Kennedy-era progressive income tax, we simply have too many people with too much money willing to spend it on fancy addresses.

[Javaman]

25. I would welcome it if the higher price was due to taxes that went to

public transport and not to greedy oilmen.

[dkofos]

26. If the real reason for the high gas prices was in fact to make us drive a

lot less I might agree. But it's not.

The real reason for the high price of gas is GREED.

[Indenturedebtor]

28. I'm with the OP on this

It's going to hurt but it will hurt a lot less than a dead planet.

Rather a great depression than an apocalypse.

[PVnRT]

37. How much are you going to be hurt by a great depression?

Hmmmm?

[Indenturedebtor]

43. If you're implying that I'm rich... think again.

My networth is somewhere in the 250k negative range. I'll "lose" everything. Many people give their lives to defend their ideals. I don't think it too great a sacrifice to give up my stuff.

[LSK]

27. yes and no - the prices are going up for the wrong reasons

If the taxes were going up because we were taxing gas and using it for healthcare and college and things like that, then I would say raising gas prices are good.

However, without our social safty net that they have in EU, I can see how the prices are harming a lot of people.

I do see your point that it is good for the environment and is forcing us off oil.

This is no black and white issue, lots of gray areas.

[Eric Condon]

32. That'd be true if human nature made a damn bit of sense

Logically, high gas prices SHOULD result in less travel (and subsequently, less pollution) and increased support for alternative energy. But is any of that actually happening? Pffft. No, people just take it. They grumble about it at the pump, and as soon as they're done, they forget all about it because they have to get home in time for American Idol.

It's part of the culture of powerlessness that we live in. I feel like if this kind of crap was happening as recently as 10-15 years ago, there would be more of an outcry about it. I think the Bu$h administration has just crushed everyone's spirit so much that we can't even be bothered to care about it, it's all we can do to get through the day anymore, let alone care about, you know, issues.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

34. What's next, we should welcome troop deaths?

Because it will end the war/make Bush and his cronies look bad?

This is idiotic reasoning.

[BigDaddy44]

41. How is it idiotic reasoning?

Do you see an alternative to wean us off of oil? We could have started 30 years ago, but we blew it. Now, the supply is diminishing, the earth is threatened, and we have no choice.

Okay, you've thrown rocks at me......whats your view? $1.50 gas and everybody load up and drive? The earth be damned?

[ladjf]

36. It seems odd to me that you didn't mention the use of alternate

energy sources one time. Why was that?

[BigDaddy44]

39. This is a chicken and egg argument

Do we develop the alternative forms of energy to move ourselves away from oil? (the easy, long term way) Or does the high price of oil force us to alternative forms of energy? (the hard, short term way)

We had the chance for option one 30 years ago. That chance was squandered. We now have no choice but to live with option two.

[ladjf]

42. Not untrue. However, there is no better time to start on option

one than now. It's still doable. The U.S. isn't even making any serious efforts in the direction of alternate energy production.

[KSinTX]

38. There is no 12-step program for gasoline addiction

It is always unfathomable to image doing things another way if you've never seen it but there was a day when there was less reliance on individual autos and more development of mass transit. If you look up and down the Eastern corridor you'll see vestiges of that lifestyle. Fuel-efficient cars merely foster an unhealthy lifestyle that centers on multi-family car ownership versus alternate forms of transportation.

[KillCapitalism]

40. I don't welcome them.

The poor will freeze and starve to death with gas prices at $10/gal. Not cool!

[wuushew]

44. We need not suffer poverty in this country

Wasn't FDR's ultimate dream that everyone would be guaranteed a job and decent housing?

Hell, even Nixon floated the theoretically good idea of a "negative income tax".



I always hate these poverty vs. environment discussions because in reality why do we tolerate any artificial increase in the cost of energy?

Low-sulfur diesel is being passed on to someone is it not? Pollution controls on coal invariably raise the end user's electric rates.




Are future costs more heinous than past increases?

[ToeBot]

45. I'm fine with the price of gasoline, My bicycle gets the same mpg at any price.

But I would expect the oil companies to be taxed to just a few pennies short of unprofitability. Seems more that fair to me.

[cynatnite]

46. This progressive doesn't....my husband's job is suffering as a result...

Less money for us to live on. He's a trucker.

[GreenPartyVoter]

47. We live in a rural area. My husband is self-employed as a PC fix-it guy who makes housecalls. Higher

gas prices would kill us. Unless there are hybrid or plug-in electric station wagons and solar panel docking stations that we can get for very cheap, we're sunk.

It's not that I don't appreciate that we as a nation need to change, but we're in no position to make changes at personal level in terms of vehicles at this time.

[Mountainman]

48. It is not good that people have to buy gas rather than food or other necessities but

there is no other way we will ever get off of the oil merry-go-round unless something more dire happens.

On Sunday there was a show on CNN that had this scenario. A Katrina-like storm hits Houston and knocks out 20 percent of our refining capacity for 6 months. Also seeing this terrorists destroy the ports in the Mideast where oil is shipped from knocking out the supply to the U.S of crude oil.

That leads to starvation and riots in this country eventually and it could happen at anytime. We have to get to alternative fuels.

The show also pointed out that Brazil would not be effected because they do not import oil. The use sugar cane to produce ethanol. 85% of the fuel in cars in Brazil is sugar cane ethanol and the sugar is harvested along with the fuel so there is no competition with food production like corn ethanol which take more energy to produce then it provides.

[pitohui]

50. if you care about the environment you must be opposed to high gas prices

these high prices will mean the utter destruction of our western lands in the search for oil products that would otherwise not be "economic"

it will also encourage the continued destruction of our eastern mountains, for their coal

every time the price of oil and gas goes up and the high price is sustained, that's a powerful incentive to drill and develop in lands (and offshore places too like california and florida) where oil/gas cannot be drilled at clinton era prices

if you care about the environment, you MUST oppose these huge windfall prices to the oil lobby, you are paying the oil and gas industry to eat our planet

i have heard your argument before, and it's always from two classes of people -- the utterly clueless, and the deliberate shit stirrers -- i hope you are not a shit stirrer so suggest you learn about a little thing called "supply and demand," it's basic economics for any person who has even a high school education -- when prices are high and there is more profit to be made, then the industry is going to do more development and drilling, now aren't they? hence such silliness as alberta (canada) being torn up for otherwise un-economic nonsense like "tar sands"

[NickB79]

69. But at the same time, cheap oil encourages consumption and release of CO2

So the question is, what gets sacrificed? The Plains states and the Appalachia's, or the entire planet's climate?

I understand your line of reasoning, but it really creates a Catch-22. So long as the price of fossil fuels stays relatively cheap, there's no incentive to move away from them for most people. Hell, the cheap prices of the Clinton era encouraged everyone to buy a gas-guzzling SUV. And, despite all the warnings over global warming, the only thing that's really started getting people's attention has been escalating fuel prices.

[laylah]

52. gender, location...

end of story. Thanks for contributing, tho' :hi:

[Ilsa]

53. I agree, but the withdrawal pains will hurt the poorest first and worst. nt

[Iris]

57. Thanks for bringing this up.

I think it's a good thing that this country is waking up to the way we live and how it affects the rest of the world. When the gas prices first started going up last year, I remember complaining about it to an online friend in Great Britain. She pointed out that they'd been paying more than that per gallon for years and that was enough to put things in perspective for me.

I've also been thoroughly disgusted lately by "green advertising" because this was already done before in the early 90s and probably in the 70s (I remember studying ecology in elementary school) and now all of a sudden consumers are made to feel like they are "doing good" and "helping out the environment" while still consuming, consuming, consuming.

[AnnieBW]

58. After paying $60 to fill up my Passat

I find it hard to think of the big picture.

[rucky]

59. Sorry. I don't hate the working poor.

We should be doing this without being forced, and having our most vulnerable suffer the most.

[NickB79]

70. We've had 30 years to do it without being forced, but we didn't

Once the price of gas dropped in the late 80's and throughout the 90's, the American people by and large ran out and bought shiny new SUV's and other gas guzzlers. There were smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles, but they were ignored.

It is nice to think that human nature would make us pick the wise and gracious options that would benefit those around us. We would have said no thanks to the tempting SUV's dangled in front of our noses in the 90's, no to the McMansions in the exurbs that demanded massive amounts of energy to heat and drive to, and no to rampant consumerism in general. We would have made the sacrifices and been a better nation for it.

But in reality, I'm afraid very few people actually think like that. We've dug our own hole and can't figure out how to stop digging.

[The2ndWheel]

71. If energy is cheap, it will be wasted

Or be used for anything and everything, which depending on who is doing the defining, could be considered wasteful is some instances. There is no reason to sacrifice. There is no reason to conserve. There is no real reason to even worry about the benefit of those around us, because the cheaper the energy, the less you need people around you. Place doesn't even matter as much with cheap energy.

[rucky]

73. Carter tried.

and got roasted by the corporate media - even back then.

[taterguy]

60. Most of the wasted gas in this country isn't influenced by price

The trips where people have viable alternatives are the short trips that people could walk or ride a bike.

Since these trips are short they don't cost much, even at current prices.

It costs me about a buck a day to get to work in a car. If money was my only motivator I would need a much larger bribe to be convinced to ride a bike.

So even if what you're saying is true; it's not enough.

Our mentalities need to be changed.

[CRF450]

61. Uh, no we shouldn't!

We need to get the gas prices back down, at the same time put heavy focus on alternative fuels. Because the poor and working class are not really going to afford an alternative. What you're proposing is satire and will ultimatly doom the poor.

[slackmaster]

63. Higher energy prices are a necessary motivator for improvements in effeciency, development of altern

ative sources, given the structure of our economic system.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. I'm positive that if you were part of some specific demographics this would not even

cross your addled mind

I mean whoohooo higher energy prices! Watch them starve!

Oh, forgot

:sarcasm:

[leftofthedial]

68. and I do.

the sooner we end this capitalist fucking we've been giving the planet, the better.

[sufrommich]

74. You do realize people in cold climes get their heat turned off

when they can't pay their heating bills,right? How many dead, frozen bodies are acceptable,progressively speaking?

edited for spelling.

[Eric Condon]

75. delete

[LostinVA]

77. Guess what? I have to commute and there's no public transportation to stores/work where I live

And, there's nothing within walking/biking distance here. My house uses oil heat. It cost me $100/week to heat it this winter and that was keeping the house at 50. $10/gallon gas means it would cost me $300/week just to barely heat my home. My diesel car gets excellent gas mileage, but it now costs me close to $50/week to fill up. It cost half that much six months ago.

How old are you, because you obviously have very little understanding of the real world.

So how about you stop using gas and leave the rest of us, who are struggling, alone?

[BigDaddy44]

88. I'm old enough to know that the free ride is over

We've had cheap fuel for way way too long. And we did nothing to prepare for when it would no longer be cheap. And now the chickens are coming home....

We can hope to forestall the pain a few more years by punching more holes in the earth, and throwing more carbon in the air in a desperate attempt to put off the inevitable, or we can work RIGHT NOW to wean ourselves of our addiction.

Where would you propose we start drilling next to find more?

[LostinVA]

94. The oil companies are making RECORD PROFITS

The reason prices are so high is because the companies are greedier than ever, and we need to start taxing the hell out of those companies.

[BigDaddy44]

98. Wrong

The reason the prices is so high, is that the price of the raw materials, as set on the WORLD market, is at a record high.

Oh, and by the way, taxing the hell out of these companies? Guess what that'll do....yep, raise the prices even more. Which, if you go back to my original premise, is a good thing in the long run. So we're on the same page :)

[JCMach1]

79. Just like the Chicago School Rethugs cheered Katrina--

No thanks!

Creative destruction is a fiction.

[Romulox]

90. What about Chicago School Democrats???

Austan Dean Goolsbee is an economist and is currently the Robert P. Gwinn Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business. He is also a Research Fellow at the American Bar Foundation<1>, Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts<2>, and a member of the Panel of Economic Advisors to the Congressional Budget Office.<3> He has been Barack Obama's economic advisor since Obama's successful U.S. Senate campaign in Illinois. He is the lead economic advisor to the 2008 Obama presidential campaign<4> and is known as a centrist.<5> Austan Goolsbee is Senior Economist to the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI). <6>

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

[JCMach1]

100. One of the reasons Obama was my last choice for the nominee

However, we are now well and truly stuck... :(

I stand by my sigline... He's better than McCain...

[alarimer]

81. Asshole. People are SUFFERING. You do not get it obviously.

So fuck your insensitivity.

[BigDaddy44]

86. So are you for drilling in ANWAR?

Or off the coast of Florida and California? Guess you want to go find it and pump it as fast as we can. Because more supply decreases prices. Thats how the game works.

Or do you live in the fantasy world of "no, don't go find any more", and "damn, why are prices so high?"

We are running out. Plain and simple. In the long run that is a good thing. In the short term it causes some pain.

And, for the record, profanity does nothing to further your argument. It makes you look mentally small.

[fed_up_mother]

91. Unfortunately, the "asshole" has the right idea

His price of ten dollars is just too high. IMO, we need to be promoting things like:

a) Tax the profits of the oil companies at much higher levels
b) Mantain gas prices at around four to five dollars a gallon (ouch!) to force consumers to drive efficient automobiles. (The poor could receive vouchers for gas, or we could think of something that would alleviate the damage higher gas prices are doing to them.)
c) Give tax credits for fuel efficient cars to the purchasers - good tax credits at time of purchase. No need to file income tax, etc.
d) Heavily penalize the auto industry for making and penalize the consumer for purchasing new, less fuel efficient automobiles.
e) Subsidize home utility bills for the poor.
f) And the taxes on the oil companies, auto companies, purchasers of new gas guzzlers should go DIRECTLY into a fund to develop renewable clean energies.
g) AND go directly into a fund to build and maintain better public transit.
h) Homes with large carbon footprints should be taxed - like property taxes - at higher levels than smaller homes. I'm not advocating tiny houses, but the wealthy who own three mansions should be paying a penalty for using more energy. No one NEEDS a five thousand square foot house.

Otherwise, we will be living with the neocons' wars for the next few decades as we make war and exploit the oil-producing countries around us, and in the end, we're still going to run out of oil, and the price will continue to rise anyway.

[AP]

83. ...if I didn't think most of the price of gas weren't going to corporate executives, I might.

If the money were being invested in making people's lives better...

[Breeze54]

84. Hey thanks from all those freezing their asses off in the north east!

:eyes:

Like putting gas in a car is the only thing that costs more?

Short sighted pov, imho.

[fed_up_mother]

92. People die in heat waves, as well, you know.

We pay through the nose to cool our houses here on the gulf coast.

We still need to change the way we live.

[tavalon]

85. I'm conflicted about the gas prices

On the one hand, it is necessary. On the other hand, until the powers that be are forced to place better mass transit in place, there are people living on the edge who will go under. That hurts. As well, everything is now getting more expensive and the fucktard rethugs have taken away most of the safety nets.

[EstimatedProphet]

87. I guess we should also love higher food prices

It will make us take the coming food shortages seriously, after all.

[blindpig]

95. More elitist crap

Fuck that, nationalize the oil companies. Not only do you take profits out of the price, providing breathing room for people at the pump, more importantly you remove their influence from government policy.

Why is our mass transit in the shitter, rail transport moribund? Why is there suburban sprawl, why the hell are we in Iraq? It is all to the benefit of Big Oil, which has exerted it's influence to get us here. Fuck those people, I would divest them of their assets as I would swat a fly. Theirs are crimes against our people, the people of the world, the planet itself.

To be sure we definitely need to get off the oil teat. But have something in place so that the people can work, can afford to eat. To hell with depending upon 'the Market' to regulate human behavior.

[Snarkturian Clone]

99. Whenever I see a post that says "Progressives should"

I cringe.