KarmaGirl KarmaGirl

pack a lunch- don't worry too much about fuel prices

▼

pack a lunch- don't worry too much about fuel prices

inspired by a WinCustomize.com thread

from JoeUser Forums
On WinCustomize.com, there is a thread "thanking" the President for our gas prices. A lot of non-US people were commenting on how the US actually has cheap gas compared to most everywhere else.  (Which is mainly because we produce over 50% of our own gas and can refine the rest ourselves).  Gas prices seem absolutely crazy, but here is my response to their post: 

The gas problem is going to be a long term problem.

First, you can not blame Bush or the US government for gas prices.  Crude oil prices are set by OPEC.  They will raise prices just because they *think* a shortage may happen.  Unless the US wants to go to war with the world, we aren't about to over throw OPECs decisions.

Second, we keep having a higher demand.  More cars.  More driving.  Less fuel efficiency.  The EPA wants to make sure we have very clean air.  They make tighter and tighter restrictions on emissions every year on both cars and fuel refinery.  Funny thing is- the higher the emissions standards, the worse the gas mileage.  You need more fuel.

Third, refineries keep closing because they can meet emission standards.  The EPA has gone so insane that it is almost impossible to build a new refinery so companies just don't.  We have lost about 30% of our refineries in less than 20 year.  However, our demand keeps growing but our refineries can't keep up.  Europe's gas is quite expensive because of this.  They have to outsource almost all of their refining which costs a lot since all of them are already running at 99%.

Fourth, the people don't want more fuel efficient vehicles.  How many people do you know that drive a diesel car?  A Jetta TDI will get 50mpg (that is real life trial- I had one).  Diesel fuel is $1.79 per gallon here versus $2.09.  Doesn't take a math wiz to figure that one out.  How many hybrid Honda civics do you see on the road?  They are available, but they don't have the horsepower of a full gas engine.  They don't sell well.  These factors tell the car industry that we don't want alternative fuel so they aren't spending the money on research.

But, here is a bit of math for you to see that gas prices aren't as bad as people really think.  Yes, it costs more per year, but I think until it gets to $3.00 a gallon people can deal with it if they use a little common sense and quit over reacting.

Here is the scenario (which is real life because it's my car).  A Monte Carlo SS gets 28 miles per gallon.  It is driven 29,000 miles per year  (I will round that to 1035 gallons per year because I don't want to deal with decimals).  Here is what it costs per year to drive at different amounts (I will start with a gas price that we haven't had in years and end with one that could happen):
$1.35/gallon: $1397.25
$1.50/gallon: $1552.50
$1.79/gallon: $1852.65
$2.00/gallon: $2070.00
$2.10/gallon: $2173.50
$2.25/gallon: $2328.75
$2.50/gallon: $2587.50
$3.00/gallon: $3105.00

So, the difference in gas from a few years ago ($1.35) and now ($2.10) is $776.25 per year more.  Since the national average mileage per year is less than half of what I drive, that means that the average consumer is seeing an increase of less than $388 per year (at current prices).  In comparison, if you were to buy a fast food lunch 3 times a week at $3 more than it would cost you to pack a lunch, that would cost you $468.  Heck, even a $1.50 coffee 5 days a week costs $390.  Smoke?  The yearly average for that is $2,000 per year.

So, pack your lunch, make your own coffee, and quit smoking.  Buy a fuel efficient vehicle the next time you need a car, and don't sweat the gas prices.....yet.

8,626 views 63 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

OPEC sets the price for crude oil.  Read about how the US prices gas and other fuel based on crude oil.  We should be thanking Bush for keeping our fuel taxes under control.  Europeans aren't so lucky.  When crude oil prices go down (which is set by OPEC) so will our gas prices.  We do not control crude oil prices.

I use propane for heat.  It didn't cost me hardly any more (if any) this past year than it did the year before to heat my house.  The highest average propane for 2002-2003 heating season was $1.65 (March) for the 2003-2004 heating season it was $1.53 (February).  Natural Gas prices effect propane as much as crude oil prices do since propane is a byproduct of crude oil and natural gas refining. 

Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
1976 was the last year the US built a refinery. Fuel prices will continue to rise as long as our refinery capacity is maxed out as it is.
Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top

XX, ever hear of alcohol burning funny cars? 

Do you actually understand the changes that the page says to do to run alcohol?  Also, they don't seem to cover the extremely poor fuel mileage that an engine like that would get.

Just the part where they are talking about jetting the carburetor to a larger jet size- larger jet means more fuel pumping through to make the same hp.  Or, how about the compression ratio?  High compression engines take more fuel.

There are very good reasons why we are not changing to ethanol

Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

1976 was the last year the US built a refinery. Fuel prices will continue to rise as long as our refinery capacity is maxed out as it is.

Yeah, factor in the fact that refineries keep closing, too.  (and, how can they build new ones with the current EPA standards?)

Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
Despite the sale statistics you've posted you have not convinced me that people don't want diesel cars or more fuel efficient automobiles. I think there are definitely some powers of what automanufacturers choose to advertise and what vehicles are affordable. I'd buy a diesel jetta wagon today if I could afford one...something like 55mpg....but our government has not pushed companies effectively to improve their standards so we are somewhat at a standstill.....or traffic jam.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

but our government has not pushed companies effectively to improve their standards so we are somewhat at a standstill.....

Oh!  But that is so wrong!  The government gives tons of money to the auto manufacturers to develop higher standard cars.  GM has received a ton of funds to develop a diesel hybrid.  Mercedes/Daimler Chrysler gets money to develop a 75+ mpg diesel technology.  The problem is- there are cars today that get good mileage, but people don't want them.  Do you know what GM sells the most of?  Full size trucks.  Not the cheap fuel efficient Metros or cars of any sort. They sell trucks, SUV's and Mini-vans more than cars.  When I drive, I count how many SUV's, mini-vans and full size trucks are on the road.  They typically out number cars of any sort 4 to 1.  There are no fuel efficient SUV's, mini-vans or full size trucks.  The other problem that car manufactures face with fuel efficiency is emission standards set by the EPA.  The lower the emissions, the harder it is to get good fuel efficiency.

When gas prices get bad enough, we will start seeing diesel engines.  Heck, they just now started bringing back stick shifts in cars (if you haven't noticed, it's hard to find stick shifts in most cars).  Stick Shifts are more fuel efficient.  Europe runs on diesel.  All the car companies have diesel cars in Europe.  Ever see a diesel Jeep Liberty?  They are called Cherokees (even though they have the Liberty body) in Europe and they come standard with a diesel engine.  It's all based on demand.

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top

Heck, they just now started bringing back stick shifts in cars (if you haven't noticed, it's hard to find stick shifts in most cars). Stick Shifts are more fuel efficient.


I prefer stick shift to automatic, but it's hard to find up here...which makes no sense to me. 

Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

I prefer stick shift to automatic, but it's hard to find up here...which makes no sense to me.

They are hard to find most places- mainly because most cars don't come with the option.  Remember the day when a stick shift was referred to as a "standard" transmission?    Yeah, they need to bring them back.  Less people would be distracted by their cell phone if they needed to keep both hands free to actually drive with

Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top

Remember the day when a stick shift was referred to as a "standard" transmission?


Yes, and now I feel old.


You make a good point about the cell phone.....

Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ever heard of inflation?

only in a sexual connotation...

seriously, im not sure how accurate that chart is. the highest gas prices i recall date to late 83/early 84 (i took a new job that required a 90 mile rt commute). one week in january 84, i was buying unleaded premium for 2.40/gal. but that was 5 years after 1979 and at least 2 years later than the chart would indicate and it went away relatively quickly.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh! But that is so wrong! The government gives tons of money to the auto manufacturers to develop higher standard cars. GM has received a ton of funds to develop a diesel hybrid. Mercedes/Daimler Chrysler gets money to develop a 75+ mpg diesel technology.



I'm pretty sure that both the Clinton and Bush administration reduced the requirements for MPG required of car companies. Also with allowing SUVs to receive a "light truck" classification, their mileage standards were relaxed as well. The government has yet to show a serious effort in increasing mileage standards.

not only should people who buy hybrids and other fuel efficient cars receive tax credits we should punish those who insist on driving H2s which serve no pratical purpose, higher taxes for the damage they do to our roads, air, etc..
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top

not only should people who buy hybrids and other fuel efficient cars receive tax credits we should punish those who insist on driving H2s which serve no pratical purpose, higher taxes for the damage they do to our roads, air, etc..


Yes!!!


Suspeckted for President!  Woo Hoo!!!

Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
Karma, I just adore your soft, kindly tone when you're defending the irresponsibility of oil refiners who use EPA as a cop out to do what's right in alleviating supply and demand.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top

Karma is correct though. Americans don't buy fuel efficent cars. There are hybrids right now that get 50+ MPG. They're quite nice too. Instead, they buy big old SUVs.

On my drive to work in my CAR, I'm amazed at the number of huge SUVs around me -- with only one person in them. Americans have no one to blame for their gas costs but themselves.

Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
which is why it hardly makes sense to encourage businesses to buy suvs and deduct nearly the entire purchase price using increased limits and bonuses provided in the 2003 tax bill.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
im not sure how accurate that chart is


source: Energy Information Administration (EIA), annual averages of monthly data from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics....your tax dollars at work.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'm pretty sure that both the Clinton and Bush administration reduced the requirements for MPG required of car companies.

They had to, though.  The EPA has set such high standards for emissions that car companies had to be given a break.  Their technology can't keep up with emissions standards.

The government has yet to show a serious effort in increasing mileage standards.

They have- you just haven't seen it yet.  My brother in law works in engineering at one of the big three.  My husband works in engineering emissions at a major diesel manufacturer.  I have first hand info on what is being done and how it was funded.  People should give the "government" a bit more credit.

Reply #38 By: stevendedalus - 5/24/2004 10:36:02 PM
Karma, I just adore your soft, kindly tone when you're defending the irresponsibility of oil refiners who use EPA as a cop out to do what's right in alleviating supply and demand

The oil refineries aren't using the EPA as a cop out for anything.  They close their doors because they can't afford to upgrade to the current standards.  They are, in fact, businesses.  If they lose money on a refinery, they will close it.  Closing refineries causes gas prices to go up because of the simple economics of supply and demand.  Companies are funny- they like to make money.  Now, if the government was giving tax credit or a break to refineries who stayed open and upgraded, or gave them longer to comply with EPA, we wouldn't have as big of a problem.  You can't blame a company for closing doors on something that is losing money, or that they basically would have to rebuild from scratch.  I'll ask you this- when was the last refinery built?  Why don't they build any new ones?

Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
They had to, though. The EPA has set such high standards for emissions that car companies had to be given a break. Their technology can't keep up with emissions standards.


They had to be given a break....or they pumped billions of dollars into lobbying efforts and the government caved? Car manufacturers didn't HAVE to be given a break, just like they don't HAVE to produce such innefficient SUVs but our government handed it to them as a gift. LOTS OF QUOTES AHEAD! I'm really trying to get to the bottom of all of this...more too it than I thought.


The EPA is one of the best lipservice organizations in the United States. Many appointed to EPA positions have a great incentive in making sure that the auto industry remains on a steady course of wealth rather than environmental protection.


The last time fuel mileage standards were raised was in 1975 as a response to the Arab oil embargoes. At that time, standards were set by law at 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 20.7 miles per gallon for light trucks. Since then, conservationists have unsuccessfully lobbied for higher mileage standards for light trucks and the new breed of sport utility vehicles in order to reduce energy use.


In addition, the Bush energy policy asks Congress to approve some $4 billion in tax credits over the next 10 years to promote the purchase of "hybrid" vehicles capable of running on gasoline and electricity. http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa051701a.htm



The big concern, according to Becker, is that the Bush administration would regulate the fuel economy of light trucks by dividing them into weight or size classes instead of using fleet-wide efficiency targets. While the current CAFE program has two automotive classes -- cars and light trucks -- the new proposal would create additional truck weight classes, with different fuel-economy standards for each classification. In a nutshell, said Becker, the system would produce an incentive for companies to add weight to their cars to bump them up into higher classes and qualify them for looser efficiency restrictions. http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=16477 .

Current standards before the CAFE program allowed vehicles over 8500 lbs to have no standards at all!!!!! The H2 and the Excursion included

However, hopeful predictions about improved fuel efficiency fared no better. In fact, the 2003 automotive fleet had the worst average fuel economy of any fleet since the standards were set (in 1975) -- 22.7 mpg, combining car and light-truck averages -- thanks to glaring CAFE loopholes and the increasing popularity of gas-guzzling SUVs.




What Americans clearly don't want to do is sacrifice style for substance -- and like it or not, the style of choice these days is the SUV. Perhaps the silver-bullet argument that'll persuade American consumers to buy fuel-efficient cars will come in the form of the hybrid Ford Escape SUV, set to hit showrooms this summer. Or it could be the forthcoming hybrid Toyota Highlander SUV, or the Lexus RX SUV, which the company is pledging will have all the power of a V-8 model with the fuel-efficiency of a Corolla sedan. These hybrids might just change minds as they turn heads. http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=16477
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top

What Americans clearly don't want to do is sacrifice style for substance --

You proved one of my points exactly.  There are fuel efficient cars, but people don't want them.

Car manufacturers didn't HAVE to be given a break, just like they don't HAVE to produce such innefficient SUVs but our government handed it to them as a gift.

People actually have valid reasons to buy SUV's and trucks.  We use a one ton diesel to haul our trailer.  Should we not be allowed to do that?  Are the car industries doing anything illegal by providing consumers what they want?  Why should it be up to a business who is trying to make money to *force* consumers to buy products that they don't want?

If people were that concerned about fuel mileage, they would already be buying fuel efficient cars. 

Also, if you think that the car manufacturers are making tons of money, you are wrong.  GM makes more money from their financing division than they do their manufacturing.

Considering that my husband works in emissions, I can say that you really are underestimating the EPA.  If you think that they care about if a manufacturer can sell their products or not, you are wrong.

EPA standards get tighter each year which causes fuel mileage to go down each year.  So, the car companies have to spend their engineering resources in meeting the emission standards just so that they can sell their vehicle.  They can't afford to spend engineering money in fuel efficiency since they are currently only breaking even on a lot of their models.

I think you are not understanding the bit about "CAFE".  The standards are required for all classes.  They changed the standards when the heavy SUV's came out.  It's not like that is "new".  Manufactures have to have a very fuel efficient car for each non-efficient car that they produce.  So, no matter what, they can have a very non-fuel efficient car as long as they offer an extremely efficient one.

The bottom line- if people really cared about fuel efficiency, then they would be driving the fuel efficient cars that are available (and their are many).  But, they don't.  It's not the government's fault that we have such high demand on gas.

Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top

Cost of a quart of gasoline in USA: ~45 cents.

Cost of a quart of bottled water in USA at your local 7-11: ~1 dollar.

Let's keep things in perspective, folks.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hmmmm. Several references to OPEC but not one (unless I missed it) to Venezuela. The US imports most of it's overseas oil from Venezuela, not OPEC. Everyone, including the press, likes to point fingers at OPEC but they only account for a fraction of the US oil supply. Couldn't be because US oil companies own large percentages of Venezuelan oil companies could it? Hmmmmmm.

I agree that Americans have always enjoyed lower fuel prices than the majority of the world. I believe that eventually our prices will be closer to what the rest of the world is paying. Unfortunately, these increasing fuel prices will trigger inflated prices in practically everything else.

Getting about time to get off the fossil fuel addiction and get that monkey off our backs for good. We have the technology to build clean, efficient, non-fossil fuel vehicles (except aircraft). Perhaps when oil prices finally get high enough corporations will see a profit to be made by producing these type engines.

Besides, do we REALLY need to go from 0 to 60 in a few seconds? REALLY?

I agree with David St Hubbins, right now bottled water is far more expensive than fuel. Something wrong with that if you ask me.
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
Karmagirl - I guess if you come from the standpoint that the only thing a business should do is try to make more money regardless of "negative externalities" then I guess we really will never see anything eye to eye. I can't believe you make no acknowledgement that there are (or at the very least, have been) many loopholes for the auto industry to get around fuel efficiency standards....the "light truck" category specifically.

Okay fine, you have a trailer to haul and need a large vehicle to do so.....what could we estimate is the percentage of those who own SUVs, trucks, etc who actually use them for this purpose? I work at an elementary school and I can't tell you exactly how many soccer moms pull up to pick up their kids in explorers, yukons, excursions, etc....but it's a lot. I know a lot of people who have two large SUVs, even if you pull the boat back and forth from the cabin you don't need two do ya?

The bottom line- if people really cared about fuel efficiency, then they would be driving the fuel efficient cars that are available (and their are many). But, they don't. It's not the government's fault that we have such high demand on gas.



Fogive me....but Bullshit. People are stupid, Americans DO care about air quality, pollution, etc, when it affects them directly. But often they're not willing to pay for them. We want a lot of things we're not willing to pay for, or that we sacrifice for vanity, or that we won't do anything about until we're effectively motivated to do so. You still keep saying that no one is driving these vehicles .....give hybrids and other vehicles (such as the previously mentioned jetta diesel) a chance will ya, their life is still relatively new. I still won't accept your claim that people don't want them.
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top

Mason, Venezuela is the third-biggest exporter in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)

But, I do agree with: "Unfortunately, these increasing fuel prices will trigger inflated prices in practically everything else. "

The more it costs to get it to market, the more it will cost at market. 

Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
Karma...I stand corrected. You are right about that. I guess I was reacting to what I overheard a guy saying that basically equated OPEC with the Arab countries. Musta stuck in my mind lol
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top

Karmagirl - I guess if you come from the standpoint that the only thing a business should do is try to make more money regardless of "negative externalities" then I guess we really will never see anything eye to eye.

What good will putting yourself out of business do?  Funny thing about businesses- if they don't make money, they close.  I think you are over estimating the *profit* that car companies make.  There are quit a few engine manufacturers who are *losing* money right now.

give hybrids and other vehicles (such as the previously mentioned jetta diesel) a chance will ya, their life is still relatively new. I still won't accept your claim that people don't want them.

You are very misinformed if you think that this is all "new".  Do you know how long fuel efficient diesel cars have been around?  Longer than I have been alive.  There were *a lot* more of them before than there are now.  Do you know why?  Because they didn't sell well at all.  The diesel Jetta has been in the US for at least 10 years.  Diesels only make up 3% of VW sales.

People are stupid, Americans DO care about air quality, pollution, etc, when it affects them directly. But often they're not willing to pay for them. We want a lot of things we're not willing to pay for, or that we sacrifice for vanity, or that we won't do anything about until we're effectively motivated to do so

Let me get this right- people are stupid and should be led like sheep into doing the "right" thing by the government and corporations?  Hmmm.....my view of the human race is much lower now.....

BTW, I never said that car companies aren't developing new technologies to lower fuel consumption.  The problem is, and will be, to convince people to buy them.  It's pretty hard to sell people things that they don't want. 

Should all standard gas engines go away and be replaced by diesel or hybrids? (That would show those stupid people what they *should* be buying!)  Maybe people don't care about horse power, I don't know.  Or, what about the precious environment?  Do people not care about that?  Diesel currently pollutes more in the US than gas does (Europe has a different grade than we do).  I guess our refineries need another change......

How about this (sorry, I have to add reasoning once in awhile) instead of punishing those "stupid" Americans with their gas guzzlers, why isn't there a tax or other credit giving to cars that fit in the "fuel efficient" catagory.....or maybe the car companies can get a government grant to develop new models....oh, wait, they already did but haven't been able to get them to market......