As with anything, the truth is not so easy to pin down. Our leaders are not completely to blame for this issue, but they're not totally absolved of it either. Our leadership has continued to snub researchers of alternative fuels, refusing to contribute additional tax funding in an area that sorely needs it. Interestingly our government completely phased out the tax credits for hybrid vehicles last year, taking away what small incentive they were providing to buyers of the more-costly hybrids. In addition, the government continues to take a big bite out of our wallet every time we buy gas, this is off of hybridcars.com:

Where the Money Goes
Cost breakdown per gallon

20% Taxes
7% Distribution & Marketing
18% Refining
54% Crude Oil

Yes, read it and weep. Our government makes more off a gallon of gas than the refiners do!! But wait, there's no double-taxation in the US, right? Then where's the rest of my paycheck? Uncle Sam took a bite out of that before the check hit my account, then I use what's left to buy gas... and pay taxes again? :bang:

But as for this particular price spike, the real guilty party are the speculators that run out to buy crude oil futures whenever they read about a refinery having troubles, or hear about some grumblings in the political system of an oil-producing country. These are events that always occur, but we've got a real "buy the news" mentality right now. Rest assured that it WILL crash and a lot of those speculators will get burned, but we'll never see 20 buck a barrel oil or 2.00/gallon gas again. China is seeing to that. Did you know that their electrical grid is so unreliable that the factories there run all their power off of diesel generators???? We're talking huge factories with thousands of employees, and China is loaded with such factories!! Can you imagine the pollution? China needs to get their infrastructure modernized, but the government is not designed for that. I'm afraid we're facing ever-increasing worldwide demand in the future, prices will drop from where they are now at some point, but the long-term trend will continue to the plus side.

 

well i hope this might help a few find cheaper gas prices....www.gasbuddy.com.....I usually check it when I know I need to fill up...it breaks down lowest gas prices in your area in U.S. and Canada

 

man, as much as i hate the amount of $$ i $heck hout for gas, i really feel bad for you guys in other places, some of you pay like doiuble what we pay!

 

I totally agree with this. CLEARLY these people are fat and happy on our tab. All the top 3 oil companies registered a minimum of 40% profit increases. Any idea how that happened?? It's cause you and I and everyone else is paying 50% too much for gas.

PERIOD!!

 

gas stations are in the unique position of being able to extort the customer. We have very few option for alternate transportation so that means we have to pay what they want us to pay or you walk.

as soon as one station in a populated area has the cojones to drop thier prices all the surrounding stations will do likewise because they know they will loose the business.

 

Chef pretty much said it.


Filled up the boat at the Mairina. 95 bucks!! What was surpising is it was the same price in town. Usually Marina gas more than on the road.

 

I filled up this afternoon to go see a client ($2.999 per gallon) for 91 at a Chevron station. Drove down the street about six blocks and saw a Shell station at 2.859.

Wish I had needed gas on the way back instead of one the way there!

 

well it's gonna be like high school for me again..........
Friends:Let's get Chuck to drive,he has that hot new stang!
Me: Sure,no problem..everyones chippin in for gas though!
And oh yeah,keep your feet on the mats!!

 

Heh, I need to get a NO SHOES ALLOWED sign

 

Gas (not counting CA) will be $3.00 a gallon or over by Christmas.
I drive my Focus around town - not my Mustang. I'm thinking of driving like a little old lady to squeeze as much mileage from every gallon as possible.

I still see very large real SUVs flying by on the freeway. Wanta fill up one of those babies- every 5 days or so at $3.00 a gallon? What do they really get - 14 or 15 mpg?

The price will not go down below $2.00 ever again. This is just like the late 70s - price was gas went up 2 or 3 cents week - now it's worse.
Honda is in a great place with their cars. Some F-150s show worse projected mileage figures on their sticker than the Ford GT (The $157,000 GT - not the Mustang GT!).

Since police departments and state patrols must project and budget for gas, I wonder if the price increases will translate to fewer miles - and fewer patrol cars on the road?

 

I can't wait 'til those Hydrogen cars come out (which seems like it wont happen in time before Fossil Fuels are all gone)

 

^ im telling you! cover the darn moon with solar cells! doesnt obstruct anything on earth, plus its basically free Electricity. oh one other thing. the ISS and other satelites are solar powered, right? why not make a HUGE satellite whose only purpose is to harvest solar power. give it more solar panels than it really needs and it can store the extra in batterys or so,mthing. thats free electricity that can be used to electrolisis in water and get H out! then teres only the problem of how to store it in the car. for that i was thinking of a fuel tank as large as the entire car. that way you can carry it all as a gas! no complex refrigeratrion of chemicals there. plus H aint that heavy so it wount weigh the car down as much, not to mention better weight distribuition.

anyone agree or am i just nuts?

 

A lot of factors go into the price of a gallon of gas, not the least of which is taxes. Look at the price per liter in Europe and you'll see what I mean. They pay the same price for a barrel of crude that we do in the US and their refining costs aren't any different than ours, yet their gas is so much more expensive than ours. Some countries also tax cars by engine displacement. Remember also that much of our oil comes from OPEC and the king of Saudi Arabia died recently, creating a lot of uncertainty in the market about the future availability of oil from that country, which is the largest producer of oil in that region if not the world.

Don't blame the leaders of this country for not exploring alternative energy and other drilling venues like Alaska or offshore platforms. Point the finger at them, sure, but also at the environmentalists and they NIMBYs who oppose almost everything.

Double taxation? That's true of every consumer product you buy, from groceries to a gallon of gas. The issue in my mind my is not whether the government of any country taxes its citizens--they all do--but what they do with the tax revenue. Think about that the next time you cruise down an interstate highway built with federal funds, or a twisty two lane built by the state. That money has to come from somewhere.

There's no easy answer to this now, and none in the near future. Alternative energy sources may provide some relief, whether it's solar, fuel cells, hybrids, whatever. Don't like the price of gas? Ride a bicycle or walk for shorter trips. We live in a supply and demand economy. The less the demand the lower the price. Look at your gas consumption, then factor in all the trucks and SUV's that don't currently fall under CAFE standards and you'll stop wondering about the reasons why gas is so expensive.

Back in the 80's the government offered tax credits to people who purchased solar power systems for their houses and the solar industry did pretty well. Then the program went away due to some heavy lobbying and the government's reluctance to give up another lucrative source of taxes.

Arin's idea of solar cells on the moon would be great except for two minor factors. First is cost. The moon is only 186,000 miles away but it's a tad more expensive to get there and build any infrastructure to support a system. Second is another minor matter of getting that energy back to earth. You can't email it and you can't ship it parcel post. But the idea of exploring new avenues is right on target.

It's not pretty and it's not going to go away soon. I wish I had something more positive to say about this but that's the sad truth.

 

Our government can do so much more to get Hydrogen power on our streets sooner.
Just recently, 8 governers from around the country wrote and signed a letter to Mr. Bush and his people, urging for a better plan to get things going.
That money Bush IS giving towards Hydrogen power is all going towards the system that uses fossil fuels to extract hydrogen (which some say will cause more polution and harm).

We just need to become independent from foreign fuel, and get cars on the streets that have exhaust you can literally breath out of (actually cleaner air than 90 percent of the world).

 

Lalo, your last sentence is so true. I lived in San Gabriel when I was in kindergarten (way back in the early 50's--yeah, you guys already know I'm a geezer) and there were days (when burning garbage in a home incerator was legal) when my eyes teared while walking to school and I couldn't see the mountains only a few miles away. Emissions controls have made air in the greater LA area so much cleaner but we've got a long way to go to make it even cleaner. As I've said in other threads, today's culprit is older commercial trucks and when they're gone--and I wish California would set up an incentive program to retire that aging fleet--we'll all breathe easier.

But I have a question for you. What would you use to extract hydrogen besides fossil fuels. And what are these sources who say that hydrogen will cause more pollution and harm? I've never heard that before and frankly I don't believe it.

Since you and I are both residents of the great state of California, I have you ask you: what do you think of Arnold's plan for a Hydrogen Highway?

 

There are non-pollutant, renewable ways; Like Solar, wind, nuclear, and hydro power that can seperate Hydrogen.

It's not the hydrogen that will cause the pollution, it is the way the fossil fuels are used to get the hydrogen that will cause the pollution.

Here's an article on what our Senator Feinstein said about the Energy Bill

Senator Feinstein Opposes Energy Bill Conference Report
July 29, 2005
"Mr. President, I would like to thank Senators Domenici and Bingaman
for insisting upon a more open, bipartisan conference than we have seen
on a number of other important bills.
Chairman Domenici deserves great credit for making sure that this
conference report does not include some of the most egregious House
provisions, particularly retroactive liability protection for MTBE
producers and broad Clean Air Act exemptions.
However, I am extremely concerned that this bill does nothing to address
global warming and fuel economy standards. I believe that climate
change is the most urgent energy-related problem of my lifetime. This
bill refuses to accept responsibility or chart a course to deal with the
United States' profligate use of emissions-producing energy sources.
The United States is the largest consumer of energy, yet this bill does
nothing to reduce our energy consumption. This bill deletes a very
modest oil savings provision that would have required us to save 1
million barrels of oil per day in 2015.
Nor does it include a renewable portfolio standard that would have
required that 10% of the nation's electricity come from renewable
resources by 2020. California will achieve a renewable portfolio standard
of 20% by 2017. It is doable nationally.
Climate change is the most important energy and environmental issue
facing us today. The earth's temperatures are expected to rise between
2.5 degrees and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. During
the same time period, the American Southwest could see a rise of 14
degrees or more. Glaciers are melting. Sea levels are rising. And water
supplies in the West are at severe risk.
By not acting to aggressively reduce our emissions, we are putting
California 's water supplies at severe risk. California depends on the
Sierra Nevada snowpack as its largest source of water. It is estimated that
by the end of this century, the shrinking of the snowpack will eliminate
the water source for 16 million people -- equal to all of the people in the
Los Angeles Basin.
We must act now. Carbon dioxide emissions accumulate in the
atmosphere-the more we emit, the worse the impacts on our
environment. If we curb our emissions now, we may have a chance to
limit the damage we are causing to our fragile ecosystem.
Yet this bill does not include the Sense of the Senate on climate change
that recognizes that climate change is being caused by man-made
emissions, and that Congress must pass legislation that establishes a
mandatory cap on emissions.
The lack of action on climate change and fuel economy is an enormous
deficit of the bill.
Increasing fuel economy standards is the single most important step we
can take to reduce our dependence on oil. We have the technology now
to increase the fuel economy of our vehicles.
GM, DaimlerChrysler and Honda have already developed something
known as cylinder cut-off technology that provides the fuel efficiency
similar to a vehicle with a smaller engine, but with all the power of a big
engine. The auto manufacturers could use a more fuel efficient design,
using lighter materials that increase fuel economy without sacrificing
safety.
The list goes on and on, yet the auto manufacturers will not act unless
Congress forces them to. We are missing a huge opportunity to address
the real problem that consumers are facing-rising gas prices. Those gas
prices are not going to fall until or unless we reduce our demand for oil
by increasing our fuel economy.
I am also concerned about the following provisions in the bill:
* Ethanol. The bill has an egregious 7.5 billion gallon mandate for
ethanol. My State does not need the fuel additive to meet clean
air standards.
I would like to thank the conferees for retaining an amendment I offered
to protect California 's air quality. It waives the requirement that
California use ethanol in the summer months when it can end up
polluting the air more than protecting it.
However, I believe that this mandate will raise gas prices for
Californians. So far, ethanol in California 's gasoline has increased the
cost of our gasoline by 4 to 8 cents per gallon.
Further, the ethanol mandate maintains the 54 cent per gallon import
duty that prevents oil producers from buying ethanol on the global
market, or wherever it is cheapest.
Moreover, ethanol receives a tax credit of 51 cents per gallon. A 7.5
billion gallon mandate means an almost $2 billion LOSS to the U.S.
Treasury over today's receipts. I believe this mandate is an unnecessary
giveaway.
In addition, increasing the use of ethanol will not decrease our use of oil.
When this mandate is fully implemented in 2012 it will only reduce U.S.
oil consumption by less than one-half of one percent.
I believe this is bad public policy and that it is an unnecessary, costly
mandate that should not be in the energy bill.
* LNG Siting. This bill gives the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission exclusive authority over siting LNG terminals.
There are three projects proposed in California . It seems to me
that the location of these projects should be left up to the State,
not to the federal government.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should ensure that the
technicalities of natural gas delivery are taken care of, not where these
facilities are located on the coastlines of our states.
* Outer Continental Shelf. This bill provides for an inventory of
the resources off our shores. This is not necessary unless we plan
on drilling, to which I remain very much opposed.
I strongly oppose lifting the moratoria on drilling on the Outer
Continental Shelf and my State is unified in its opposition as well. Our
coast is too important to California 's economy and to our quality of life.
* Environmental Rollbacks. The bill exempts the underground
injection of chemicals during oil and gas development from
regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and waives the
storm water runoff Clean Water Act regulations for oil and gas
construction sites.
These are unnecessary environmental rollbacks that should not have been
included in the energy bill conference report.
I reluctantly voted for the energy bill when it was considered on the
Senate floor. The reason I voted for it was because it included strong
consumer protections, and great energy efficiency tax incentives that
Senator Snowe and I have been pushing for the past several years.
While I am pleased that the strong consumer protections are still
included in the bill, I am extremely disappointed with the energy
efficiency tax incentives.
The tax incentives for energy efficiency in the Senate Bill were the
cornerstone of a sensible energy policy to address high natural gas prices,
peak power reliability, and global warming. It would have saved over
180 million metric tons of carbon emissions annually in the year 2025 -
some 10% of U.S. emissions for all purposes, while saving consumers
over $100 billion annually.
But the Energy Bill conference report cut these incentives back by over
two-thirds, leaving the nation with only the skeleton of an effective
energy efficiency tax program. While it is possible that this hobbled
program could still work, it is so under-funded that it could also fail.
The Senate Bill provides performance-based incentives of up to $2,000
for retrofits made to homes that would achieve a 50% energy savings,
and applied to all types of homes, whether owner-occupied or renter-
occupied, whether owned by families or by businesses, and whether the
tenant or the landlord performs the retrofit.
The conference report gutted this program-providing cost-based
incentives limited to 10% of the cost of the retrofit, or a maximum of
$500. This is problematic because nearly identical cost-based tax
incentives for home retrofits were tried in 1978. They cost the Treasury
over $5 billion and not a single study has found that they produced any
energy savings.
The Senate Bill also provided four years of eligibility for high
technology air conditioners, furnaces, and water heaters. The conference
report cut this eligibility back to two years.
This is a big problem because an equipment manufacturer has to make a
large investment to mass- produce the efficient equipment. If that
investment must be fully amortized over two years of incentivized sales,
manufacturers may be unwilling or unable to make it. A four-year
amortization period would cause much more manufacturer interest and
spur the energy efficiency that we want to promote with these tax credits.
In other words, these energy efficiency tax credits may be meaningless
when it comes time to implement them. That would be a terrible
shame-energy efficiency has been a huge success in reducing
California's demand for energy.
In California, efficiency programs have kept electricity consumption flat
for the past 30 years, in contrast to the rest of the United States, where
consumption increased 50%.
During the Western Energy Crisis, California faced energy shortages and
rolling blackouts, but it could have been much worse. Ultimately, the
State was able to escape further blackouts because Californians made a
major effort to conserve energy. This reduced demand for electricity and
helped ease the crisis.
Unfortunately, the conference report dramatically reduced the
effectiveness of the most important step this nation could take to reduce
our energy usage-incentivizing energy efficiency.
By not including the oil savings amendment, the renewable portfolio
standard, the Sense of the Senate on Climate Change, and by gutting the
energy efficiency tax incentives, this bill preserves the status quo and
does nothing to reduce our dependence on oil or on other fossil fuels.
This bill will not solve our nation's energy problems, lower gas
prices, or reduce emissions. And while I thank Senators Domenici and
Bingaman for the fair, open process by which they brought us this bill, I
will cast my vote against the conference report."

 

About Arnolds Highway- It sounds awesome! I havent really read too much into it, but he's going for a Hydrogen attained by clean renewable sources, which is the way to go. He says 2010, I hope he's right
Canada is supposed to have their Hydrogen highway ready for the Winter Olympics in 2010

Here's a website and organization that i love: Apollo Alliance

 

wouldn't be as bad if we didn't get taxed on other stuff. I wish we would go this route....

google: fair tax bortz linder

 

Good Job guys ! I just wanted to get your feelings relative to the huge gas price jump in just 1 weeks time. Todays paper said the price of oil even went up higher. Something is really wrong here. Why doesn't the Government install a "tax cut" here at the pump?? :scratch: Its common knowledge that weiner Cheney has a large interest in some oil companies. Can you say "conflict of interest"--- Anyway pretty good input from you guys !!!

 

Lalo--good post from Feinstein. I like her and her comments. And I agree about the methods you suggest to get hydrogen. I hope we get there in what's left of my lifetome. Our planet could use it.

Cheney's "interest" in oil companies does not constitute a conflict of interest. All elected officials at that level have threir assets held in a blind trust, if you can delieve that, and when was the last time a VP was anything other than a sinecure? Most presidents don't even listen to them.