The gasoline/petrol price thread.

[Clinton Huxley]

No, my dick is 5 times the size.

You are 5 times as dickish.....

[Coito ergo sum]

That is cuz imma 'merkin, you know that.

[Coito ergo sum]

Prices continuing to climb..... http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/20 ... for-march/

Very much in line with the Obama Administration's wishes. They're not high enough, yet.

[Atheist-Lite]

Prices continuing to climb..... http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/20 ... for-march/

Very much in line with the Obama Administration's wishes. They're not high enough, yet.

There must be a time and day set for that upcoming demolition job people keep mentioning in the news?

[Coito ergo sum]

Prices continuing to climb..... http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/20 ... for-march/

Very much in line with the Obama Administration's wishes. They're not high enough, yet.

There must be a time and day set for that upcoming demolition job people keep mentioning in the news?

Demolition job?

[Hermit]

...American engines are notorious for bad fuel economy because fuel used to cost jack shit. Now that that is changing the fuel economy is getting better, but this insistence of big cars and therefore big weight is not helping.

We definitely have bigger cars, but that's because big cars are more useful and we spend a lot more time in cars than you folks. We like our standard of living, as I noted before. Bigger houses. Bigger cars. Greater availability of most things to more of our citizens. It's better for the people that fuel prices are lower. Higher gasoline prices hurts the average person.

I found that travelling to Adelaide in a four cylinder 1600cc car, sometimes with five people in it and taking 400km each way, isn't all that different in time and comfort than doing the same trip in a six cylinder 4.1 litre vehicle. The biggest difference is fuel consumption. I can foresee some involuntary belt tightening coming up for you (plural) in the not too distant future. Hopefully you will be able to adapt to vastly changed circumstances with great ease. If not, that would be just too bad for you. Oil is running out, and there simply is not enough lead time left to develop alternative sources of energy in terms of research, manufacture and distribution to avoid a serious discrepancy between demand and supply. So serious that it will have catastrophic effects on people's standard of living all over the world, but none more so than the the nation that last time I looked consisted of 5% of the human population and consumes 25% of the world's energy. Enjoy your standard of living affluence and extravagant wastefulness you value so highly, while you can, Coito. You'll be paying back in spades soon enough.

[Coito ergo sum]

...American engines are notorious for bad fuel economy because fuel used to cost jack shit. Now that that is changing the fuel economy is getting better, but this insistence of big cars and therefore big weight is not helping.

We definitely have bigger cars, but that's because big cars are more useful and we spend a lot more time in cars than you folks. We like our standard of living, as I noted before. Bigger houses. Bigger cars. Greater availability of most things to more of our citizens. It's better for the people that fuel prices are lower. Higher gasoline prices hurts the average person.

I found that travelling to Adelaide in a four cylinder 1600cc car, sometimes with five people in it and taking 400km each way, isn't all that different in time and comfort than doing the same trip in a six cylinder 4.1 litre vehicle. The biggest difference is fuel consumption.

I am about 6' 2" tall, or about 1.88 meters. Driving in little 4 cylinder cars is prohibitive for me. If I'm in the front seat and people are in the back seat, I am crushed up against the dashboard, and it's probably unsafe (since airbag safety requires front seat passengers to be back a bit from the device). Putting 5 people in such a car is completely uncomfortable beyond belief.

I can foresee some involuntary belt tightening coming up for you (plural) in the not too distant future. Hopefully you will be able to adapt to vastly changed circumstances with great ease. If not, that would be just too bad for you. Oil is running out, and there simply is not enough lead time left to develop alternative sources of energy in terms of research, manufacture and distribution to avoid a serious discrepancy between demand and supply.

We have a huge supply of oil in the US, plenty to least us while we build a huge number of nuclear plants, wind farms, tidal generators, and solar farms. If only we would go get it...

So serious that it will have catastrophic effects on people's standard of living all over the world, but none more so than the 5% of the human population that currently (no pun) consumes 25% of the world's energy. Enjoy your standard of living affluence and extravagant wastefulness you value so highly, while you can, Coito. You'll be paying back in spades soon enough.

Go ahead and pretend all you like that Europe isn't part of that 5% you refer to, and live comfortably in your smug sense of self-satisfaction that is the world of denial in which you reside.

[Hermit]

Go ahead and pretend all you like that Europe isn't part of that 5% you refer to, and live comfortably in your smug sense of self-satisfaction that is the world of denial in which you reside.

It so happens that the US population makes up 5% of the world's population and uses 25% of the world's energy. Feel free to find figures for Europe. Meanwhile, continue to rationalise why you must have "Bigger houses. Bigger cars. Greater availability of most things to more of our citizens." You'll find out that you (plural) will adapt to a less wasteful lifestyle before you die because you just won't have a choice. The earlier you start, the less traumatic, drastic and disruptive to the social fabric of your nation the change will be.

[Coito ergo sum]

Go ahead and pretend all you like that Europe isn't part of that 5% you refer to, and live comfortably in your smug sense of self-satisfaction that is the world of denial in which you reside.

It so happens that the US population makes up 5% of the world's population and uses 25% of the world's energy.

Our economy also represents 25% of the world economy. Want that taken away? Think that would help?

Feel free to find figures for Europe. Meanwhile, continue to rationalise why you must have "Bigger houses. Bigger cars. Greater availability of most things to more of our citizens." You'll find out that you (plural) will adapt to a less wasteful lifestyle before you die because you just won't have a choice. The earlier you start, the less traumatic, drastic and disruptive to the social fabric of your nation the change will be.

Fair enough.

But, it is the US, Europe and Japan that together use 80% of the world's resources. If you think Europe is some sort of careful steward of resources, then think again.

But, bottom line, I'd rather live here:

[Hermit]

Our economy also represents 25% of the world economy. Want that taken away? Think that would help?

Are you suggesting that the US produces 25% of the world's consumable goods? I don't think hedge funds and futures trading count even though financial wheeling-dealing makes up a goodly part of the economy.

Oh right! US citizens consume a lot more resources on a per capita basis than anyone else. Isn't that what I just pointed out? And did I not opine that this level of consumption is unsustainable? Are you blind, deaf, or both?

[Coito ergo sum]

U.S. manufacturing remains the world’s largest manufacturer, despite an inaccurate report in today’s Financial Times that China has passed the United States. American manufacturing, in fact, is so large that if it were a self-standing economy, it would be the eighth largest in the world.

http://shopfloor.org/2011/03/u-s-manufa ... gest/18756

The US has 20% of the total world manufacturing: http://www.futureofuschinatrade.com/fac ... -1970-2009

So, the answer to your first question is "yes", pretty much - pretty close.

In response to your second point, I didn't deny that the US has high consumption. What I had said was that Europe is right up there with us. That is why the US, Europe and Japan together consume 80% of resources. In other words, I did not say that we weren't consuming. I said that you folks have not much room to talk. You're the second biggest consumers. Give yourself a medal for that, why don't you?

[Hermit]

U.S. manufacturing remains the world’s largest manufacturer, despite an inaccurate report in today’s Financial Times that China has passed the United States. American manufacturing, in fact, is so large that if it were a self-standing economy, it would be the eighth largest in the world.

http://shopfloor.org/2011/03/u-s-manufa ... gest/18756

The US has 20% of the total world manufacturing: http://www.futureofuschinatrade.com/fac ... -1970-2009

So, the answer to your first question is "yes", pretty much - pretty close.

I happily accept that I was wrong. Thanks for making me aware of that. Generally speaking, your readiness and ability to reply to posts with links to data is much appreciated. I shouldn't even have brought manufacturing up, because the problem is not the rate of production. The problem is consumption.

In response to your second point, I didn't deny that the US has high consumption. What I had said was that Europe is right up there with us. That is why the US, Europe and Japan together consume 80% of resources. In other words, I did not say that we weren't consuming. I said that you folks have not much room to talk. You're the second biggest consumers. Give yourself a medal for that, why don't you?

Why do you keep bringing up Europe? Chip on your shoulder much? And did I even imply that the unsustainable rate of consumption in any society is OK? No. I started out by saying that the nation consisting of 5% of the world's population, yet consuming 25% of the world's energy is at the very tip of unsustainability. You said yourself that you love your big houses, big cars and big whatnot, and you approvingly posted a graph showing that consumption in the US is a third higher (presumably per capita) than that of even Europe.

How much longer can we keep this up? Consumption just keeps growing, but are this planet's resources doing likewise? What is more, the situation is bound to worsen dramatically over the next years. The burgeoning economies of China and India alone are engendering irresistible and understandable pressures by its concomitantly developing factory workers and managerial strata for stuff we have taken for granted for decades. Can you imagine how long the consumption rate currently enjoyed by 330 million people in the US could possibly be sustained if this planet's other 6.7 billion humans joined them on that very same level?

Something is going to give, and I think the US citizens will take the biggest drop. The landing might be softer if they started preparing for it now by becoming more realistic about what levels of consumption are sustainable. And yes, so should Europeans, though they'll be dropping from a 66% lesser height. And Australians (which is where I live).

[Coito ergo sum]

U.S. manufacturing remains the world’s largest manufacturer, despite an inaccurate report in today’s Financial Times that China has passed the United States. American manufacturing, in fact, is so large that if it were a self-standing economy, it would be the eighth largest in the world.

http://shopfloor.org/2011/03/u-s-manufa ... gest/18756

The US has 20% of the total world manufacturing: http://www.futureofuschinatrade.com/fac ... -1970-2009

So, the answer to your first question is "yes", pretty much - pretty close.

I happily accept that I was wrong. Thanks for making me aware of that. Generally speaking, your readiness and ability to reply to posts with links to data is much appreciated. I shouldn't even have brought manufacturing up, because the problem is not the rate of production. The problem is consumption.

Production requires a lot of consumption to make the products.

In response to your second point, I didn't deny that the US has high consumption. What I had said was that Europe is right up there with us. That is why the US, Europe and Japan together consume 80% of resources. In other words, I did not say that we weren't consuming. I said that you folks have not much room to talk. You're the second biggest consumers. Give yourself a medal for that, why don't you?

Why do you keep bringing up Europe? Chip on your shoulder much?

Not so much. It's just weird that someone would comment that the US has some sort of comeuppance coming to it, when you can look in your own back yard and see much the same thing. Where do you get off pointing the finger here instead of at yourself?

And did I even imply that the unsustainable rate of consumption in any society is OK? No.

By omission, yes. Had I directed a similar accusation at Europe, I have no doubt you would have pointed out that the US is in no position to talk. What then would you say if I said "I didn't even imply that the unsustainable rate of consumption is o.k. in the US. I just didn't mention it when I was pointing an accusatory and foreboding finger at Europe."

I started out by saying that the nation consisting of 5% of the world's population, yet consuming 25% of the world's energy is at the very tip of unsustainability. You said yourself that you love your big houses, big cars and big whatnot, and you approvingly posted a graph showing that consumption in the US is a third higher (presumably per capita) than that of even Europe.

The chart indicated standard of living, not consumption, per se.

How much longer can we keep this up? Consumption just keeps growing, but are this planet's resources doing likewise? What is more, the situation is bound to worsen dramatically over the next years. The burgeoning economies of China and India alone are engendering irresistible and understandable pressures by its concomitantly developing factory workers and managerial strata for stuff we have taken for granted for decades. Can you imagine how long the consumption rate currently enjoyed by 330 million people in the US could possibly be sustained if this planet's other 6.7 billion humans joined them on that very same level?

I don't know. But, I don't want to live like most folks do in China, do you?

Something is going to give, and I think the US citizens will take the biggest drop. The landing might be softer if they started preparing for it now by becoming more realistic about what levels of consumption are sustainable. And yes, so should Europeans, though they'll be dropping from a 66% lesser height. And Australians (which is where I live).

Well, we shall see.

[Hermit]

Dream on, then.

[Coito ergo sum]

Pushin' $3.90 a gallon for the cheapest gas around here now....gunna be a tough spring.