The rising cost of gasoline isn't going to go away. [Admin warning: NO POLITICS]

[dbsb3233]

But if we buy oil overseas, pay to ship it to the USA, use our highways and pipelines to move it to our refineries, use our labor to change it into gasoline, why can't we stop its export to other countries?

Some of it is just transportation logistics. Where the pipelines are, where the refineries are, the shipping, etc. For instance, Central America and the Caribbean Islands have almost no refineries, so they buy a lot of refined product from the US. There are places near the Canadian border where it's more logical for us to sell to them in some areas and them to sell to us in others. That adds to the raw export totals.

The raw number doesn't really matter, but the net import or export number does.

Sponsored

 

[AZBill]

where's the data for the last 12 years?
Are we imagining the colorado river, the rhine river, the po river the largest in italy drying up right now? Climate change is here. The only people denying it are oil companies and the politicians in their pocket.

Since you asked, from 2011-2020 there were 19 total and 5 major. No trend upwards, right around the average.

 

[Socalsp3]

Since you asked, from 2011-2020 there were 19 total and 5 major. No trend upwards, right around the average.

All right then no change in hurricanes frequency therefore climate change doesn't exist, scientists are just out to make money at the expense of poor oil companies

 

[ctenidae]

All right then no change in hurricanes frequency therefore climate change doesn't exist, scientists are just out to make money at the expense of poor oil companies

Now, don't go getting all logical and pointing out the ridiculous flipside to anti-climate change arguments. I've never understood the reasoning of deniers. Is it good to keep burning fossil fuels? Is it preferable to rely on a single, non-renewable source of energy? Is it better to maintain a static set of jobs than to create new infrastructure jobs? Is it better to have poorly insulated homes and buildings? Is it better to not be proactive about sea level rise? Is it a good thing to ignore rapidly dropping water levels in critical reservoirs around the world? Do we prefer wildfires to not having wildfires?

I just don't understand the opposition. Create jobs, build stuff, prepare. These all seem like good things to me.

 

[RickMachE]

No hysteria here.

When you raise prices of things that people can cut back on, they do. Gas prices go up, they drive less. That's why during Covid the price of gasoline dropped hugely. People switch from brand names to store brands. People buy cheaper alcohol or cigarettes, or cut back if they can. Discretionary spending is called that for a reason.

My argument was that if the price of gas is low, people drive more and pollute more. If you raise the price of gas, they drive less and pollute less. Could not be simpler. During Covid, smog cleared up in some cities.

If one really wants to understand the arguments, you also want to understand the biggest users of energy in the world. That's the product of cement and steel. Bill Gates has a book, whether you agree with his conclusions or not, that clearly lays things out - How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need. It shows how getting to carbon zero is almost impossible.

 

[dbsb3233]

No hysteria here.

When you raise prices of things that people can cut back on, they do. Gas prices go up, they drive less. That's why during Covid the price of gasoline dropped hugely. People switch from brand names to store brands. People buy cheaper alcohol or cigarettes, or cut back if they can. Discretionary spending is called that for a reason.

My argument was that if the price of gas is low, people drive more and pollute more. If you raise the price of gas, they drive less and pollute less. Could not be simpler. During Covid, smog cleared up in some cities.

If one really wants to understand the arguments, you also want to understand the biggest users of energy in the world. That's the product of cement and steel. Bill Gates has a book, whether you agree with his conclusions or not, that clearly lays things out - How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need. It shows how getting to carbon zero is almost impossible.

The problem in there is calling that "discretionary spending" though. Only some of it is (joyrides, vacations, unnecessary runs). But MOST gasoline/diesel use is necessary. Not just for individuals, but for businesses too. Cars, trucks, construction, semis, ships, airplanes, other specialized equipment, etc etc etc. It's not just people sitting at home choosing whether or not to drive to the lake this weekend, it's an integral part of the cost structure of the entire economy.

When new, better, cost-competitive alternatives enter the market, that's GREAT. If and when they're better in total, they'll naturally gain market share and displace the old. (That's why Teslas continue to sell all on their own without the $7500 tax credit.) My problem with it is when they prematurely damage the old (and drive it's price up artificially) before the new is anywhere remotely close to being capable of replacing it on a large scale.

 

[ctenidae]

Riddle me this - what difference does it make what the cause of the changing climate is? If it is naturally occurring, then it seems to me that's all the more reason to diversify energy sources, prepare for droughts and wildfires and sea level rise. If it's going to be hotter in summer, colder in winter, stormier and generally less pleasant, regardless of the cause, shouldn't we be working to get prepared? The only thing arguing over the cause does is delay doing anything to get prepared.

But, maybe, just maybe, it is anthropogenic. The end result is pretty much the same, but there's a chance that we might be able to slow it down, or lessen the impact, or even (though extremely unlikely at this point) stop it. All of the things that we should be doing to prepare, as a species, for a changing climate are also things that would have a positive impact on man-made causes.

Someone, please, explain the benefits or the logic of maintaining the status quo. Is there any good reason to keep doing what we've been doing for the past 100-ish years?

/also, the main reason they "changed the name"' is that it was terrible marketing. Every time some goober complained that it was cold in the winter and wanted to know what happened to "global warming," God killed a kitten. So they changed the name to protect kittens. Here's a super-secret pro tip - the changing climate is caused by...wait for it...a global increase in average temperatures. More heat = more energy. More energy = shifting climate dynamics.

 

[dbsb3233]

If it is naturally occurring, then it seems to me that's all the more reason to diversify energy sources, prepare for droughts and wildfires and sea level rise.

Prepare for droughts, wildfires, etc, yes. But force a change in energy sources, no. If it's naturally occurring, then the energy source is irrelevant to that and thus not part of the equation.

Of course, cleaner is always nicer. There's always some built-in advantage to cleaner sources. But like everything in life, this is about weighing how much better vs how much it's going to cost us and hurt us in other ways. There's upsides and downsides to everything. Especially to harming the old prematurely before the new can come anywhere close to replacing it at scale.

 

[ctenidae]

Many of the things you suggest are practically impossible for most people. Housing isn't near jobs. Public transport is limited in many places. Doesn't mean we shouldn't all try, but there's a lot of infrastructure that needs to be built or rebuilt to make it possible to substantially reduce carbon footprints.

That said, I didn't say anything at all about fighting climate change. I'm against silly arguments denying that climate change is occurring. I'm against head-in-the-sandism about the realities we have to face. Things are getting bad, and they're going to get worse. Instead of tribalistic arguing about causes, we need to do the things we can to be better prepared.

Subsidized rooftop solar, changing regulations to allow for distributed generation, reducing reliance on any single energy source, improving public transport, improving food security, assisting migration from no-longer-habitable areas, large scale infrastructure projects that is more resilient and more efficient.

Just because someone takes a vacation or has a dog doesn't make them a demon, and it doesn't further the cause to demonize them. I'm not sure what your angle is, other than to call people out for not being angels without suggesting any larger scale initiatives that could help with either preparation or mitigation.

Also, it's anthropogenic, not anthropologic. At the very least try to get the terminology correct.

 

[ctenidae]

Prepare for droughts, wildfires, etc, yes. But force a change in energy sources, no. If it's naturally occurring, then the energy source is irrelevant to that and thus not part of the equation.

Of course, cleaner is always nicer. There's always some built-in advantage to cleaner sources. But like everything in life, this is about weighing how much better vs how much it's going to cost us and hurt us in other ways. There's upsides and downsides to everything. Especially to harming the old prematurely before the new can come anywhere close to replacing it at scale.

I disagree- the energy source is incredibly important. If the Powder River Basin is on fire, it's going to be tough to get gas/oil/coal out of it. If the Middle East is consumed by mass migration out of uninhabitable areas it's tough to produce oil. If China is invading Russia to get access to water resources it's going to be tough to fuel home heating in Europe. Energy is the key to the whole thing.

 

[sotek2345]

Ok, I will dive into this quagmire. I am far from perfect, but I do what I can.

How big is your house?

~2000 sqft. This houses 2 families (Me, wife and kids as well as my wife's parents). It is ~120 years old.

How many houses do you have?

1

Do you have A/C?

Yes - window units.

How many cars do you have and what YMM?

3 counting my daughter's

2021 Mustang Mach-e (wife's)

2017 F150 Raptor (Mine) - will be trading for a Lightning as soon as I get it this Fall. (I know this was bad, I just wanted to own one before we went all electric. Only put ~2k miles on it in 7 months)

2006 VW Beetle - Daughter's first car.

Do you have a boat? No

Do you have an RV? No

Do you have any powersport toys? No

Do you have pets? Yes, 2 dogs and 1 cat. All rescues - not from breeders.

Do you have kids? Yes, 2 - replacement only

Do you take vacations? Yes

Do you travel by plane? Very, very rarely. Only 2 vacations every taken by plane. Don't anticipate doing any flying anytime in the near or mid term future.

Do you eat out at restaurants? Yes - mostly carry out to eat at home (wife's parents are in poor health and can't really leave home)

Do you use and plastic products? Yes, though we try to minimize where possible (buy in bulk, reuse as much as possible)

Do you wear any synthetic clothes? I would guess that some of my cloths have synthetic fibers, but I keep them for a long time. Still wearing shirts that are ~ 20 years old.

Do you buy any "non essential" products? Of course, we all do.

Sponsored