mithrandir2001
Diamond Member
- May 1, 2001
- 6,545
- 1
- 0
<< Didn't take much to figure it was from an email... duh. Chain letters mean you should forward them so they in turn can forward it. I'm just asking for your opinions on this idea. >>
What they suggest will not work. If you want to lower price, you need to reduce aggregate demand. If the nation still consumes, say, 300 billion gal a year - even though none of it is bought at Exxon-Mobil - prices will not go down. Heck, they'd probably go up since the amount of "eligible" fuel outlets will decrease. Terrible idea.
Ticked off about gas price hikes? Tell people to give up their SUVs. They're the problem. Our nation's fleet has seen its fuel economy decrease because Americans have a (misplaced) love affair with the truck. We drive more and more each year and now we own vehicles that go less distance with the same amount of fuel, despite improvements in engine technology. Multiply the two together and you get accelerating demand in excess of population growth.
And if I'm (falsely) dubbed a tree-hugging liberal then I'll tell people to support oil drilling in Alaska. If they don't want to support that, then I'll tell people to drive less. If you want your fuel-thirsty SUV, then combine your trips to reduce your miles (and fuel consumption/demand). Walk your lazy butt to the video store 2 blocks away to return your video rental.
I have a right to b!tch about SUVs because my fuel costs are higher because all the truck owners have pushed up the demand curve and subsequently moved the market price up the scale. If trucks would make up 30% of all new vehicle sales instead of 50%+, we wouldn't have spiking gas prices like we've had in the past several years.
It seems Americans want their cake and eat it too: we want fuel-thirsty vehicles but we don't want to use domestic sources of oil to power them. Something has to give.
