"A Crude Awakening"

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveinOlyWA @ Apr 28 2007, 08:51 AM) [snapback]431706[/snapback]</div>

Coffee is an interesting comparison. Still, their example is comparing the most expensive version of that particular liquid, and it is not a necessity (no matter what I think 30 minutes after I get up). I've seen the same thing done with bottled water, but when there are much cheaper alternatives, the analogy falls apart.

I would love to see inexpensive electric, dual fuel (i.e., electric or gas) or hybrid commuter cars. Made inexpensive enough, many Americans would opt to have a "commuter car" in addition to the SUV or truck that can haul their boat to the lake for their vacation.

I think the "cheap oil" will last longer than the shorter predictions, but as far as I know, extracting "sweet light crude" from shale and tar sands is an expensive process, as is coal gasification. Over time, the market will take care of the process, of course, but often market-based solutions are brutal in their impact, as the market is amoral.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveinOlyWA @ Apr 28 2007, 09:51 AM) [snapback]431706[/snapback]</div>

The problem with the coffee analogy is that the average driver probably uses between 3/4 of a gallon and 2 or 3 gallons of gas a day, whereas the average latte drinker consumes, what, half a pint to a pint of coffee a day? I know there are people who drink a gallon of coffee a day, but that's not normal, and certainly not normal for people who pay Starbucks' prices. Many people brew Folgers at home, paying a lot less.

Rather than comparing a gallon of coffee to a gallon of gas, you need to compare an average daily consumption of coffee with an average daily consumption of gas. And you need to compare the average coffee, rather than the most expensive. Of if you do use the most expensive coffee in the comparison, you need to use the average consumption of that class of coffee and not use the Folgers'-drinkers consumption with the Starbucks price.

America as a nation does spend a lot of money on luxuries, but it's important to distinguish between the wealthy who spend on luxuries, and the poor who spend most of their money on necessities. Of course, if we had a decent public transportation system, gas would be much less of a necessity.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveinOlyWA @ Apr 28 2007, 11:22 AM) [snapback]431773[/snapback]</div>

That's a good point. It is only when I decided to buy a Prius that I ever heard anyone ask about justifying the car expense by gas savings. When my brother in law bought a Viper, no one asked him about mileage, how much the car cost compared to his Corvette, what gas price he used to calculate payback savings, etc. It seems that only the Prius is subject to that kind of scrutiny among the "common people". (I actually did do a spreadsheet comparing mileage, total cost of ownership, etc., on the cars I was considering, but I realize I'm much more anal about it than most people.)

Mass transit is not a solution due to what I call the "barf problem".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Apr 28 2007, 05:47 PM) [snapback]431887[/snapback]</div>

The time's coming when, barf or no barf, most people are going to be forced into mass transit because a week's supply of gas is gonna cost as much as a month's rent.

... unless they start demanding electric cars now, but they're all brainwashed into believing that oil supply is unlimited.

 

Holy ancient thread awakener !

 

really. Oughta rename this thread "Lazarus".

 

I like the movie and found it informative, but some of the people they interviewed were a little loony. There was a dude in what looked like a jogging suit ranting about how people don't worship Jesus or Allah or whatever, they worship oil.

He reminded me of a crazy homeless guy the way he spoke.