I have not gotten any of those spammy emails about gasoline boycotts. Frankly all I care about is getting X number of gallons each week to fill my tank. I dont care how high the gas prices get. I really dont. If I contribute to our drying up of the gasoline supply and driving cost to 10.00 gallon so be it.
A lifetime ago I thought 1.00 was expensive. Now I ponder 200 dollar oil and wars over the supply fields.
JSGreen wrote: ...Anybody else get an email about boycotting Exxon/Mobile and Citgo, not for one day but untill prices come down? I wonder who thinks these things up....
...Anybody else get an email about boycotting Exxon/Mobile and Citgo, not for one day but untill prices come down? I wonder who thinks these things up....
Heh, heh!! People who either don't drive a great deal or who think that the suppliers with lower prices are just nicer people.
What I find interesting is that diesel is basically a by-product of gasoline production, yet it costs so much more.
Now of course there is one thing the government could do to bring about some relief: lift the excise tax. I don't know how much difference that would actauly make here in South Carolina where the tx is only 16 cents per gallon and diesel is going for $3.98 (right by I-95, it's cheaper as you get away from the interstate). In a state like New York with it's 10+ different taxes motor fuel, it would help a lot.
As for these idea of boycotting a particular brand, from what i've read it would backfire. Demand would increase at the other stations causing them to raise their prices.
It seems to me that if we really wanted gas and diesel prices to go down, we'd carpool more, trade our armored personel carrieres (SUVs) for Corolas and Civics that get 35 mpg.
Modeling the Pennsylvania Railroad in N Scale.
www.prr-nscale.blogspot.com
shawnee wrote: In a global economy, to me it's hard to separate out "rich and free" from others when it comes to "responsibility" for pollution emissions. After all, we've been steadily outsourcing much of our manufacturing capability to countries such as China, who burn the energy to make us air conditioners, TVs and the like. If we in the USA manufactured all the stuff we actually use on a daily basis, what would be the emission for our country? It's the consumer lifestyle that generates the emissions. Where the stuff is manufactured is just a political arguing point. Granted, a lot of the countries where manufacturing has fled have lower regulatory supervision on things like pollutants. But isn't that one reason why manufacturing flees there...along with cheap labor? Now, not that I'm advocating going back to the stone age, but these national emission arguments seem to me to be a bit facile...albeit a political arguing point.
In a global economy, to me it's hard to separate out "rich and free" from others when it comes to "responsibility" for pollution emissions. After all, we've been steadily outsourcing much of our manufacturing capability to countries such as China, who burn the energy to make us air conditioners, TVs and the like. If we in the USA manufactured all the stuff we actually use on a daily basis, what would be the emission for our country? It's the consumer lifestyle that generates the emissions. Where the stuff is manufactured is just a political arguing point. Granted, a lot of the countries where manufacturing has fled have lower regulatory supervision on things like pollutants. But isn't that one reason why manufacturing flees there...along with cheap labor?
Now, not that I'm advocating going back to the stone age, but these national emission arguments seem to me to be a bit facile...albeit a political arguing point.
It is true that China's contribution to world pollution is partially the result of manufacturing American products. But I don't think it follows that the same amount of pollution from producing those products would occur if they were made in the U.S. as opposed to China. On average, China's industrial processes produce more pollution than U.S. industrial processes.
You mention that to you, national emission arguments are facile. To me, they seem really hard. They are especially difficult because they are wrapped up in subterfuge.
The national emission arguments are not born of pride of the richest nations idly boasting that they are the cleanest. This response is actually the richest nations defending themselves from the world activists' charge that the richest nations are the largest part of the cause of climate destruction because those nations consume more per capita than the poor nations. While that is generally true, the activists continue the charge by saying that the richest nations also pollute more than the poorer nations. That is generally true if you compare the emissions of whole nation totals, and if you consider CO2 to be pollution. However, on a per capita basis, I think you will find that, on average, poorer nations pollute far more per capita than the richer nations. And if you take CO2 out of the equation, the richest nations are even cleaner. So the fact that the rich countries consume more per capita is somewhat of a red herring to the blame-for-climate-change argument.
This poses some questions: Is it fair to compare the emissions amounts of whole nations and assign blame accordingly? The U.S. produces far more emissions than Cuba, so does that mean that Cuba is less of a problem than the U.S.? Or do we need to compare the per capita emissions of the two countries to make it fair?
Climate activists assign blame according to national total emissions, which leads to the conclusion that the U.S. is the largest perpetrator of climate destruction. By labeling CO2 as a pollutant, they are able to make the U.S. into an even greater perpetrator.
This leads to another question: Do climate activists target the richest nations because their emission totals are the highest, or do they target the richest nations because they are rich? Climate activists represent the world as one big community, where rich nations are less virtuous than poor nations based on national emissions. At this point in the argument, they do acknowledge the greater per capita pollution of the poorer countries, and use it to establish NEED. At the same time, they look at the greater per capita consumption and greater national emission total of the richest countries, and use it to establish EXCESS. From here, they seek to level that disparity of emission virtuosity, as they have defined it, by financially penalizing the rich countries for their excess, and using the funds to help poor countries with their need to reduce their pollution. It amounts to taking from the rich and giving it to the poor through a carbon credit trading system.
Fundamentally, there are two beneficiaries in the redistribution of wealth. One is the recipient of the redistribution, and the other is the redistributor. In this case, that would be the U.N. with their Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the heart and soul of climate activism. The dream of administering a worldwide program of carbon credit trading in the name of preventing the destruction of the planet is a major aspiration of the U.N. And it reveals the motive behind their targeting the richest nations as the most blameworthy.
Bucyrus wrote: shawnee wrote: In a global economy, to me it's hard to separate out "rich and free" from others when it comes to "responsibility" for pollution emissions. After all, we've been steadily outsourcing much of our manufacturing capability to countries such as China, who burn the energy to make us air conditioners, TVs and the like. If we in the USA manufactured all the stuff we actually use on a daily basis, what would be the emission for our country? It's the consumer lifestyle that generates the emissions. Where the stuff is manufactured is just a political arguing point. Granted, a lot of the countries where manufacturing has fled have lower regulatory supervision on things like pollutants. But isn't that one reason why manufacturing flees there...along with cheap labor? Now, not that I'm advocating going back to the stone age, but these national emission arguments seem to me to be a bit facile...albeit a political arguing point.It is true that China's contribution to world pollution is partially the result of manufacturing American products. But I don't think it follows that the same amount of pollution from producing those products would occur if they were made in the U.S. as opposed to China. On average, China's industrial processes produce more pollution than U.S. industrial processes.You mention that to you, national emission arguments are facile. To me, they seem really hard. They are especially difficult because they are wrapped up in subterfuge.The national emission arguments are not born of pride of the richest nations idly boasting that they are the cleanest. This response is actually the richest nations defending themselves from the world activists' charge that the richest nations are the largest part of the cause of climate destruction because those nations consume more per capita than the poor nations. While that is generally true, the activists continue the charge by saying that the richest nations also pollute more than the poorer nations. That is generally true if you compare the emissions of whole nation totals, and if you consider CO2 to be pollution. However, on a per capita basis, I think you will find that, on average, poorer nations pollute far more per capita than the richer nations. And if you take CO2 out of the equation, the richest nations are even cleaner. So the fact that the rich countries consume more per capita is somewhat of a red herring to the blame-for-climate-change argument.
Motive is everything in this game. And its always a double standard. Until just a few months ago, the United States was a larger exporter than China, and much of that export was to developing countries. But does anyone accuse developing countries of exploiting and causing pollution in the United States by having the audacity to purchase U.S. goods? Of course not.
But just as the poster complains that Chinese air conditioners are merely exporting our own pollution, he will ignore the opposite effect: that our "pollution" is creating high tech and machine tools, advanced electronics and medicines, food and, yes, pollution control technology for export purposes that can make the advances of those nations an easier and more efficient path than our own. And he will ignore the opposite effect because those are the rules of the game.
The nations which tend to be most wasteful of natural resources, and the most unconcerned with environment degradation, tend to be the socialist nations -- recalling the essay "The Tragedy of the Commons" writ large -- and the tyrannies, which are often the same identities oddly enough.
The rich nations are rich because of cultural attitudes about law, about caring for property rights, about recognizing the importance of human capital, and for respecting economic capital.
They can feed their people because they are not busy exploiting their people but, rather, protecting the achievements of their people. Odd how that works.
But those same countries that destroy their own economies and sufficiency are the ones hollering the loudest about "exploitation" -- as though they are not the grandmasters of the idea. And, unfortunately, as oil becomes something more easily exploited as a "bargaining chip" for political purposes, it becomes a greater and more important prize for each Chavez or Quaddafi to control. It is the true "Devil's Excrement" and the so-called rich nations -- which are rich because they respect their own people -- are going to be the ultimate hostages to the short-sighted energy policies of the past 40 years: policies which arose from an agenda driven by the idea that wealth causes pollution and degradation, whereas in fact wealth has created the ability to control pollution and degradation, provided the economic incentive to do so and has done so quite effectively compared to what is passing for the fine experiments in the other approach that characterizes much of the world.
Y6bs evergreen in my mind
Fed Ex cannot find my place so they are out, unreliable delivery from another town an hour away. DHL continues to hang in in my area but not very large. UPS Does a great job and earns just about all of my business either Air or Ground. US Post Office is one for getting the mail where it needs to go.
LCL is a different animal. One company I used to work for did have a large LCL operation. You had a big facility that handled LCL in Lancaster Tx and you might have 10 trailers inbound from the west and southwest and these loads are combined into one for one reciever on the east coast.
An example would be food and grocery, it might be combined and shipped to Darden in Aberdeen Md where there is split up and sent by small LCL trucks to several Red Lobster, Olive Garden type resturants on a route each day.
Sometimes a City Market might get a truck load and the local butchers, restraunts and other food users like Steamship Lines etc will come get the stuff.
The old LCL operations started dying back in the 90's with the sale of CF and others. ABF has alot of business here in Arkansas and so do the UPS. They pretty much fight each other to fill those Pup trailers.
diesel hit a new record us average 4 bucks a gal....
are there any hydrogen big trucks in the making????
No.
I think one small gas station on the west coast is selling at 5.40 now and with the commodities market having a meltdown, no end in sight.
It's time we learn how high desiel prices can go before trucking is forced to stop.
Even if there is a miracle and a fine fuel efficient truck getting 100 miles to the gallon is built, no one will buy it, only lease it. And after two years it gets thrown back onto the junker's scrap/salvage line wore out and put up.
Keep in mind that tractors are considered disposable. No one except Owner Operators BUY trucks to keep 15-30 years.
What we can do is go back to the Oxen days and extend delivery times 9 months for a trans USA freight shipment.
I think people are kind of conveniently forgetting that the issue of fuel supply could be solved within the next ten years, especially for diesel fuel.
Two things could make this happen:
1) Growing oil-laden algae on a MASSIVE scale, algae that could be easily processed into diesel fuel, heating oil and kerosene and the solid "waste" processed further into ethanol.
2) New enzymes that could break down an ENTIRE plant into biomass, which can be refined into the same fuels I mentioned. This way, instead of having to grow more corn or sugar cane just to refine into ethanol, we can convert agricultural waste from conventional farming into fuel itself.
Essentially, this will give use pretty much an unlimited, renewable source of motor fuel.
By the way, I think we're going to see massive interest in RoadRailers, since this would allow a single 2-3 locomotive train to move 125 insulated RoadRailer trailers filled with perishable food long distances.
SactoGuy188 wrote: I think people are kind of conveniently forgetting that the issue of fuel supply could be solved within the next ten years, especially for diesel fuel.Two things could make this happen:1) Growing oil-laden algae on a MASSIVE scale, algae that could be easily processed into diesel fuel, heating oil and kerosene and the solid "waste" processed further into ethanol.2) New enzymes that could break down an ENTIRE plant into biomass, which can be refined into the same fuels I mentioned. This way, instead of having to grow more corn or sugar cane just to refine into ethanol, we can convert agricultural waste from conventional farming into fuel itself.Essentially, this will give use pretty much an unlimited, renewable source of motor fuel.By the way, I think we're going to see massive interest in RoadRailers, since this would allow a single 2-3 locomotive train to move 125 insulated RoadRailer trailers filled with perishable food long distances.
Well, I don't know anything about algae, and I don't want to know anythig about algae, but...
Generally, if you're moving trains that big (125 units) over long distances then double stack will be more economical than RoadRailers.
There are conditions that can favor RoadRailers, but they'd have to be moved at the end of a train consist that includes other intermodal or the benifits created by those conditions get nulified by the costs of running a RoadRailer only train.
I do agree that trucking a load of onions from Washington State to Boston is rapidly becomming a very uneconomical option.
....At a glance of the above info it sure is something to think about and wonder why not....2 six axle engines {just yesterday}, pulled 125 trailers....many {most}, 53 footers, thru here in the Triple Crown consist.
It's easy to see just how many drivers and diesel trucks it would take to equal that if they both were on a cross country run hauling perishables.....
Why would double stacks be more economical than the Triple Crown run.....? Wouldn't the T C train have far less overall tonnage.....and hence, less fuel usage too...
I certainly don't know the answer, but I think the overall subject and questions {and answers}, might be interesting.
Quentin
One reason why I don't like the idea of using insulated doublestack containers to move perishables is the complexity of the whole idea involved.
Using doublestack containers means:
1) Each container will need its own "clip on" cooling unit.
2) You'll need specialized container carrier cars.
3) The complexity of loading and unloading all those containers with overhead cranes.
The resulting train will need a bigger power consist, and that means more fuel consumed per train.
MichaelSol wrote: Bucyrus wrote: shawnee wrote: In a global economy, to me it's hard to separate out "rich and free" from others when it comes to "responsibility" for pollution emissions. After all, we've been steadily outsourcing much of our manufacturing capability to countries such as China, who burn the energy to make us air conditioners, TVs and the like. If we in the USA manufactured all the stuff we actually use on a daily basis, what would be the emission for our country? It's the consumer lifestyle that generates the emissions. Where the stuff is manufactured is just a political arguing point. Granted, a lot of the countries where manufacturing has fled have lower regulatory supervision on things like pollutants. But isn't that one reason why manufacturing flees there...along with cheap labor? Now, not that I'm advocating going back to the stone age, but these national emission arguments seem to me to be a bit facile...albeit a political arguing point.It is true that China's contribution to world pollution is partially the result of manufacturing American products. But I don't think it follows that the same amount of pollution from producing those products would occur if they were made in the U.S. as opposed to China. On average, China's industrial processes produce more pollution than U.S. industrial processes.You mention that to you, national emission arguments are facile. To me, they seem really hard. They are especially difficult because they are wrapped up in subterfuge.The national emission arguments are not born of pride of the richest nations idly boasting that they are the cleanest. This response is actually the richest nations defending themselves from the world activists' charge that the richest nations are the largest part of the cause of climate destruction because those nations consume more per capita than the poor nations. While that is generally true, the activists continue the charge by saying that the richest nations also pollute more than the poorer nations. That is generally true if you compare the emissions of whole nation totals, and if you consider CO2 to be pollution. However, on a per capita basis, I think you will find that, on average, poorer nations pollute far more per capita than the richer nations. And if you take CO2 out of the equation, the richest nations are even cleaner. So the fact that the rich countries consume more per capita is somewhat of a red herring to the blame-for-climate-change argument. Motive is everything in this game. And its always a double standard. Until just a few months ago, the United States was a larger exporter than China, and much of that export was to developing countries. But does anyone accuse developing countries of exploiting and causing pollution in the United States by having the audacity to purchase U.S. goods? Of course not. But just as the poster complains that Chinese air conditioners are merely exporting our own pollution, he will ignore the opposite effect: that our "pollution" is creating high tech and machine tools, advanced electronics and medicines, food and, yes, pollution control technology for export purposes that can make the advances of those nations an easier and more efficient path than our own. And he will ignore the opposite effect because those are the rules of the game.The nations which tend to be most wasteful of natural resources, and the most unconcerned with environment degradation, tend to be the socialist nations -- recalling the essay "The Tragedy of the Commons" writ large -- and the tyrannies, which are often the same identities oddly enough.The rich nations are rich because of cultural attitudes about law, about caring for property rights, about recognizing the importance of human capital, and for respecting economic capital.They can feed their people because they are not busy exploiting their people but, rather, protecting the achievements of their people. Odd how that works. But those same countries that destroy their own economies and sufficiency are the ones hollering the loudest about "exploitation" -- as though they are not the grandmasters of the idea. And, unfortunately, as oil becomes something more easily exploited as a "bargaining chip" for political purposes, it becomes a greater and more important prize for each Chavez or Quaddafi to control. It is the true "Devil's Excrement" and the so-called rich nations -- which are rich because they respect their own people -- are going to be the ultimate hostages to the short-sighted energy policies of the past 40 years: policies which arose from an agenda driven by the idea that wealth causes pollution and degradation, whereas in fact wealth has created the ability to control pollution and degradation, provided the economic incentive to do so and has done so quite effectively compared to what is passing for the fine experiments in the other approach that characterizes much of the world.
Here! Here! Well said Mr. Sol. I agree 100%.
I drove over to Woodhull IL to meet a friend at the Homestead Travel Plaza on I-74. She had planned on filling up her truck there. Well. No gas! They still had a couple thousand gallons of diesel. The trucker that had been delivering the fuel, shut down yesterday. He couldn't make it any more with diesel @ $4.13.
GP-9_Man11786 wrote:According to this MSNBC article, gas and fuel prices have risen largley due to speculation and are due for a correction. If the article is true it could mean fuel prices could come crashing down.
The problem is that the price is just too high now and is causing motor fuels to start become an elastic (e.g., price sensitive to consumers) commodity. As such, don't be surprised we see a severe cutback in discretionary travel this summer and that could result in gasoline and diesel fuel suppliers "holding the bag" on too much overpriced fuel.
Interesting thread! Just read thru most of it...Seems to be a common thought that prices will come down with lower consumption...I'm not so sure. The MSN article says comsumption has been flat in the states for 5-years.
BP and Exon CEO's make no bones about being in business to make money for their investors, gloating over their leadership to record profits. They need to keep their profits up...somehow. If the CEO doesn't show profits, the board and shareholders will get rid of them.
I'm suprised that gas/fuel is only about $4/gal. Remember we were paying $2/gal when oil was at $35/barrel. Oil prices have risen to 3x the price, so who made up the difference, and how did the oil companies make that much profit?
Seems that personal income needs to rise to acommodate the oil companies, since we all need the gas and fuel, and currently have no choice. Somehow the carriers need to push back, and make money to feed their families, since they can't cut back on the fuel used to transport goods.
Kurt
....Diesel in Muncie: $4.199 Non Leaded Reg. $3.499
The media continued to put out the word it hasn't made any difference and people were swallowing the increases and business as usual.
I will say right now, it is making a difference around here.... It is becoming noticable with less cars on the streets and a different pattern is setting in, in places like restaurants and so on.
The pump shut off. I had to pay, then put in another $7.00 in my pickup. This was Saturday
I'm not going to hold my breath. If the prices "crash down" how are the oil companies going to make as much money? That would mean that the CEOs aren't making money for their shareholders and thus they'd be in hot water/fired.
Dan
ACCORDING TO ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS REPORT APRIL 17, INTERMODAL VOLUME WAS UP.. TRAILERS UP 3.6% AND CONTAINERS UP 1.5%.. MORE TRUCKS ARE USING RAILS
AND BICYCLE SALES ARE UP ALSO...THANKS TO KING OIL
GASOLINE HERE IN FLA. UP 13 CENTS IN 4 DAYS
yahoo headline last evening'''traffic patterns changing due to cost of fuel." (or as close as I can recall it today).
This doesn't necessarily mean permanence, but it does mean that those who remark on such things have detected a significant change in behaviour. The next 24 months should give us a good idea. I can tell you that car dealerships on the lower mainland and here on Vancouver Island are lamenting the stone's drop in truck sales.
Everyone seems to mention how much money the oil companies are making but never how much the Government hammers us in taxes per gallon.
I know this might be a little off topic but if the airline and trucking industries had to cover their true costs without Government subsidies and rights of way. They simply couldn't exist in the form that they presently do.
And each time one of the Bay area refineries shuts down for maintenance the price of Gasoline rises in Central and Northern California. Part of the problem is not enough refineries and part is greed on their part. One shuts down and the others all raise their prices until that one comes back in service.
The strategic reserves in Southern California by some estimates is far more than the services would need for the next 150 years at present day consumption so why not use some of that. If we can't come up with alternate fuels or power sources in the next fifty years I don't think we will have to worry about it anyway. I for one am not going to be around long enough to see what happens or much less care.
TTFN Al - in - Stockton
wsherrick wrote: Everyone seems to mention how much money the oil companies are making but never how much the Government hammers us in taxes per gallon. I know this might be a little off topic but if the airline and trucking industries had to cover their true costs without Government subsidies and rights of way. They simply couldn't exist in the form that they presently do.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.