A Gallon Of Gas Should Cost $15

We know the approximate price of gas for consumers, but what is the price for society? The external costs borne may be as high as $1.7 trillion per year for the United States alone — that’s from health problems caused by pollution and toxic fumes, damage to crops and plant life, et cetera. The Center for Investigative Reporting calculates $15 per gallon as a reasonable pump price reflecting the true cost of gasoline.

My only complaint: it should be significantly higher still, as they forgot to factor in the huge sums of tax dollars spent on foreign aid and military operations for the benefit of the oil industry:

122 Comments on "A Gallon Of Gas Should Cost $15"

  1. Anonymous | Jun 26, 2011 at 2:29 pm |

    Catastrophic Global Warming is such an obvious hoax that I’m surprised anyone who believes it has enough brain cells to breathe.

    There’s has been zero Global Warming for 10 years now, look:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/gistemp/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/uah/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001/trend/plot/uah/from:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/trend

    And, no, the heat hasn’t magically sank into the oceans, they haven’t warmed since humanity deployed thousands of submersible buoys to accurately measure it:

    http://i53.tinypic.com/1z3wg7o.jpg

    It’s a confidence trick.

  2. Catastrophic Global Warming is such an obvious hoax that I’m surprised anyone who believes it has enough brain cells to allow them to breathe.

    There’s been zero Global Warming for 10 years now, look:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/gistemp/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/uah/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001/trend/plot/uah/from:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/trend

    And, no, the heat hasn’t magically sank into the oceans, they haven’t warmed since humanity deployed thousands of submersible buoys to accurately measure it:

    http://i53.tinypic.com/1z3wg7o.jpg

    It’s a confidence trick.

    • dumbsaint | Jun 26, 2011 at 11:30 am |

      Yeah, see the argument isn’t about wether warming is happening or not. The credible scientists towards your side of the fence aren’t skeptical about whether or not it’s happening – they’re not convinced that it’s caused by human activity. I guess they’re part of the hoax too as some kind of intricate double play?

      I’ll regret this.

    • dumbsaint | Jun 26, 2011 at 11:30 am |

      Yeah, see the argument isn’t about wether warming is happening or not. The credible scientists towards your side of the fence aren’t skeptical about whether or not it’s happening – they’re not convinced that it’s caused by human activity. I guess they’re part of the hoax too as some kind of intricate double play?

      I’ll regret this.

    • VelaCreations.com | Jun 26, 2011 at 11:33 am |

      overall trends still show significant warming.  Just because you have a cooling trend for a few years (assuming that data is correct) doesn’t deny an overall trend.  Look at that same data set from 1900…

      Climate instability is happening, there’s no denying it.

      And I guess you’re one of the folks that claims we have centuries of oil/gas left, too, huh?

      • There are centuries of natural gas left.

        The US alone has 300 years worth at current consumption rates – none of which could be accessed 15 years ago.  And gas-bearing shale is ubiquitous so no more wars for resources:

        http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/

        That warming trend since 1900 is 0.74°C per century.

        0.74°C not 2° or 4° or 6°.  There is no looming disaster.

        • VelaCreations.com | Jun 26, 2011 at 9:14 pm |

          BS….  for one, consumption doesn’t stay constant.

          and, if there was that much oil/gas that was cheap to obtain, prices would be 1/2 of what they are.

          Let me get this straight, it warmed an average of .74C over the last century (according to you), pollution rates are increasing, CO2 concentrations are increasing, and we should assume that the.74C per century will be a constant rate of increase?

          yeah, I’ve heard that story before… “nothing to see folks, just keep consuming, we’ll be fine…”

          • No, we shouldn’t assume it’s constant – the rate has been zero for the last 10 years.

            Consumption doesn’t stay constant, but guess what, neither does technology!

            And the UN’s hugely expensive population projections show we’ll reach peak humans around 10 billion in 2050 and then the global population will start to decline – so consumption isn’t going to grow forever.

      • Yeah, while that may be true and all, that still doesn’t mean the whole fear-mongering over “global warming” really means a damn thing to us.  Yes, it gets warmer over a century and I’m sure it will be even warmer by 2100.  It is still being spun as if it is a real, current threat and it certainly is not.  If anything, I can see it being a damn good reason to switching to clean energy, but that’s no reason to use fear-mongering tactics to further that agenda.  It’s just convenient because it falls right in with end-times, 2012, alien apocalypse theories… it’s just plain dramatic.

    • VelaCreations.com | Jun 26, 2011 at 11:33 am |

      overall trends still show significant warming.  Just because you have a cooling trend for a few years (assuming that data is correct) doesn’t deny an overall trend.  Look at that same data set from 1900…

      Climate instability is happening, there’s no denying it.

      And I guess you’re one of the folks that claims we have centuries of oil/gas left, too, huh?

    • If you want to win people over to your side you’ll need to insult them more than that.

    • You got your information from a .org site. Anyone can post anything on those. Find some solid evidence, anything can be found on the internet including contradicting information.

      • The data is direct from university servers, go check if you don’t believe it.

    • Oh, please. Do you deny climate change just because you don’t like “liberals” or “lefties”, or because you don’t want to change your current lifestyle? Or do you seriously believe that it’s a hoax?

      Even if climate change isn’t caused by the use of fossil fuels after all, we’d still be healthier if weren’t for all the crap in the air. I don’t think that the rising cancer rates, for instance, is unrelated.

      • It isn’t happening.  There’s nothing to deny.

        I don’t like breathing pollution but carbon dioxide isn’t it.

    • hey, even the vatican believes in climate change now…look it up.  They don’t state we are going to keep raising the temperature indefinatly…but instead, the natural cycles of heating, and ice ages, are being compressed…something like a thousand fold

    • If you want to trend ten years of climate data versus the two hundred years since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, you barely know what even constitutes a data trend and there is therefore no convincing you anyway.

      Lost cause.

  3. Anonymous | Jun 26, 2011 at 3:30 pm |

    Yeah, see the argument isn’t about wether warming is happening or not. The credible scientists aren’t skeptical about whether or not happening – they’re not convinced that it’s caused by human activity. I guess they’re part of the hoax too as some kind of intricate double play?

    I’ll fucking regret this.

  4. VelaCreations.com | Jun 26, 2011 at 3:33 pm |

    overall trends still show significant warming.  Just because you have a cooling trend for a few years (assuming that data is correct) doesn’t deny an overall trend.  Look at that same data set from 1900…

    Climate instability is happening, there’s no denying it.

    And I guess you’re one of the folks that claims we have centuries of oil/gas left, too, huh?

  5. If you want to win people over to your side you’ll need to insult them more than that.

  6. jackedu317 | Jun 26, 2011 at 5:01 pm |

    this is just an ad for carbon taxes… fuck off…

  7. jackedu317 | Jun 26, 2011 at 1:01 pm |

    this is just an ad for carbon taxes… fuck off…

  8. um, no YOU fuck off..

  9. DeepCough | Jun 26, 2011 at 8:22 pm |

    Petroleum is one of the many, many vestiges of the industrial revolution that needs to go away.

  10. DeepCough | Jun 26, 2011 at 4:22 pm |

    Petroleum is one of the many, many vestiges of the industrial revolution that needs to go away.

    • While I agree with you, how am I and the millions of other other stiffs supposed to get to work, who either 1). need to bring gear for their job or 2). who don’t live in the city?

      • DeepCough | Jun 26, 2011 at 10:41 pm |

        Well, you don’t see the Amish complaining about gas prices, now, do you?

        • Oh good point.  I must concur with you then: Let’s charge the working class more for their source of transportation because afterall; the Amish aren’t complaining (especially not on the internet)!

          • DeepCough | Jun 27, 2011 at 1:35 pm |

             Hey, hey, hey, I know it sucks to have grown up with the Petrol Model for energy, but that’s all the more reason why petroleum needs to be deprioritized and phased out as a passe form of fuel, just like other industrial chemicals (asbestos, DDT, lead paint, et al.) have been phased out because they’re too noxious and have caused enough problems to where we don’t use them anymore, and we should start taking that same attitude with gasoline.

          • There are replacements for things like lead paint–like paint without lead, for example. What’s your replacement for gasoline? Do you have some kind of magic fuel I can put into my tank? Unicorn pee or something? Do you have an alternative for the smug plug-in electric car drivers who fuel their vehicles with power from coal fired plants? As for DDT, it was banned for dubious (i.e. stupid) reasons, and the result has been millions of unnecessary deaths from malaria (though those people were mostly brown, so maybe they’re less important). If your logic follows, it’s worth millions of deaths if it means we don’t use gas anymore–tough sell for you…

        • Ford429V8 | Jul 7, 2011 at 9:46 pm |

          Yes, let’s all travel around by horse……..and find ourselves hip deep in manure. Great plan!

  11. No, no, YOU fuck off.

  12. Anonymous | Jun 26, 2011 at 9:07 pm |

    *rolls eyes*  OK, we get it: Demand free energy.  Now get off your cyber soapbox and do something about it!

  13. StillAtMyMoms | Jun 26, 2011 at 5:07 pm |

    *rolls eyes*  OK, we get it: Demand free energy.  Now get off your cyber soapbox and do something about it!

  14. LeafEater | Jun 26, 2011 at 9:28 pm |

    I like chickens.

  15. No such thing as a free lunch

  16. You got your information from a .org site. Anyone can post anything on those. Find some solid evidence, anything can be found on the internet including contradicting information.

  17. Oh, please. Do you deny climate change just because you don’t like “liberals” or “lefties”, or because you don’t want to change your current lifestyle? Or do you seriously believe that it’s a hoax?

    Even if climate change isn’t caused by the use of fossil fuels after all, we’d still be healthier if weren’t for all the crap in the air. I don’t think that the rising cancer rates, for instance, is unrelated.

  18. Anonymous | Jun 27, 2011 at 12:02 am |

    It isn’t happening.  There’s nothing to deny.

    I don’t like breathing pollution but carbon dioxide isn’t it.

  19. Anonymous | Jun 27, 2011 at 12:02 am |

    The data is direct from university servers, go check if you don’t believe it.

  20. Anonymous | Jun 27, 2011 at 12:15 am |

    There are are centuries of natural gas left.

    The US alone has 300 years worth at current consumption rates – none of which could be accessed 15 years ago.  And gas-bearing shale is ubiquitous so no more wars for resources:

    http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/

    That warming trend since 1900 is 0.74°C per century.

    0.74°C not 2° or 4° or 6°.  There is no looming disaster.

  21. Anonymous | Jun 27, 2011 at 12:15 am |

    There are are centuries of natural gas left.

    The US alone has 300 years worth at current consumption rates – none of which could be accessed 15 years ago.  And gas-bearing shale is ubiquitous so no more wars for resources:

    http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/

    That warming trend since 1900 is 0.74°C per century.

    0.74°C not 2° or 4° or 6°.  There is no looming disaster.

  22. Anonymous | Jun 27, 2011 at 12:17 am |

    There has been no warming for 10 years.

    It warmed from ~1970 – ~2000.  It is not accelerating like charlatan scientist said it would, instead it has stopped.

  23. Anonymous | Jun 27, 2011 at 12:17 am |

    There has been no warming for 10 years.

    It warmed from ~1970 – ~2000.  It is not accelerating like charlatan scientist said it would, instead it has stopped.

  24. While I agree with you, how am I and the millions of other other stiffs supposed to get to work, who either 1). need to bring gear for their job or 2). who don’t live in the city?

  25. While I agree with you, how am I and the millions of other other stiffs supposed to get to work, who either 1). need to bring gear for their job or 2). who don’t live in the city?

  26. Anonymous | Jun 27, 2011 at 12:57 am |

    Luckily for me I don’t have to convince anybody – a large majority of people in the world don’t even rank climate change in the top 3 environmental problems.

    http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/849698/only_a_quarter_of_uk_population_concerned_about_climate_change.html

    Understand?

    Clowns like you who wilfully ignored the liberated climategate documents don’t deserve to be won over anyway.  Wallow in your ignorance.

  27. VelaCreations.com | Jun 27, 2011 at 1:14 am |

    BS….  for one, consumption doesn’t stay constant.

    and, if there was that much oil/gas that was cheap to obtain, prices would be 1/2 of what they are.

    Let me get this straight, it warmed an average of .74C over the last century (according to you), pollution rates are increasing, CO2 concentrations are increasing, and we should assume that the.74C per century will be a constant rate of increase?

    yeah, I’ve heard that story before… “nothing to see folks, just keep consuming, we’ll be fine…”

  28. VelaCreations.com | Jun 27, 2011 at 1:16 am |

    and a large portion of the world is illiterate, uneducated, doesn’t have decent housing, etc.

    climategate was a total yawn…. total BS, no facts changed.

  29. VelaCreations.com | Jun 27, 2011 at 1:17 am |

    according to your data sources.  Can we see more sources that correspond to that, please?

  30. Anonymous | Jun 27, 2011 at 1:25 am |

    Okay, then, a large majority of the literate, educated population of the world too.

    Satisfied?

    “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth, Dr.] and I will keep the out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !”
    – Professor Phil Jones, (still) head of CRU and IPCC Lead Author.

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:N5CLKTnpwlUJ:www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php%3Feid%3D419+I+can%92t+see+either+of+these+papers+being+in+the+next&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.ie

    Go back to sleep, zombie.

  31. Anonymous | Jun 27, 2011 at 1:28 am |

    No, we shouldn’t assume it’s constant – the rate has been zero for the last 10 years.

    Consumption doesn’t stay constant, but guess what, neither does technology!

    And the UN’s hugely expensive population projections show we’ll reach peak humans around 10 billion in 2050 and then the global population will start to decline – so consumption isn’t grow forever.

  32. Anonymous | Jun 27, 2011 at 1:39 am |

    Here’s the UK’s global surface temperature record:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1975/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend

    1975-2000: warming trend 1.7C per century.  2001 – Now: near zero trend.

    It did warm for while, that would have been scary if it kept going, but it didn’t. It stopped 10 years ago.

  33. release the virus

  34. release the virus

  35. DeepCough | Jun 27, 2011 at 2:41 am |

    Well, you don’t see the Amish complaining about gas prices, now, do you?

  36. Garvothegreat | Jun 27, 2011 at 4:47 am |

    how does one gallon of gas produce more greenhouse gas pollution than it’s own weight? I’ve held a gallon of gas, and it doesn’t weigh 25 lbs. please clarify this for me.

  37. Garvothegreat | Jun 27, 2011 at 12:47 am |

    how does one gallon of gas produce more greenhouse gas pollution than it’s own weight? I’ve held a gallon of gas, and it doesn’t weigh 25 lbs. please clarify this for me.

    • Gasoline is made of hydrocarbons, for example toluene which is 7 Carbon and 8 Hydrogen atoms totalling about 92 in atomic weight.

      When fully burned toluene produces 7 CO2 molecules totalling about 308 atomic weight.

      • Adding up atomic weights has zero to do with conservation of mass.  Stop trying to appear smart.

        @6f1793f4933269e7b70f1581166f8e9a:disqus: The reason it adds up to be more is because gasoline is around 46% of what a total barrel of crude is.  So for every gallon of gasoline refined, there is over two gallons of crude oil being processed and more than that being burned to transport, pump, and refine it.  My math shows two gallons of gas is still only going to weigh around 15 pounds, so the rest comes from other processes (I think the number they show is really too high).

        Its kind of how corn ethanol is a net negative energy process because of the energy used to harvest, collect, transport, and refine…but with oil (where it is net positive).

  38. Anonymous | Jun 27, 2011 at 5:24 am |

    Gasoline is made of hydrocarbons, for example toluene which is 7 Carbon and 8 Hydrogen atoms totalling about 92 in atomic weight.

    When fully burned toluene produces 7 CO2 molecules totalling about 308 atomic weight.

  39. hey, even the vatican believes in climate change now…look it up.  They don’t state we are going to keep raising the temperature indefinatly…but instead, the natural cycles of heating, and ice ages, are being compressed…something like a thousand fold

  40. hey, even the vatican believes in climate change now…look it up.  They don’t state we are going to keep raising the temperature indefinatly…but instead, the natural cycles of heating, and ice ages, are being compressed…something like a thousand fold

  41. hey, even the vatican believes in climate change now…look it up.  They don’t state we are going to keep raising the temperature indefinatly…but instead, the natural cycles of heating, and ice ages, are being compressed…something like a thousand fold

  42. hey, even the vatican believes in climate change now…look it up.  They don’t state we are going to keep raising the temperature indefinatly…but instead, the natural cycles of heating, and ice ages, are being compressed…something like a thousand fold

  43. Personally, I don’t care if there are a billion years left of this fossil fuel stuff – I’m sick of breathing it. 

    For the health problems alone that coal and oil cause, the fact of the matter is that it’s costly in ways that have not one damn thing to do with the price at the pump. In 2008 alone, Exxon Mobil made a straight profit (after their joke taxes) of $40.7 billion dollars. So someone seriously needs to explain to me why such an industry needs tax breaks, much less SUBSIDIES. And not only are they failing to pay their fair share to keep America’s infrastructure properly functioning, but they are actually making the American people PAY THEM to charge Americans higher gas prices (a 35% increase in price in the second half of 2007 alone).To put this into perspective, if Exxon Mobil were a country, its profits would exceed the gross domestic product of nearly two thirds of the 183 nations in the World Bank’s economic rankings. Microsoft, widely considered emblematic of business success, makes 1/3rd what Exxon does. Together, the four largest oil companies, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Shell earn more than $100 billion in profit each year.Yet on top of this, the polluters get 16.3 billion in subsidies from the American taxpayer, and $53.9 billion in tax breaks.This is the EXACT OPPOSITE from the so-called “free market” that said corporatists always like to tout as the answer to everything.

  44. Personally, I don’t care if there are a billion years left of this fossil fuel stuff – I’m sick of breathing it. 

    For the health problems alone that coal and oil cause, the fact of the matter is that it’s costly in ways that have not one damn thing to do with the price at the pump. In 2008 alone, Exxon Mobil made a straight profit (after their joke taxes) of $40.7 billion dollars. So someone seriously needs to explain to me why such an industry needs tax breaks, much less SUBSIDIES. And not only are they failing to pay their fair share to keep America’s infrastructure properly functioning, but they are actually making the American people PAY THEM to charge Americans higher gas prices (a 35% increase in price in the second half of 2007 alone).To put this into perspective, if Exxon Mobil were a country, its profits would exceed the gross domestic product of nearly two thirds of the 183 nations in the World Bank’s economic rankings. Microsoft, widely considered emblematic of business success, makes 1/3rd what Exxon does. Together, the four largest oil companies, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Shell earn more than $100 billion in profit each year.Yet on top of this, the polluters get 16.3 billion in subsidies from the American taxpayer, and $53.9 billion in tax breaks.This is the EXACT OPPOSITE from the so-called “free market” that said corporatists always like to tout as the answer to everything.

  45. Personally, I don’t care if there are a billion years left of this fossil fuel stuff – I’m sick of breathing it. 

    For the health problems alone that coal and oil cause, the fact of the matter is that it’s costly in ways that have not one damn thing to do with the price at the pump. In 2008 alone, Exxon Mobil made a straight profit (after their joke taxes) of $40.7 billion dollars. So someone seriously needs to explain to me why such an industry needs tax breaks, much less SUBSIDIES. And not only are they failing to pay their fair share to keep America’s infrastructure properly functioning, but they are actually making the American people PAY THEM to charge Americans higher gas prices (a 35% increase in price in the second half of 2007 alone).To put this into perspective, if Exxon Mobil were a country, its profits would exceed the gross domestic product of nearly two thirds of the 183 nations in the World Bank’s economic rankings. Microsoft, widely considered emblematic of business success, makes 1/3rd what Exxon does. Together, the four largest oil companies, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Shell earn more than $100 billion in profit each year.Yet on top of this, the polluters get 16.3 billion in subsidies from the American taxpayer, and $53.9 billion in tax breaks.This is the EXACT OPPOSITE from the so-called “free market” that said corporatists always like to tout as the answer to everything.

  46. Personally, I don’t care if there are a billion years left of this fossil fuel stuff – I’m sick of breathing it. 

    For the health problems alone that coal and oil cause, the fact of the matter is that it’s costly in ways that have not one damn thing to do with the price at the pump. In 2008 alone, Exxon Mobil made a straight profit (after their joke taxes) of $40.7 billion dollars. So someone seriously needs to explain to me why such an industry needs tax breaks, much less SUBSIDIES. And not only are they failing to pay their fair share to keep America’s infrastructure properly functioning, but they are actually making the American people PAY THEM to charge Americans higher gas prices (a 35% increase in price in the second half of 2007 alone).To put this into perspective, if Exxon Mobil were a country, its profits would exceed the gross domestic product of nearly two thirds of the 183 nations in the World Bank’s economic rankings. Microsoft, widely considered emblematic of business success, makes 1/3rd what Exxon does. Together, the four largest oil companies, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Shell earn more than $100 billion in profit each year.Yet on top of this, the polluters get 16.3 billion in subsidies from the American taxpayer, and $53.9 billion in tax breaks.This is the EXACT OPPOSITE from the so-called “free market” that said corporatists always like to tout as the answer to everything.

  47. Personally, I don’t care if there are a billion years left of this fossil fuel stuff – I’m sick of breathing it. 

    For the health problems alone that coal and oil cause, the fact of the matter is that it’s costly in ways that have not one damn thing to do with the price at the pump. In 2008 alone, Exxon Mobil made a straight profit (after their joke taxes) of $40.7 billion dollars. So someone seriously needs to explain to me why such an industry needs tax breaks, much less SUBSIDIES. And not only are they failing to pay their fair share to keep America’s infrastructure properly functioning, but they are actually making the American people PAY THEM to charge Americans higher gas prices (a 35% increase in price in the second half of 2007 alone).To put this into perspective, if Exxon Mobil were a country, its profits would exceed the gross domestic product of nearly two thirds of the 183 nations in the World Bank’s economic rankings. Microsoft, widely considered emblematic of business success, makes 1/3rd what Exxon does. Together, the four largest oil companies, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Shell earn more than $100 billion in profit each year.Yet on top of this, the polluters get 16.3 billion in subsidies from the American taxpayer, and $53.9 billion in tax breaks.This is the EXACT OPPOSITE from the so-called “free market” that said corporatists always like to tout as the answer to everything.

    • Show me one subsidy ExxonMobil gets.

      You say the 4 biggest oil companies get $16.3 billion in subsidies?

      Show me $1 of it.

    • It’s funny, too, that in some cases the alternatives are cheaper, especially if you consider anything more than 5 year span, and people still go for the more expensive gas/oil.

      • How is it funny or surprising? You realize how many cars run on oil and how much a new system would cost to implement? I agree, we need to fix the oil issue, but get realistic.

  48. yeah climate has never changed and never will you guys are so stupid.

  49. yeah climate has never changed and never will you guys are so stupid.

  50. Oh good point.  I must concur with you then: Let’s charge the working class more for their source of transportation because afterall; the Amish aren’t complaining (especially not on the internet)!

  51. You sure are working hard to not convince anybody.

  52. Anonymous | Jun 27, 2011 at 3:22 pm |

    Show me one subsidy ExxonMobil gets.

    You say the 4 biggest oil companies get $16.3 billion in subsidies?

    Show me $1 of it.

  53. Anonymous | Jun 27, 2011 at 3:24 pm |

    Thank you Cardinal-Professor.

  54. Anonymous | Jun 27, 2011 at 5:15 pm |

    It’s funny, too, that in some cases the alternatives are cheaper, especially if you consider anything more than 5 year span, and people still go for the more expensive gas/oil.

  55. Anonymous | Jun 27, 2011 at 5:20 pm |

    Climategate?  The fact you even try to quote this really is a joke.  I could make any of your posts say you’re fully in support of carbon emissions removal, by using the same quoting style they used in climategate (short out of context quotes).
    As for it not being a problem – heh – depends if you believe the weather change is not related.  Just this weekend there was a major rainstorm in our city that took out roads and flooded tons of homes.  These people suddenly got a good taste of climate change… that kind of flooding didn’t happen as often as it is now.

  56. DeepCough | Jun 27, 2011 at 5:35 pm |

     Hey, hey, hey, I know it sucks to have grown up with the Petrol Model for energy, but that’s all the more reason why petroleum needs to be deprioritized and phased out as a passe form of fuel, just like other industrial chemicals (asbestos, DDT, lead paint, et al.) have been phased out because they’re too noxious and have caused enough problems to where we don’t use them anymore, and we should start taking that same attitude with gasoline.

  57. Paying more for gas won’t save the rainforest

  58. Paying more for gas won’t save the rainforest

  59. Yeah, while that may be true and all, that still doesn’t mean the whole fear-mongering over “global warming” really means a damn thing to us.  Yes, it gets warmer over a century and I’m sure it will be even warmer by 2100.  It is still being spun as if it is a real, current threat and it certainly is not.  If anything, I can see it being a damn good reason to switching to clean energy, but that’s no reason to use fear-mongering tactics to further that agenda.  It’s just convenient because it falls right in with end-times, 2012, alien apocalypse theories… it’s just plain dramatic.

  60. you should all stop having kids that will solve all problems.

  61. you should all stop having kids that will solve all problems.

  62. Ford429V8 | Jul 8, 2011 at 1:46 am |

    Yes, let’s all travel around by horse……..and find ourselves hip deep in manure. Great plan!

  63. How is it funny or surprising? You realize how many cars run on oil and how much a new system would cost to implement? I agree, we need to fix the oil issue, but get realistic.

  64. Adding up atomic weights has zero to do with conservation of mass.  Stop trying to appear smart.

    @6f1793f4933269e7b70f1581166f8e9a:disqus: The reason it adds up to be more is because gasoline is around 46% of what a total barrel of crude is.  So for every gallon of gasoline refined, there is over two gallons of crude oil being processed and more than that being burned to transport, pump, and refine it.  My math shows two gallons of gas is still only going to weigh around 15 pounds, so the rest comes from other processes (I think the number they show is really too high).

    Its kind of how corn ethanol is a net negative energy process because of the energy used to harvest, collect, transport, and refine…but with oil (where it is net positive).

  65. If you want to trend ten years of climate data versus the two hundred years since the Industrial Revolution, you barely know what even constitutes a data trend and there is therefore no convincing you anyway.

    Lost cause.

  66. Anonymous | Jul 8, 2011 at 11:24 pm |

    What a retard.

  67. JOHNSANDERS | Jul 9, 2011 at 3:03 am |

      This is bull crap!! if you don’t like it! Walk !!! pound sand! The moral High Ground is for the weak and dubious! It’ just another Jewish lie to bring us down!!!!

  68. JOHNSANDERS | Jul 8, 2011 at 11:03 pm |

      This is bull crap!! if you don’t like it! Walk !!! pound sand! The moral High Ground is for the weak and dubious! It’ just another Jewish lie to bring us down!!!!

  69. CRAP….BS….

  70. CRAP….BS….

  71. “according to your data sources.  Can we see more sources that correspond to that, please?”

    Try the Weather Channel

  72. USA citizens should feel lucky, the country i live in gas prices are
    double than yours, and we get it by double cheaper price than you. So you can
    see how country i live in still from its citizens

  73. USA citizens should feel lucky, the country i live in gas prices are
    double than yours, and we get it by double cheaper price than you. So you can
    see how country i live in still from its citizens

  74. These little numbers games are cute, but not at all realistic. You calculate the “costs to society” of gas, but then fail to calculate the costs if all the working stiffs, like me, have to pay through the nose for gas. Suddenly, we won’t be buying any luxury goods of any kind. No cable TV, no beer on Friday, no dinner out on Sunday, nothing. Many will be forced to quit jobs because they can no longer afford to get to them. The cost of everything else will skyrocket, food, clothing, everything. Wages, of course, will be the last thing to rise, and not ever enough. Now go calculate those costs to society and try again.

  75. These little numbers games are cute, but not at all realistic. You calculate the “costs to society” of gas, but then fail to calculate the costs if all the working stiffs, like me, have to pay through the nose for gas. Suddenly, we won’t be buying any luxury goods of any kind. No cable TV, no beer on Friday, no dinner out on Sunday, nothing. Many will be forced to quit jobs because they can no longer afford to get to them. The cost of everything else will skyrocket, food, clothing, everything. Wages, of course, will be the last thing to rise, and not ever enough. Now go calculate those costs to society and try again.

  76. Thejakeyl88 | Jul 11, 2011 at 8:21 pm |

    Significant warming?  Like on Jupiter, and all the other planets that have billions of humans driving around right?  They jumped on this to market it and spin it their way, and eventually come up with the magical plan to save us all, its all bull.  I like my gas, I like my gas powered car, I’m not going to trade it in for a 4 foot long vehicle with a 3 hp engine to satisfy all these people, sun cycles people, what causes ice ages, and the opposite?  Well before humans were around?  Magical dinosaur farts?  Give me a break.

  77. Thejakeyl88 | Jul 11, 2011 at 8:21 pm |

    Significant warming?  Like on Jupiter, and all the other planets that have billions of humans driving around right?  They jumped on this to market it and spin it their way, and eventually come up with the magical plan to save us all, its all bull.  I like my gas, I like my gas powered car, I’m not going to trade it in for a 4 foot long vehicle with a 3 hp engine to satisfy all these people, sun cycles people, what causes ice ages, and the opposite?  Well before humans were around?  Magical dinosaur farts?  Give me a break.

  78. Thejakeyl88 | Jul 11, 2011 at 4:21 pm |

    Significant warming?  Like on Jupiter, and all the other planets that have billions of humans driving around right?  They jumped on this to market it and spin it their way, and eventually come up with the magical plan to save us all, its all bull.  I like my gas, I like my gas powered car, I’m not going to trade it in for a 4 foot long vehicle with a 3 hp engine to satisfy all these people, sun cycles people, what causes ice ages, and the opposite?  Well before humans were around?  Magical dinosaur farts?  Give me a break.

  79. If everyone who bitched incessantly about the horrors of petroleum were to actually stop using petroleum, well…not much would change, but at least you wouldn’t be horrible hypocrites. If Al Gore were serious, he wouldn’t jet all over the globe and live in a sprawling mansion; ergo, he’s not serious, ergo none of you are. Walk the walk, or shut it (preferably #2).

  80. If everyone who bitched incessantly about the horrors of petroleum were to actually stop using petroleum, well…not much would change, but at least you wouldn’t be horrible hypocrites. If Al Gore were serious, he wouldn’t jet all over the globe and live in a sprawling mansion; ergo, he’s not serious, ergo none of you are. Walk the walk, or shut it (preferably #2).

  81. There are replacements for things like lead paint–like paint without lead, for example. What’s your replacement for gasoline? Do you have some kind of magic fuel I can put into my tank? Unicorn pee or something? Do you have an alternative for the smug plug-in electric car drivers who fuel their vehicles with power from coal fired plants? As for DDT, it was banned for dubious (i.e. stupid) reasons, and the result has been millions of unnecessary deaths from malaria (though those people were mostly brown, so maybe they’re less important). If your logic follows, it’s worth millions of deaths if it means we don’t use gas anymore–tough sell for you…

Comments are closed.