Before Obama: Gas was $1.84 a gallon in 2008

[_Brackite]

California Gas Stations Begin to Shut on Record-High Prices:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-0 ... rices.html

[_Bob Loblaw]

http://www.mlive.com/business/mid-michigan/index.ssf/2012/10/hundreds_line_up_for_184_gas_a.html

To start 2001 it was about $1.42.

And the collapse of oil prices had nothing to do with a worldwide recession.

You obviously don't know a damn thing about the oil industry. Here's the chart, for what it's worth:



And here it is in unadjusted dollars:



Do you really want to argue that gas prices declined during the Bush years?

[_LittleNipper]

My personal feeling is that the sooner gas reaches $100.00 a gallon, the sooner only the rich will own automobiles and the environment will be all better.

[_Brackite]

Californians hit with unprecedented gasoline price jump:
http://news.yahoo.com/california-gasoli ... nance.html

[Guest]

We should at least all agree that if we want people to use less gasoline, the best way to do it is for gas prices to increase. It's basic economics. It's more powerful and effective than any argument, plea, mandate, or attempted influence or intervention by the government or anyone else.

So if someone wants people to use less gasoline, they're fools if they don't want gas prices to increase.

So if someone says they want people to use less gasoline, but also say they don't want higher gas prices, they're stupid and/or lying.

As far as I can tell (as a Californian), this recent spike is a local state issue. Are other parts of the country seeing similar increases?

[_Bob Loblaw]

We should at least all agree that if we want people to use less gasoline, the best way to do it is for gas prices to increase. It's basic economics. It's more powerful and effective than any argument, plea, mandate, or attempted influence or intervention by the government or anyone else.

So if someone wants people to use less gasoline, they're fools if they don't want gas prices to increase.

So if someone says they want people to use less gasoline, but also say they don't want higher gas prices, they're either stupid or lying.

Yep. The reason alternative energy (wind, solar, etc.) is becoming more common is that fossil fuel prices are high enough that they are no longer prohibitively expensive by comparison. That's the same reason the Alberta tar sands are now being exploited: before it was too expensive a project. Of course, killing the XL pipeline means the Canadians are likely to build a pipeline to British Columbia to sell the oil to the Chinese.

[_Quasimodo]

Yep. The reason alternative energy (wind, solar, etc.) is becoming more common is that fossil fuel prices are high enough that they are no longer prohibitively expensive by comparison. That's the same reason the Alberta tar sands are now being exploited: before it was too expensive a project. Of course, killing the XL pipeline means the Canadians are likely to build a pipeline to British Columbia to sell the oil to the Chinese.

It really doesn't matter where the oil reaches a sea transportation point. It will be sold on the open market to whoever is willing to pay the best price. There is no system that guarantees that the oil collected in one continent is not used in another.

It won't make any difference where the pipeline goes.

Of course, running a pipeline across the Canadian Rockies would be much more expensive to build. No doubt that's why they would like to run it to Texas.

[_Bond James Bond]

As far as I can tell (as a Californian), this recent spike is a local state issue. Are other parts of the country seeing similar increases?

Gas has been steadily going down in KY since Labor Day. 349 here.

[_Kevin Graham]

This isn't rocket science here.

Gasoline prices are driven primarily by the price of crude. As crude is a globally traded commodity, there is very little US policy could to to affect change in the price. To do so would be nothing short of government intervention in the free market which is considered blasphemy to Right Wingers anyway, so it is funny that they would complain about Obama not stepping in to try to lower the price of crude.

The best way to lower prices is to lower demand. Since, our share of the global demand is far greater than our share of the global production of crude, it makes sense to focus on reducing demand (i.e. more efficient vehicles, Green energy investment). Republicans have this all backwards, focusing more on production, which in their best case scenario, wouldn't make a dent in the price of gasoline for at least ten years anyway, and even then, at just a few cents per gallon.

[_krose]

It really doesn't matter where the oil reaches a sea transportation point. It will be sold on the open market to whoever is willing to pay the best price. There is no system that guarantees that the oil collected in one continent is not used in another.

It won't make any difference where the pipeline goes.

Of course, running a pipeline across the Canadian Rockies would be much more expensive to build. No doubt that's why they would like to run it to Texas.

Exactly. The pipeline would definitely help TransCanada in several ways. But it would do nothing to help American consumers.

On an entertaining side note, I love how Romney includes Mexico and Canada production when touting his bogus "independence" goal. He always says "North American energy independence."