Any relief on gas prices?

Good response, Mr. van Ulden. Seems like Taffy may learn something from watching “Faux news or OAN.” Of course, Taffy is free to write to these establishments and give them a piece of his mind – the piece available after Taffy stops willfully ignoring treasonous Biden.

Dirk,

May I ask what pipeline you are speaking about? Is it the Keystone pipeline which is to bring tar sands crude from Canada to the gulf for processing and shipping to foreign countries? The US exports more oil than it imports. So how would the pipeline help Americans other than increasing the profit for the ones that own and operate the refineries and pipelines? It won't lower our gas prices.

BTW, ultra-liberal is not a good description, I oppose a lot of the progressive movements and proposals, You may be confused because I also oppose the bunk and hypocrisy of the gullible MAGA crowd.

Taffy - If the President had not canceled the Keystone pipeline, the pipeline would have created a positive economic impact of $3.6 to $9.6 billion. What’s more, the administration finally admitted that the President killed between 16,000 and 59,000 jobs with the stroke of a pen." https://www.daines.senate.gov/2023/01/05/daines-risch-biden-administration-report-admits-cancelling-keystone-xl-pipeline-killed-thousands-of-jobs-cost-billions/

The United States of America was 100% energy independent when Trump was President. Once Biden was sworn in he, the USA when from independent to dependent and now imports oil, & prices have increased 67%. This proves Biden is a feckless leader held hostage by counterfeit green energy.

easygerd, thanks for doing some homework and providing us with statistics that support your narrative. However, a little more homework shows that the length of trips you report can be misconstrued. If we look at trips via vehicles, the distance traveled is much more than three miles and is prohibitive of bicycle use. (Reference a summary at https://aaafoundation.org/american-driving-survey-2022/ and the full report at https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/202309_2022-AAAFTS-American-Driving-Survey-Brief_v3.pdf.) I have no issues if we want to build more bike lanes but not at the expense of road diets because like it or not, bicycles are not convenient for everyday life and activities, as the linked report above shows.

As for your price gouging numbers, I’d like to see the report and from where their numbers derive. If I recall correctly, Hawaii attempted to place a cap on their gas prices but when they didn’t get the results they wanted, because their gas prices increased, Hawaii repealed their law. Since this is California, it’s highly likely that this price gouging committee is all show and no substance.

Are you speaking for yourself or all of us?

"Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times."

I know the car-lobby has created these "good times" over the last 60 years, where people think they need to drive everywhere and are entitled enough to think speeding is their right and never pay their fair share for excessive car infrastructure. So far only speeders seem to complain about road diets. What is so bad about driving within the speed limit?

Your statistics - from the car-lobby through a survey within car-lobby members- are just confirming what we have discussed before. During the pandemic, people weren't making trips they needed to make. As soon as highways were empty, they started joyriding and they ramped up speeding. The Starbucks coffee 20 miles away is so much better than the one from across the street.

But not all of us have become weak and we want to support the local car-centric economy, which seems to be bleeding out. People that drive 20 miles to run an errand don't spend locally.

Only 10% of the world's population owns cars. There are plenty of young and old people around the world riding their bicycles for 3 miles, 5 miles and more. There are e-bikes to cover 10 mile trips in only 30 min. If you believe the car-lobby and the 'influencers' they pay, Americans are the only ones that can't do that without a Tesla Cybertruck or Dodge Mega-RAM. Have all American man really that weak?

Is the Governator really the only strong American left:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUcNdiBCEkQ

easygerd, thanks for your questions. I’m assuming anyone writing an LTE or a comment is speaking for themselves, and in many cases, advocating for a specific point-of-view (POV). Before I accept that POV, I ask questions or throw wrenches into their works to see if their POV remains valid. If their POV can’t stand up to inspection, their POV is categorized as opinion. In your case, you cite statistics on trip length yet I find your trip length isn’t as convincing as you would like it to be. Compare your statistics with living life and your POV isn’t the panacea you hope. You call my statistics into question, which is valid, but paired with life my statistics don’t support your POV. You make light of a car-centric economy but America is a car-centric economy not because of the car lobby but because of life, and if you want to blame city planners, go for it. Bicycles are an alternative form of transportation but nowhere as versatile as a car, especially during inclement weather. Does everyone need Cybertrucks or Dodge Mega-RAMs? Definitely not, but you might see more of those types of cars on the road during a car trip than the number of cyclists.

As for American men, or women, being weak, you’d have to ask the folks who believe an end to fossil fuels will solve the man-made global warming baking the Earth while they conveniently ignore where this magic electricity is made. Or the folks who believe in a J6 insurrection when it’s apparent they have no idea what an insurrection is, and if they did, BLM’s run of murder and mayhem is much worse than J6 ever was. Again, if one is unable to support their POV, they have an opinion governed by emotion, not logic. Which is fine, but don’t be surprised or offended when others don’t join the cause.

I do appreciate you bringing up the importance of Point of View (POV) into this discussion. So let's get back into the oil industry discussion and the get POV of experts:

International Monetary Fund:

"subsidies for oil, coal and natural gas are costing the equivalent of 7.1 percent of global gross domestic product. That’s more than governments spend annually on education (4.3 percent of global income) and about two thirds of what they spend on healthcare (10.9 percent). ... analysis shows that consumers did not pay for over $5 trillion of environmental costs last year."

"If governments removed explicit subsidies and imposed corrective taxes, fuel prices would increase. This would lead firms and households to consider environmental costs when making consumption and investment decisions. The result would be cutting global carbon-dioxide emissions significantly, cleaner air, less lung and heart disease, and more fiscal space for governments."

And to say thanks to America's consumers that are paying for these subsidies, the Oil Industry has been gouging up pricing, increased transportation cost and is responsible for much of the global inflation.

It is very well known by now that the oil industry is getting subsidies upstream, midstream, downstream, basically everywhere. There is also a well-known history of price coughing and collusion between the different players. The refineries are constantly put in 'planned crisis mode' to justify high prices.

Nobody who isn't paid by the car lobby or the oil industry is complaining about gas prices and then defending the oil industry. Nobody who isn't paid by the Oil Industry would take oil subsidy, air pollution, and global warming over education, healthcare, cleaner air, fewer diseases and more conservative fiscal policies.

Anybody who does defend Big Oil these days is either A) a Russian Bot or B) a Paid Crisis Actor. So what is your excuse or POV on this?

I admire your persistence, easygerd, but you're still not cutting the mustard. Let's take a peek under the IMF report hood from an expert's POV (https://www.artberman.com/blog/the-big-lie-about-fossil-fuel-subsidies/). Sure, your 7.1% of global GDP appears impressive but as we can see, your 7.1% of global GDP is reduced to a true fossil fuel subsidy of 0.0001% of world GDP ($51 billion). If we want to get rid of these subsidies, go ahead. This will potentially result in slightly higher prices but we know that lowering consumption of fossil fuels is not an option as undeveloped and developed countries continue to advance in becoming the best they can be. That’s the reality.

If you feel I’m defending Big Oil and I only have two choices then fine, you can refer to me as TerenceBot (although not too many bots can handle idioms) because unless you count Big Oil dividends, I’m not being paid by Big Oil. And why do I need an excuse? Reality speaks for itself. As for my POV, it’s that your POV thus far isn’t convincing. Big Oil is here to stay as long as countries require reliable sources of power. Adapting alternate forms of energy is a plus but there needs to be a return on investment.

But hey, enough from TerenceBot, what’s your solution? Riding bikes or cutting $51 billion in subsidies won’t reduce Big Oil. I’m all for nuclear power but for some unknown reason greenies don’t want to pursue our cleanest form of energy. Why not? Seems to me that if carbon emissions are a problem, they’d be going nuclear on demanding nuclear. From their inaction, perhaps what these greenies are saying is that carbon emissions aren’t really a problem. Perhaps greenies and "climate scientists" are more interested in keeping Big Government Money flowing to them by paying lip service to the false man-made climate change narrative? Do svidaniya!

I like it. TerrenceBot has a ring to it and shows humor; bots don't understand sarcasm or humor🙂

But that still doesn't explain why you would defend a multi-billion dollar, corrupt business model. They get subsidies, they are allowed to overcharge, they own politicians, heck they own countries. Why support that for free. People get paid to 'test' toaster-ovens or unwrap toys on Youtube, why would anybody astroturf, sorry 'Influencering' for Big Oil for free?

The solution of course is called Capitalism, which if I remember correctly America pretends has won over Socialism. If the US was capitalistic however, it would stop subsidizing Big Oil and Big Car and start supporting their competition instead. Why is money constantly pulled away from Public and Active Transportation (walking/biking) to bail out car-infrastructure? If car-infrastructure was so superior it could stand on its own feet, but the fact that they need subsidies and bail-outs (who can forget about the bail-out of car companies in 2008 which also wiped out GM worker's pensions?).

I don't like EVs as means to save the world and the planet. What EVs could do however is to create an alternative or competition to Oil. PG&E already proved they are not having that either - they are also a monopoly. Which means the solution to that is nationalization of infrastructure. California needs to be in charge of infrastructure and lease that out to private companies instead of having PG&E do whatever they want.

Which leads us back to the only solution that is immediate, cheap and make sense: the bike lane.

Everybody has a choice of where they work, where they live, where they run their errands. Choice is good, but Big Government does not need to subsidize every stupid choice. If somebody drives 30 miles for better job, they can pay more for the use of infrastructure. But what we currently don't have is good walking/biking infrastructure. Everything you could possibly wish for is available within 5-10 miles, with bike infrastructure people have another incentive to stay and spend local.

easyG (or EGerd?) – TBot here. Thanks for your response but let’s take a closer look at your POV… Everyone, including yourself, defends your alleged ‘multi-billion dollar, corrupt business model’ because folks don’t have another choice. They may think they do but when they stop and face reality they’ll realize Big Oil, like money, makes the world go round. You think EVs save the world? Hardly. How much Big Oil is used to mine for raw materials, transfer raw materials, manufacture EVs, haul EVs to the car lot, lug used batteries to whoever will take them? Same with solar panels, same with batteries. Has anyone calculated the net carbon savings, if any, when you consider the cradle to grave lifecycle of EVs, solar panels, batteries, etc.? Even folks who purport to save the world by telling us to reduce our carbon footprint are burning tons of carbon to do so (a la climate conferences). Hypocritical, much?

You say if someone drives 30 miles for a better job, the can pay more for the use of infrastructure. They do. In fuel taxes, but not EVs (another subsidy for the better off among us). You say everyone has a choice of where they work and where they live. Really? So employers and home sellers must accede to an employee and what a homebuyer wishes to pay? You say everything I could possibly wish for is available within 5-10 miles. Really? I haven’t seen professional sports teams relocating to San Mateo. If they did, I might bike to the stadium/arena/venue to see their games. But other folks have more exotic wishes. By the time you grant all their wishes the 5-10 miles has become 20-30 miles. Oh no!

Choice is good and I’m all for it, but some choices are better and more practical. More bike lanes? Sure, as long as you don't impose road diets. As we’ve been discussing, the choice of biking isn’t anywhere close to ideal as you’d like it to be. Coming full circle… Problem solved with bike lanes, unless you need to tote handfuls of groceries or anything else unwieldy, uphill 5 miles, both ways (as the old saying goes). Even with bike lanes.

Why do you keep saying that EVERYBODY needs to ride a bike if there are bike lanes? Which California law forces people to give up driving as soon as they own a bike or if there is a bike lane? Where is this hoax coming from? Russia?

You are correct however, BEV cars will not be saving the planet, nor will BEV trucks. The larger the battery, the more useless they have become as tools to safe the planet. It allows Gavin to "look green" rather than being green. Pretending EVs are just as good as bicycles, gives Newsom an out to keep hating on bicycles - which he has done since his SF Mayor days. California together with PG&E already messed up the whole EV thing. Now BEVs are a problem rather than a solution. But ebikes are part of the solution. They sell like crazy, they work easily for 5-10 mile trips even uphill, against the wind, in rain, on sand or even snow ... and they can carry quite the cargo. As tricycles they even work for people with all kinds of disabilities or children, who cannot drive cars. Nobody ever talks about them of course.

EV cars also don't bring any relieve in terms of parking or congestion, eBikes achieve that easily. In fact there are only two ways to solve congestion and parking issues: bus lanes and bike lanes. And if you really wanted to support the poor, again bus lanes and bike lanes, is the simple solution.

There is a reason Copenhagen, Amsterdam or Berlin have little congestion compared to London, Paris, Chicago, Bay Area, etc. The more bike lanes, the more people ride their bicycles, the more space on highways and in parking lots. I don't know why any driver would favor congestion and searching for parking ... unless of course they are crisis actors paid by Big Oil.

e-Gerd out.

e-Gerd. TBot here. Why do you keep saying that EVERYBODY needs to ride a bike when they aren’t convenient or practical for life? Where is this hoax coming from? Ukraine? You say you don’t know why any driver would favor congestion and search for parking? If we follow your logic path, wouldn’t cyclists begin encountering congestion and having to search for parking? But on the bright side, more space on highways and in parking lots for those of us supporting Big Oil – basically all of us, as explained previously.

So what now? We all need to become pedestrians? Problem solved – no highways, no parking lots, and no need for Big Oil? Except Big Oil is used in thousands of everyday products. Reduce big oil from gas and guess what, cheaper prices for manufacturers of plastic, asphalt, cosmetics, paint, and the list goes on… for thousands of items. And of course, let’s not forget the granddaddy of them all… Big Oil is used to supply at least half of all electricity in our grand old U.S. of A. TBot out.

BTW, with all this talk of biking, I think I’m going to take a ride but not to haul 5 bags of groceries. Just myself, which depending on who you talk to, could be an ordeal, especially if they keep me company, conversation-wise. Have a great weekend.

I love it when people find consensus after a serious discussion. It seems like we were both wrong, California really has no law that forces EVERYBODY to ride a bicycle even if they don't want to and even if there are a few cheap bike lanes here and there. Oil is a very important substance to humans. It grew over millions and billions of years, it just seems stupid to dig it all up and burn it all within a time of 200 years. So people with an unrestraint urge to drive their oversized trucks and SUV to Swedish Furniture stores, Marin County Starbucks or a Professional Sports team can still do so. But they should also pay for that themselves.

People that pay $15 for a Vanilla-Drzl-Flan-Syrup-Frappuccino-Grande-Extremo can also pay their fair share to get there. The same is true with people who are willing to pay for a $15 beer and $40 parking. What will these socialist snowflakes come up next? Free education for all? Free health care for just about anybody, even the fastfood eaters and those that can't even walk a mile or ride a bicycle for 3 miles?

Real patriots would want to spend their money locally, non-congested, non-polluting, and without being a leech on society. Riding has always been part of American history, let's not stop that. Patriots want horse trails and bike lanes separated from polluting cars.

We also seem to agree that the oil industry is important and EVs are already a failed proposal thanks to failed green politics. But nobody being of sound mind would ever complain about gas prices, but then defend price-gouging Big Oil. At least not for free. Anybody who does defend Big Oil is either a 'sponsored politician', works for a 'sponsored politician' or is a paid crisis actor. And paid opinions don't matter. Let's complain about price-gouging and the CA politicians that know it but don't step in.