Oil at $100 Barrel

[Gusterfell]

^Agreed. Unfortunately a new energy policy will require that the energy companies voluntarily take a hit to their historically high profits. The Republican leadership made their fortunes in oil, and have a personal interest in the status quo, and the Democrats seem only slightly more willing to go against big oil.

This recent spike is based on the possibility that the Turks might destabilize Iraq (which is currently neither stable nor a significant producer of oil), and that a tropical storm might hit the Gulf Coast (which is a possibility for about six months of every year, and rarely results in major disruption to oil supply). Give me a break.

[Rybak 187]

Well, gas went up to $3.19 a gallon up here in Bay City, Michigan today.

[Lowerdeck]

Over $3 in much of Connecticut, and Mass. is working its way back there.

Totally unreasonable.

[suburban george3]

Most stations here are $2.80... but a couple are at $2.95!

[runawayjim]

the gas station i go to is at 2.83 now, having risen steadily over the course of the past 2 weeks from 2.59, where it stayed for over a month.

[peaceloveunderstanding]

[Neo]

I for one am glad to see expensive gas. I do drive to work as does my wife, but our commute distance is very short (~5-8 minutes for me depending on traffic). Perhaps this will long-term encourage great density and slower growth on the outer suburbs of cities. Perhaps auto manufactures will also be more pressed to develop more efficient designs. I'm more than happy to pay whatever price per gallon it takes to limit all of the 8mpg Hummers we have on the roads.

[Rybak 187]

$95.93 today

[tamias6]

What do all of you think the magic number will be to cause people to say "Enough is Enough!" and bring on a fundamental shift from an automotive centric life style to something else. $5.00 per gallon? $10.00 per gallon? $20.00 perhaps?

[runawayjim]

What do all of you think the magic number will be to cause people to say "Enough is Enough!" and bring on a fundamental shift from an automotive centric life style to something else. $5.00 per gallon? $10.00 per gallon? $20.00 perhaps?

[monsoon]

What do all of you think the magic number will be to cause people to say "Enough is Enough!" and bring on a fundamental shift from an automotive centric life style to something else. $5.00 per gallon? $10.00 per gallon? $20.00 perhaps?

[Raintree21]

How have people in other countries responded to high gasoline costs? While they measure it in Liters in Europe (right?), isn't their cost like $4 or $5 already?

[kayman]

What do all of you think the magic number will be to cause people to say "Enough is Enough!" and bring on a fundamental shift from an automotive centric life style to something else. $5.00 per gallon? $10.00 per gallon? $20.00 perhaps?

[UptownNewOrleans]

Driving a gas guzzler is a sign that you have "made it". The issue is that many cities don't have efficient public transportation so most people depend on their cars to get around. That's what I like about New Orleans; for the most part you can get around without a car. Need to get to Uptown from the CBD/French Quarter and vice versa? No problem, hop on a streetcar. Want to go across the river to Algiers but don't want to fight interstate traffic? Get on a ferry. In Houston, everything is spread out so a car is mandatory.

[Gusterfell]

How have people in other countries responded to high gasoline costs? While they measure it in Liters in Europe (right?), isn't their cost like $4 or $5 already?

[tamias6]

.... As long as our government is run by people with close personal ties to big oil, nothing will change, and gas prices will go up and up despite the massive federal subsidies.

[Raintree21]

Oil passed the $97/barrel mark today. Wow. This is happening much faster than I thought it would.

[JerseyBoy]

$3.05 now in my neighborhood.

[Neo]

I really don't see why folks are being saddened by this price hike in gas. If anything it will benefit us all long-term as it pushes alternative fuels, more efficient automobiles, shorter commute times (ease of congestion on our roads), and higher density near core business areas.

Sure, some may suffer for a while to fill their Hummers and fast sports cars but can we really blame the price hike in gas for this? Shouldn't we be blaming ourselves for giving in to the "American Dream?"

[Captain Worley]

The people who really suffer are the people with the late eighties Cutlasses that get 14-18 mpg. For me, I'll just put less of my money in the bank (not good) or not spend as much (not good for the economy). I see plenty bad with high gas prices, and I drive a 30mpg car.

Sure, over the long run, it'll bring about more fuel efficient cars, maybe more alternative fuels, but I don't think Americans will change their commute length or move intown in droves.

[runawayjim]

while i fully understand the benefits it will bring, there is a huge downside. think of the people who can't afford to move to the town where they work or to switch jobs or to get a newer, more fuel efficient car. they're the people this will hurt. the people driving hummers, escalades, and suburbans can afford the price hike. it's the people driving 10+ year old cars that can't.

unfortunately, this is what it's come to because our government that claims to be all about alternative fuels has done nothing towards helping R&D of these alternative fuels, yet it continues to subsidize oil. and by alternative fuels, i'm not talking ethanol. the push for ethanol has already hurt other parts of the economy. i'm a big fan of craft beer and as more farmers grow corn instead of barley because of the demand for ethanol, barley prices rise, causing the small brewers to pass on additional costs to the consumer (either that or risk going out of business). we need a balance of all sorts of alternative fuels, including biodiesel, better research into fuel cells, and more efficient gas/electric hybrids.

and because mass transit isn't funded properly, it's likely there will be fare increases, more over crowding, but no additional funding.

[suburban george3]

OIL has zoomed past $98.00 today, so far the high is $98.62

While I personally believe this price in oil is unsubstantiated, the rise in fuel prices will just keep growing the market for more fuel efficient cars and the push towards alternative energy sources. The group it's hurting the most right now are people who are living at or below the poverty level. Many of our cities are not public transit minded and these folks still must drive to work. If they are saddled with gas guzzler, their chances of being able to get out of those vehicles are sometimes slim. It is going to take a significant price hike to where even the middle class can't manage with fuel prices for a massive sweeping change to take hold.

[Neo]

True, many cities do not have the public transit available for those who need it the most but again you have the chicken and the egg. What's the point of having a transit system that no one will ride? Perhaps the rising cost of fuel will in return 'fuel' the implementation of transit systems where there currently are none. For those that live out in the middle of nowhere this is obviously not going to work, but considering a very large percentage of Americans live near a major metro area it really doesn't affect all that many individuals.

There are fuel efficient cars that are 10, 15, 20 years old that can be purchased by those that can't afford newer more efficient vehicles. Countless Honda Civics, Toyota Corolla's, etc. are still on the road from this era and offer excellent gas mileage. Sure beats the heck out of a 14-18mpg Cutlass.

[tamias6]

So we want the price of oil to continue to shoot for the stars thus causing folks to move to urban cores in droves. But there is one slight catch. That is the price of real estate. If such a shift occurred, real estate prices in urban cores would immediately go up. Thus the ones that are feeling the pain of rising energy costs the most I.e. the poor, working classes, and lower middle classes will not be able to afford living in the city and closer to their jobs. They will still be stuck in the burbs. In the meantime gentrification would push the inner city poor out of the city. As a result we would see a population pattern similar to ancient and medieval cities in which the affluent live inside the city while the less wealthy classes live rural areas and the outermost fringes of urban areas.

Mass transit might take care of some of that problem. But real estate prices are effected by the presence of mass transit lines esp. fixed guide ways. In Portland Oregon, the price of real estate within waking distance of its new streetcar lines shot through the roof the moment the lines were installed. Thus it would be difficult for those of modest incomes to reside within easy reach of Mas Transit. As the price of oil continues to rise the need for mass transit will increase. But the effects on real estate prices as seen in Portland would be amplified shunning those who would need mass transit the most.

Therefore city planners and governments are going to have to find ways to keep the price of urban residences affordable once the shift happens. If that is not achievable they will need to figure out ways to subsidize the housing needs of the the poor, working classes, and lower middle classes--but not in a 1960's public housing projects kind of way.

[Raintree21]

People speak of the high prices resulting in demand for higher demand for better fuel efficiency. Only problem is, all of the legislation for better fuel efficiency requires modest improvements by dates that are decades in the future. How does that help us now?