Date:         Thu, 21 Mar 2002 18:14:05 -0700
Reply-To:     jbrush@AROS.NET
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         John Brush <jbrush@AROS.NET>
Subject:      Re: Fuel prices - no Vanagon content
In-Reply-To:  <200203211652.g2LGqo710361@mail.lanline.com>

>Because we would be importing less (quantity), we would be less dependent
>(75% of a million
>gallons is less than 75% of 2 million gallons is it not?).
>Because we would be buying a lesser percentage of the oil nations output,
>they would have less
>influence on us.  If the foreign source were cut off, it would have less
>impact.

I think that if you get 75% of your fuel from other sources, and use less,
you still get 75% of your fuel from other sources, so your dependence is
the same. In order to be less dependent, you have to create your own, not
cut back on what you use. If you buy your food at the store, you are 100%
dependent on that store. Eating less does not reduce your dependence on
the supermarket. Its still 100% unless you grow your own.

>cheap. Remember when we
>had the EPA mpg regulations how the vahicle manufacturers somehow made
>the gas mileage improve
>each year?

We still have them and the group mileage is improving, but people want the
10mpg SUVs which offsets the improved overall mileage of the fleets.

>>
>If we were less dependent on foregign oil, we would not have to do that
>and could save an enormous amount of money (and American lives). Your
>point seems like an argument in favor of
>being less dependent on foreign oil.

I think there is plenty, and more, oil in North America, and other safer
places where we could get our oil from, but the oil companies have a
sweetheart deal and are not gonna muck with it. They say there is not
enough oil in our country, but I tend to think they are liars and cannot
be trusted. The people who do the testing are of areas, such as ANWR, are
oil people, they are gonna report whatever is in their best interests. The
oil companies own the solar industry, so forget about them pushing solar,
as that would cut into their oil profits. Its not like they are doing what
is best for America. What is best for the US is not the same as what is
best for the stockholders. Its a major can of worms, if you ask me.

>>
>Probably true, but its an inefficient system of financing. The people who
>use the gas should
>pay for the gas. Thats not happening - that would only happen if the cost
>of gas is the true
>cost (i.e. much higher).

But if we bump the price at the pump, there will not be a change in the
back door method of charging us, so the cost would simply go up, with no
benefit. See the above can of worms :-) If we are paying some number such
as $12 a gallon for real, moving the pump price up to $6 does nothing but
raise yours and my cost to $18. Its not like the government would cut the
other costs to balance it out. See the above can of worms.......

>The price of gas should also include the the cost of the effects of
>pollution and the cost of
>building and maintaining the road network.


Pollution is a side effect of living in densely populated areas.  That's
why there is no emission checking in some states. Automobile pollution is
not a problem on the earth, only in the areas that are densely populated
with automobiles, so maybe city dwellers should pay more because they are
the ones living in their own pollution :-)

Its a can of worms, and it will not be fixed, but it will be torn down and
destroyed, but that is a topic for another group :-)

I just know that I am sick of people telling us how much Europe pays for
their gas, and thinking that we should too.  Lets do it the other way and
tell Europe that they should lower their prices since ours are so low. <g>
The price of gas in other countries has nothing to do with how much it
should be in the U.S. Its apples vs oranges, and has no merit.
 IMO, of course

Regards,

John