For the last time, folks, I'm begging you: NOT PUMPING GAS FOR ONE DAY IS A STUPID IDEA!

[Redstone]

You want to have an effect on gasoline prices? Drive less. From now on. Period.

I'll spell it out for one final time before I give up in disgust: If nobody buys gasoline on May 15th, they'll either stock up on the 14th, or wait until the 16th and fill up then. the net effect on consumption, and the "Message to the Oil Companies" is ZERO.

Can we stop this madness now, PLEASE?

I'm begging you. Please stop. I've been listening to this nonsense since the 1973/1974 "To Hell with Shell" crap. It was a stupid idea then, and it's JUST as stupid an idea now.

You want gasoline prices to go down? Drive less. I know that's an unpopular idea because it requires doing something, rather than just bitching and complaining, but it's the stone cold hard truth.

Sorry if I've pissed on anyone's parade here, but you know what? I'm the one who will tell you the truth when nobody else will, no matter how much it pisses you off, or no matter how much I get flamed for it. And you know that. Flame and make excuses and piss and moan as much as you want, but in the end you'll have to admit that I'm right.

(Or go ahead and do your feel-good, no-sacrifice "one-day boycott," and get back to me to let me know how much it affected gasoline prices, OK?)

Redstone

[Sonicmedusa]

1. I hear yaz!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Absolutely right.

Not buying gas today only means you'll buy it tomorrow. There is no net difference in the amount purchased. It's meaningless.

[Xipe Totec]

3. I'm on public transportation

that's about as low as I can go.

[Redstone]

7. then you're part of the solution, aren't you? And hey, using public transport is NOT low.

I'm old enough to remember when "taking the bus" was not something people felt ashamed to do.

Redstone

[Xipe Totec]

54. I meant low gas, not low class

But thanks!

I tried to post last night but DU was acting flaky. could post on some threads but not others.

[Cha]

111. I walk to work..

I'm lower! :)

[Xipe Totec]

169. Oh, yea? Well... Uh... Yankees Suck!

Go Sox! :P

[Cha]

178. Yeah, the Yankees

do Suck! And I like the Red Sox except for that bushrot curt SHILLing.




I'm still lower! B-)

[Xipe Totec]

179. We'll call it a draw

[Cha]

183. Yes, by all means..I can

live with a draw!~ :7

[Adelante]

60. Or walking up the street to a store

It's a crime how driving everywhere became a "necessity" for practically everyone. Not that this wasn't intentional policy. Intentional bad policy.

[uppityperson]

12. My family could save $500+/month if public transit were available.

I wish it were. I would very much use it. ($500+ is for insurance, gas, upkeep, not including buying cars in the first place though, and discounting for 2 monthly transit passes).

[PegDAC]

133. Here in the Charleston area,

public transportation is available in Charleston and North Charleston, but not in the rest of the metro area, like where I live.

[NightWatcher]

4. I agree 100%

We can start on May 15th driving less, conserving energy and such, but gas companies measure their profits quarterly- they'd never notice the one day delay in profit.
Thom Hartmann was about to explode today saying the same thing as you Redstone. This is a stupid idea- plus I thought that it had been de-snoped as a joke.

[PegDAC]

135. I rarely leave the house these days.

I wouldn't drive on the 15th, but I have to go to my foreclosure hearing.

[patrice]

5. Or find a Citgo and shop there exclusively from now on if it's close enough. nm

[Kelly Rupert]

17. Also useless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility

[druidity33]

170. at least

the profits would go to a company that gives back to the people...


:shrug:

[Kelly Rupert]

187. No they wouldn't.

Oil is fungible. It doesn't matter who you choose to buy it from; each company will still sell every barrel they produce at market prices.

[druidity33]

238. whatever you say, but that doesn't make sense...

Despite the commodity and what it sells for. When you give money to a state run corporation that money goes back to the state. Citgo has been the largest purveyor of free home heating oil to the poor, takes the lowest profit margin and has been the most honest when it comes to questionable practices. Why shouldn't i give my money to the best outfit? My interest is not in showing the companies that i can live without gas for a day (I'm 36 and have never had a license, so i don't much contribute to the gas debacle), it's in approving of what they do with their PROFITS!

you just like saying fungible...
:)

[uppityperson]

6. You aren't convinced yet?

Aw come on, why are you always so negative.I am getting tired of this and of someone hassling everyone who responds with reality. Just wait, you'll see.

How to do it is drive less, decrease consumption. Overall. Do something worthwhile. Or just do this and shut up about it already. Annoying, isn't it?

[whathappened]

181. I DON'T TOTALY AGREE WITH YOU ,

IF NO BODY BUYS GAS ON MAY 15 THERE WILL BE ALOT OF HELP STANDING AROUND GETTING PAID , THAT MONEY COMES OUT OF SOMEONES POCKET , SO SHUT IT DOWN MAY 15 JUST FOR THE HELL OF IT

[Beartracks]

184. Standing around? Uh...

That would be the local help at the gas station, NOT the employees at Big Oil Headquarters and certainly not the CEO's and other big boys.

[Q3JR4]

194. If no one buys gas on May 15,

but people continue to drive the same amount they'll buy gas on May 14 or May 16. It makes no difference to the oil companies because in the end they still sell the same amount of gasoline.
The only way this might have an impact is if people DON'T drive at all on that day or take public transportation (in other words DO NOT USE ANY GASOLINE AT ALL).

If everything goes as planned and no one sells gasoline at all on that day, the oil companies stand to loose 100 million or 200 million dollars (maybe). When you bring in billions of dollars in profits, that's not going to be that big of a deal to you.

The best way to really stick it to them is for every one to come up with an alternative form of transportation and stick with it. Then again, as Redstone has pointed out, that involves DOING something.

[huskerlaw]

8. Totally agreed.

Those chain letter things drive me CRAZY. The gas companies don't give a shit if we boycott for one day. Why? Because they know full well that we'll all be filling up the next day. It hurts nobody, though it may inconvenience the morons (sorry, but seriously) who do it.

You're absolutely right about the only solution being to use less gas. Whether that's by buying a Prius, or riding a bike, or taking the bus, or consolidating errands so that you only drive the car into town once a week instead of two...whatever it is. DO SOMETHING.

Personally, I take the bus/subway 4 days a week. One day a week, it's not feasible due to my work hours. The other two days, I try to keep the driving down, though in LA that's sometimes easier said than done. I average a 12-gallon tank of gas every 3 weeks or so.

I know that public transportation isn't an option for everyone, but everyone has SOMETHING they can do to lower their gas usage. And boycotting once a year isn't it.

[BuyingThyme]

10. The current inflated gas prices

have next to nothing to do with the current demand for gas.

[huskerlaw]

11. And what good

does boycotting for a day do? NONE.

Your response doesn't change my point in the slightest.

[BuyingThyme]

13. Well, your point doesn't change, but it's totally wrong.

One-day events/protests get people's attention. That's why we do 'em.

[huskerlaw]

14. Whose attention?

Exxon's CEO? Hardly. If anything they laugh and wait for the profits to keep on rolling in the next day.

[BuyingThyme]

16. The people, the people's representatives.

It's a democracy thing. It's what we do here. Usually.

[huskerlaw]

18. Right.

Do you have ANY evidence that anything has ever changed because of a one-day gas boycott?

I'd love to see a link.

[BuyingThyme]

21. Do you have ANY evidence that anything has ever changed

because of ANY one-day protest?

Do you have ANY evidence that anything has ever changed because you voted one day, or called your representatives one day, or held a sign one day, or picked up litter one day, or smiled at the guy you passed on the sidewalk one day?

[huskerlaw]

26. Way to not address my post...

but here's the difference. If you protest, one day, say against the Iraq war, the point of your protest is to raise awareness about the need to pull out of the Iraq war. The more people who are convinced of your argument, the more pressure there is on elected officials, etc.

If you refuse to use gas for ONE DAY, the only awareness you raise is to not use gas for that ONE DAY. It does NOTHING. It doesn't make people think about constructive ways to lower their gas dependency. It just causes people to fill up either the night before or the morning after. I repeat...it accomplishes NOTHING.

Meanwhile, if you raise awareness for energy conservation by giving people real ways to reduce their gas usage rather than just postpone it for a day, you teach people something. They can reduce their usage. They can teach others how to do the same. They can put pressure on their elected officials. That's effective. Boycotting for a day, again, is NOT.

[BuyingThyme]

28. Look, I don't want to explain to you why I did not respond to

your fallacy. That's for you to figure out.

Now, if you take a moment to read this thread (or the others) you will find that this protest has already spawned discussion about conservation and such, therefore you are incorrect. In fact, you did it yourself.

[huskerlaw]

31. MY fallacy?

Please.

You're the one who isn't backing their argument with ANYTHING. NOTHING.

Just an FYI...you don't win an argument simply by claiming that your opponent is wrong and saying that they have to figure out why you're right. In fact, that's a pretty sure sign that your argument is, well...lacking. You'd be laughed out of the debate club.

If I'm so *wrong*, why don't you educate me? Unless, of course, you can't...

[BuyingThyme]

35. Okay, so you're asking me to prove that

no one-day protests ever achieve anything? Is that right?

And your evidence to the contrary is what again?

This is going to be fun.

[huskerlaw]

37. Are you kidding?

That's what YOU asked ME. For pete's sake, at least re-read the thread.

The conversation went like this:

YOU: Well, your point doesn't change, but it's totally wrong. One-day events/protests get people's attention. That's why we do 'em.

ME: Do you have ANY evidence that anything has ever changed because of a one-day gas boycott?

After that YOU went off on the effectiveness of other one-day protests. You are the one not answering the question. But apparently you don't even know what the question is...

[BuyingThyme]

40. Look, I have already proven that this particular one-day protest

caused you to talk about conservation and the like. And it hasn't even begun. You are living proof of my point. If we were in a debate, they'd hang me for murder.

Now, do you need me to prove that you are alive?

Well, let's make it easier. Can you support anything you've said? Anything at all?

[huskerlaw]

42. No, I'm not living proof of your point!

This thread hasn't gotten me to do anything to conserve gas. No one-day protest has either. JEEBUS.

YOU are the one who accused me of being wrong. YOU are the one who has NOTHING to back yourself up.

Do I have proof that a one-day gas protest doesn't work? SURE. If everyone who does it just delays getting gas for a day, it doesn't do SHIT. I'd be all for it if the message included ways to actually change energy dependency, but it doesn't. If you think I'm wrong, show me some evidence. But you can't, cuz YOU DON'T HAVE ANY.

Unless you can come up with evidence to back up your assertion that I'm wrong, we're done with this conversation. It's no more constructive to argue with someone who doesn't even know what the question is than it is to delay buying gas for a day.

:hi:

[BuyingThyme]

44. Woops! Another failed fallacy.

Or am I supposed to pretend that getting people to discuss the issue is not a valid goal?

Boy, you are sure easy to beat in a debate. But keep it coming, because we need more people like you to make our protest even more successful than it's already been before the fact.

[huskerlaw]

45. Hahahahaha...

Ok, I just discovered the problem. You think discussing the failure of a protest is an effective way to get people to learn how to reduce their energy dependency. (I don't know how, apparently how to accomplish this just magically occurs to them in the course of staying at home for a day)

I, on the other hand, find it far more effective to actually inform people about ways to reduce their energy dependency, long-term, rather that to symbolically refrain for one day.

The amusing part is that you think you "beat" me. Hardly true, my friend. Your argument is no more successful than your chosen form of protest. But to each his/her own, I suppose.

Have a great evening.

[BuyingThyme]

48. Oh, darn it. You're again using this protest as an opportunity

to discuss conservation.

It seems that every time you approach this protest, you make it more successful.

Oh, by the way, you didn't do what you said you did. You didn't inform any people about ways to reduce their energy usage. You only did what I wanted you to do -- to make my protest even more successful.

But, if you would like to respond again, bring those energy saving tips to the table. I will take credit for it.

[Occulus]

52. I'm ignoring you now.

That was a truly obtuse display. You skated right around direct questions, even.

Goodbye.

[BuyingThyme]

69. Oh, really? What direct questions were those?

Oh, I see. If you actually believed what you were saying, you wouldn't have to ignore.

How complicated.

[GOTV]

104. I was going to conserve but this boycott thing is MUCH easier - I'll just do that....

... that'll show'em. And I can still use as much gas as I want!

[BuyingThyme]

112. Had you not been able to contrive a silly false choice,

would you not have said anything at all?

[GOTV]

124. What do you mean? If the boycott will work why do more? n/t

[uppityperson]

70. very good, thank you.

Oh darn, there I go again, talking about this protest, proving that it worked. Discussing this between fellow internet users who are already aware of the need to reduce energy consumption means this protest succeeds? I don't get it either. I wish that we were heard.

[BuyingThyme]

71. Yes, keep pretending that discouraging people from

participating will not harm the cause. It just makes so much sense to people who have none.

[uppityperson]

72. Keep pretending that us talking about it means it worked. Please read message...

Best of luck to all that participate in protests. I wish we could be heard.
"It just makes so much sense to people who have none" what? What is it that people have "none" of?

[BuyingThyme]

74. If you believe that DU discussions and activism

are meaningless, why do you post here?

Why don't you start a new forum where you can focus on how talking about conservation, price gouging, etc. is not productive?

[uppityperson]

75. Please read message...

Best of luck to all that participate in protests. I wish we could be heard.
"It just makes so much sense to people who have none" what? What is it that people have "none" of?

If you chose to not reply to my sentiment and question here, I will waste no further time with you.

[Babsbrain]

76. And we wonder why * is still in office

[BuyingThyme]

77. Sense.

[uppityperson]

79. Please read message...

Best of luck to all that participate in protests. I wish we could be heard.

[BuyingThyme]

81. Then don't continue to discourage our efforts.

[GOTV]

107. We WILL be heard. Imagine the awesome sight on millions of people NOT lining up to buy gas...

... the media won't be able to ignore that. Armies of email users going about their day doing all the stuff they normally do except buying gas will surely be noticed by all but the most reclusive shut-ins.

[BuyingThyme]

116. Yeah, but what if they were to be able to explain what's going on

without dishonest people injecting childish fallacies into the debate?

[GOTV]

126. They will be able to explain. The media will surely interview everyone ....

... they can find not buying gas. They're easy to identify, they're the ones doing something other than buying gas!

WooooHoooo THIS WILL BE MASSIVE!

[PurpleChez]

218. Are you absolutely incapable of responding

without being obnoxious and sarcastic? You are certainly in love with your own intellect. I could have had some respect for some of the things you had to say if it weren't that you sounded like Freshman Philosophy Major Man trying to lord it over his roommate.

[GOTV]

221. I can respond in a myriad of ways ...

... if you realize what I say is correct but you reject it anyway because of the form of its delivery, that's all the worse for you.

Lost of other folks have posted the facts around this pretend boycott and y'all aint getting it. I think sarcasm was called for.

[PurpleChez]

216. "That's for you to figure out"?

Way to not win me over to your way of thinking

[BuyingThyme]

237. Well, you don't seem to understand what a fallacy is, so it's

probably going to be difficult to explain this.

You see, nobody here is saying that a one-day protest will directly change anything. People here protest in hopes of educating and motivating, but they don't run to the newspaper the next day to see if things have changed. Got it?

Now, responding to a silly fallacy (like the one posted above) is like babysitting a mentally able adult. There's simply no need for it, and I'm not interested in doing it. But the people who post that kind of garbage generally understand that. They post nonsense simply to change the subject, usually in an effort to run away from intellectual shortcomings or dishonesty.

Are you getting this?

[PurpleChez]

217. "That's for you to figure out"?

Great stategy for not convincing me.

[GOTV]

103. Ha! and when a protest is invisible, like this one is, it can't affect anything...

... who notices people NOT buying gas? It's ridiculous. You may as well march with a sign in your basement for all the visibility you'll get by NOT buying gas tomorrow.

[uppityperson]

19. Mine, elsewhere said it was all about me since I cared enough to discuss it.

The current inflated gas prices have next to nothing to do with the current demand for gas and buying gas on the day before a day doesn't seem like much of a loss for anyone. Now, not driving for a day, that seems like it would send more of a message of "we can decrease consumption". But that's just my opinion, as 1 person.

[huskerlaw]

20. Not driving for a day

makes more sense. Unless, of course, all you do is put off the errands for a day and end up using the same amount of gas.

But changing behavior even slightly so as to decrease consumption long-term (even if it's just a little bit at a time) seems far more effective.

[uppityperson]

22. Monty Python sketches keep running through my head, thinking about protests.

Some work, some don't. Everyone can do a little bit, so long as they actually DO something. Behavior change is most important. Not just putting off errands for a day and use the same amount of gas (though I guess one could argue that is a behavior change) but decrease the amount of gas since oil companies really don't care which day you run errands but in the amount of gas consumed overall.

[GOTV]

108. It should have been something like national ride public transportation day...

... but then people would actually have to do something.

[GOTV]

100. I don't WANT people's attention while I do something silly...

... like pretend I'm sticking it to big oil by paying for my gas on a different day.

It's just stupid.

[Cha]

119. Do an All Day No Gas Protest and

then use less gas every day in the future.

Have the protest as a Kick Off for not using your damn car so much.

[BuyingThyme]

125. No, no. People want you to believe that one-day protests

don't get any attention. No more marching for you!

[Cha]

129. I'm lookin' at it as not

an "either or" proposition..I think you're both right! YAY!

[GOTV]

132. One day protests DO work... even invisible ones like this pretend boycott!

The best thing is I don't have to go anywhere or carry a heavy sign. I don't have to chant anything or walk around.

It's a one-day protest that's totally invisible. Certainly everyone will notice me. When I'm eating my lunch, people will say "Look there's one of those pay-for-your-gas-on-a-different-day protesters". When I'm parking my car at work people will see me and think "Look, there's another guy not paying for his gas today. They're EVERYWHERE!" As I drive home from work everyone will see me in solidarity with my use-it-today-pay-for-it-tomorrow brothers sticking it to the man!

It's so much easier than those visible protests!

[Name removed]

203. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[northzax]

228. where are you marching again?

oh forget it.

[JVS]

9. How about if everyone gasses and dashes for a day?

;-)

[druidity33]

173. you devious mind you! NT

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beyurslf]

23. I promise not to fill up or put any gas in my car tomorrow.

Of course, I filled up yesterday. :)

[Babsbrain]

24. Can we agree

that if you want to buy gas on May 15, fine.

If you want to NOT buy gas on May 15, fine.

Let's put this to bed.

[Gregorian]

25. It's time for national change, and real discussion.

Edit- Yikes, the internet killed my fonts! Let's see if this works...

Driving is just one part of this whole affair we have with energy. Half of the problem is the number of us. But that's not something we will be changing over night. But it is something to be thinking about.


I didn't buy grapes last night because they come from Costa Rica. There is a carbon footprint associated with everything we do. Almost everything. That is what we need to start realizing.


Remember, of the 20 million barrels of oil we use each day in this country, 10 million are not burned in cars.


We use oil for a lot of different, and very important, reasons.


Thank you for posting this. It's something we need to be thinking about, as a country, and as a planet, much more seriously. It's long overdue.


What has happened is we have taken modern society for granted. We've gone overboard in our consumption. I'm all for modern living. I want Novocaine. I want penicillins. But we're killing the ability to live this way by virtue of overconsumption.

I can only say that my solution is as follows- communal living (no, not a Victorian on Haight Ashbury street), and SLOWER living. And less of certain things.

For example, I'm getting ready to find a place to call home. My chainsaw is pretty worn out. So here I am looking for a new chainsaw. Egads, that's not just a lot of energy in the manufacturing process, but perhaps even more in the shipping of all of the parts. We need to share. A guy in the town who has THE CHAINSAW.

In fact, I would go as far as to say that this modern lifestyle has divided us. Glass and steel, where there was communication. I don't ride my bike two miles to the store. But I want to. There are so many people driving down my street, I wouldn't dare. It sucks. What I'm saying is, we've created something magnificent, but we have perpetuated and exasperated it into something horrible.

I know I'm going on about stuff that's trivial. But it it's so easy to see, why are we killing people in Iraq in order to sustain it? Not to mention how much healthier we'd be if we changed. Not everyone is healthy enough to ride their bike around. But the majority of this country would have fewer heart attacks if we all started abandoning our cars.

And the bottom line is that there is ONE VOTE THEY CANNOT MAKE DISAPPEAR. The vote we make with our wallets.

We have the power. The ultimate power. And this is where our leaders (if you want to call them that, in a democracy), have sorely let us down. We should be prepared to sacrifice. Then and only then will we be independent. As it stands, the corporations have us by our leashes. They're only as secure as we make them. Isay we start a national dialogue.

Another big question is, where does it start. I not only need a new chainsaw, I need a new computer.

America is a country of independence. But there are many types of independence. What I see here is freedom to consume. And that is what we need to change. How we start that process, I can only assume. A president who initiates a plan. An entirely new mindset for Americans. We need that oil. Not for trips to the market every afternoon. But for hospitals and computer parts, etc. It's not just that, but we must change or we start to lose the planet's ecosystem. And eventually our home. It's time to get everyone up to speed, and aware of what is happening. There is no more room for denial.

[havocmom]

27. Excellant post!

Thank you.

Nailed it.

[Gregorian]

30. Really? Gosh, thanks.

I seldom can say what I feel. I'm watching this mess for decades. I'm clear as can be, in my own head. But to express and have it understood, not so easy. I can poke holes in my own post. But there is a reality. Gore is going around the world discussing that reality.

Well, I can go to bed feeling like I accomplished something today. :)

[havocmom]

32. Sleep well, good Gregorian

Sweet dreams of better tomorrows :hug:

[Babsbrain]

Great post

And when you buy that chainsaw, make sure it's not 'made in China".

[nam78_two]

36. Awesome post-Deserves its own thread

Don't let it sink in this post which many probably won't read. It deserves its own and far better thread :).

[Reterr]

39. Now thats a really good post

:). See now this is a thread about really making a difference and how just a few protests won't do it-its about a lifestyle change.
As others said, this deserves its own thread and shouldn't be stuck in this thread.

[Shallah Kali]

53. Use less, reuse, share, buy local, grow your own, make your own - as much as possible

build community.

we can't sustain the modern American way of life with disposable everything that was made at least 1 continent away and food that has traveled around the world more than I ever have or will.

I am not saying go become a farmer or join a commune either. Do what you can when you can. Have a bit of yard? plant a few vegetables. Have more of a yard, like eggs, and have a bit of ambition? Keep a few chickens. Hang a line to dry laundry on. Wash your clothes in cold water and save up to 80% of the electricity. Plug your appliances and electronics that into power strips and turn them off when not in use and save even more energy. Eat more vegetarian meals per week and/or use meat as a condiment instead of the main course.

walk, bike, share a ride, use public transport if and when you can.

change one piece at a time. Everything will add up a big change. There are many who are working on creating sustainable communities. Look for them for encouragement and ideas if you like. for online there are blogs tracking peoples progress. one I like is Simple Living http://simplereduce.wordpress.com

do what you can when you can and see what happens.

[CrispyQ]

86. This poster nails "slower living" in suggestion #2:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x844266

Some other good websites listed in that post, too.

[lfairban]

106. How about an electro-assist bike?

Please read the discussion about e-bike assault giant oil companies and high gas prices

I don't ride my bike two miles to the store. But I want to. There are so many people driving down my street, I wouldn't dare.

Being able to accelerate to 15 mph and cruse within 7 mph of a 25 mph speed limit, along with wearing a helmet, makes the e-bike much safer to use in traffic.

But it it's so easy to see, why are we killing people in Iraq in order to sustain it? Not to mention how much healthier we'd be if we changed. Not everyone is healthy enough to ride their bike around.

I am 53 and not in very good shape, and I rode my e-bike about 10 miles yesterday to visit a locksmith and look for parts for my leaf-blower.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

163. Wonderful post, thanks. All is not lost...

The simple truth is that we have created this society and now, as you pointed out, we are killing people in Iraq to sustain it.

I like the idea of The Town Chainsaw. Who needs a chainsaw every day? Shared cars, for that matter, are becoming more prevalent in big cities (www.zipcar.com).

We have to look at the carbon footprint of our entire way of life, not just our driving habits.

Unfortunately, it's hard to start a national dialogue without a nation willing to talk, and without a national spokesperson. The media and the government have colluded to the extent that we have a culture of celebrity, and a government of idiots and thiefs.

All is not lost, it's just wandering around too afraid to ask for directions.

[blondeatlast]

235. Beautifully stated the way I feel about this. Thank you for the wisdom! nt

[SPKrazy]

29. Now doing both would send a hellacious message over time

have it start with a gas no buy day

followed by driving less
carpooling
walking
cycling
taking the bus
whatever it takes to cut down on gas consumption

then you have a kickoff and a game on!

:woohoo:

[havocmom]

33. Think about the possibilities if we stayed home more with our kids

Oh, the things we could accomplish if we actually interacted instead of chauffeured!

[SPKrazy]

38. very true havocmom

kids need parents more than they need all the extracurricular activities that we seem to have become convinced our kids need.

[blondeatlast]

236. Last Saturday, my husband, son, and I took off for a long bike ride.

Just wandering around the area, went slightly off road, enjoyed the beautiful scenery and weather.

My kid still can't stop talking about how much fun he had (he's 10 years old). We've been sitting together watching the NBA playoffs, too. Just staying home and enjoying ourselves has been remarkably stress-relieving and good for every one of us.

I use to be a runarounder; I couldn't stand being home. We just moved into a new neighborhood and it's like we rediscovered each other--and my kid? Wow--he's so smart, so fun, and just amazing. I mean, I knew all that--but I never really experienced it before!

I'm happy to spread the word about nesting!

[MilesColtrane]

34. In solidarity with my gas gouged brothers...

I'm organizing a "Pantless for World Peace" protest.

It will have no effect whatsoever on George Bush's war in Iraq, but it will raise awareness.

For those willing to take it a step further, please join me in refusing to pay a dime in federal taxes from now until April 15th of 2008, when I will defiantly pay my accrued bill in full.

[Disturbed]

41. What do we use oil for?

http://www.schools.ash.org.au/elanorah/oil.htm

[JCMach1]

43. If all vehicles got 35mpg or better we wouldn't need foreign oil

PERIOD!

How about some CAFE standards!!!

If we had followed Carter's plans, we would be permanently free of foreign oil!

Corporate greed wins again...

:(

[chknltl]

46. Well I always figured April 20th was a great day....

...for pot smokers to not spend even a dime anywhere... so I guess that won't work either 'cause pizza sales on 4-19 would offset this. Damn, another one of my brilliant notions looses luster here.

[omega minimo]

47. Redstone, can't a one day effort wake up more folks to the long term ideas you're talkin about?

:hi:

Anything that gets folks to get/use purchase power is ++good IMHO.

[GOTV]

113. But this "boycott" does not make use of purchase power...

... because it allows us to buy the same amount of gas as if we didn't participate.

[omega minimo]

206. If it sends a message and inspires folks is DOES make use of purchase power

If I understand your logic, it sounds like the way people talk themselves out of making a difference..............

[GOTV]

223. This pretend boycott does not ask you to change what you purchase. Therefore you are wrong.

You use your "purchase power" when you either don't purchase something or when you purchase something different.

Sending a message about not changing what you purchase, which is what this pretend boycott is about, is explicitly avoiding using purchase power to make a difference.

If you want to make a difference, start by making a difference. Don't start by pretending to make a difference which is all you'll be doing by forwarding this email and paying for gas on a different day

[omega minimo]

227. I was right. Your ill logic serves to talk you out of making a difference.

"You use your "purchase power" when you either don't purchase something or when you purchase something different."

I use my purchase power and make a difference and you have no idea what you're talking about and no right to slap your rigid definitions and judgements on other people. It's stupid to fight over this.

"Sending a message about not changing what you purchase, which is what this pretend boycott is about, is explicitly avoiding using purchase power to make a difference."

Says who? There is a range of options and opportunities to exercise purchase power. You are trying to discourage people from doing anything at all if they don't jump through your bogus hoops first. This ill logic lets people off the hook-- setting up phony requirements and an "all or nothing" attitude.

"If you want to make a difference, start by making a difference. Don't start by pretending to make a difference which is all you'll be doing by forwarding this email and paying for gas on a different day."

I support any efforts that get people to think about "purchase power." Making it all or nothing and strongarming people about it is counterproductive. Don't slap your generic argument on me because you have no idea what I do or don't do and I don't accept your rigid definitions or petty need to win a non-argument.

[GOTV]

230. Words have meanings. Look them up. "Purchase Power" can't be redefined to mean anything you want.

> I use my purchase power and make a difference and you
> have no idea what you're talking about

No. I have no idea what YOU'RE talking about. I'm talking about this pretend boycott. You might be using your purchase power for some purpose, but this pretend boycott does not.

> Says who? There is a range of options and opportunities to exercise purchase power.

Not in this pretend boycott. The request is to buy your gas on a different day. Not to buy different gas, or to not buy gas or to buy less gas or to buy something else than gas.

Therefore it does not make use of our purchase power.

Maybe you didn't know what the topic was but, you were wrong.

[Name removed]

233. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[1932]

49. Do both. Drive less AND don't buy gas on the 15th.

Without the coordinated effort on the 15th, it won't be as clear that consumers are making a conscious effort to consume less gas.

[Trajan]

50. Um .... begging your pardon ....

But I wont be buying gas on that day, like I dont buy gas on many other days ....

Even as I understand your point; your response seems overly affected, and a tad overbearing to your fellow DUers .... Perhaps gentle persuasion is a better avenue ....

[Greyhound]

58. As ever, the voice of moderation.

:thumbsup:

[fortyfeetunder]

51. You got that right

The real deal is refineries, especially the independents pump out the stuff to whoever wants to pay for it. What makes each oil co's formula unique are the additives and detergents (like TECHRON, etc) for cleaner combustion, etc.

So it's better to learn more efficient driving habits than to even think a one day boycott will work.

[slackmaster]

55. Driving less is great, so is keeping your tires properly inflated

If everyone did both, we'd save a whole lot of fuel.

[B Calm]

56. Imagine a nation where every 18 wheeler on the road,

(which burns an average 65 gallons of fuel a day) shut down just for one day....

[theboss]

67. There would be a shortage of medical supplies for one thing

I'm not sure that's a great idea.

[Rosemary2205]

73. They'd either deliver the day before or the day after.

same gas usage either way.

[B Calm]

130. More than likely the day after. But the impact would be unbelievable!

It would cripple the entire country!

[Greyhound]

57. For the last time, Redstone, they won't do it regardless so don't get so upset.

Begging is certainly not necessary either. Not one of these boycotts has ever materialized, so don't sweat it. The oil companies have us by the short & curlies and they know it, so they just laugh this shit off, if they're even aware of it at all.

BTW, you know what would happen if we did miraculously drive less and reduce our overall consumption? They'd raise the prices higher to make up the difference.

[bullwinkle428]

99. So if demand went down, the price would go up? That goes

against the most basic principle of economics! Their inventories would start to pile up and they'd be forced to lower the price. Of course, some morons would then think it was safe to suddenly start using oil like there was no tomorrow, and the whole cycle would start all over again, but you see where I'm going...

[GOTV]

118. But this "boycott" does not lower demand....

... changing the day you pay for your gas does not change the amount of gas used or purchased.

[bullwinkle428]

123. Oh, I definitely wasn't referring to this "one-day boycott" BS -

my comments were based on the idea of a TRUE long-term decrease in demand if the general populace really made the move to drive less, drive more fuel-efficient vehicles, use public transportation more often, etc.

[GOTV]

128. Oh sorry, then you are right. You're eye is on the ball and not on the pretend boycott n/t

[bigtree]

144. It's certainly not 'pretend' if folks participate

and it's a stretch to imply that folks who choose to boycott on the 15th have taken their 'eye off of the ball'. Certainly we are capable (and willing) to do more than one thing at once.

[Kelly Rupert]

186. Sure it is.

This "protest" won't do jack. Hint: any "protest action" that requires you to not be inconvenienced in the slightest is not actually real.

[bigtree]

197. The problem with that assessment is that YOU can't define or predict HOW folks will participate

I, for instance, will not be driving that day to effect my part in the protest. In fact, I've heard people who plan to participate express many different ways they plan to effect their part in the protest. Of course, you have absolutely NO interest in giving any attention at all to their efforts. You seem satisfied with just making up your own interpretations of their (our) intentions.

[uppityperson]

205. You are participating in "don't buy gas"NOT by not buying gas but by not driving?

The not driving part is what you are actively doing? Good for you. I am glad to hear that since decreasing consumption is the way to go. Now, to get the word out that this boycott is NOT about not buying gas 1 day, but about consuming less a day.

[bigtree]

226. Actually, it will involve a day home from work

A day in which I would normally require gas, so, it IS about 'not buying gas for one day' to participate in this protest action.

My other efforts are about much more

[GOTV]

219. A boycott where you continue to use the product boycotted certainly IS pretend n/t

[Greyhound]

171. You are buying a myth my friend, if we use less they will make less.

There is no more competition, only collusion, and it will continue until we no longer need "their" products.

When the price of oil goes down they cut production, it wouldn't matter if the price of a barrel of crude went back to $10, there would be a series of fires or maintenance shut downs or whatever the next excuse is scheduled to be (personally my bet is it will be drop in the quality of the oil being pumped)

Back whenever, they added lead to the gas to stop knocking, and the price went up, then we switched to unleaded and they didn't add it anymore, but the price went up, then we oxygenated it, and the price went up, now it's seasonal blends, and the price went up.

Are you seeing a pattern here?

This is the industry that purposely conspired to destroy our public transportation infrastructure, before there was an effective monopoly, and you actually believe that they are just "doing the best they can" with "forces beyond their control"?
:eyes:

[GOTV]

220. This "boycott" doesn't ask us to use less - only to pay on a different day n/t

[bullwinkle428]

225. I'm not sure where the quotes in your post came from, but they weren't

from my post. I'm certainly not an apologist for the oil companies, and don't buy into the right wing talking points about the lack of refining capability forcing the gas prices up - Jim Cramer was trying to push this tired old myth again last night on Tweety's show! I know damn well we're looking at corporate collusion when the price of raw crude continues to drop while gas steadily rises.

I was just doing some research on "The Google" on price trends, and found an article from Time back in 1996 where a similar "springtime price surge" took place, and surprise, surprise, guess what took the blame? A "series of accidents and closures of refineries"! These guys know how to "time the market" to take advantage of exactly when seasonal trends dictate consumers buying more gas. My original comments were made in the total big-picture sense; I know there will always be tweaks and manipulations, but if everyone suddenly used vehicles that made 10mpg better than their current vehicle, just as a hypothetical, an overall price decrease would be inevitable.

[Vinca]

59. You're entirely right. A "boycott" won't work unless there's an

alternative fuel. Mobil, Shell and the other thieves know you have to buy their gasoline to run your car, so if you don't buy it one day, you'll buy it the next. Try to drive as little as possible, don't leave your vehicle idling, plan trips with right hand turns so you don't get stuck at stop lights, trade the gas guzzler if you can.

[slampoet]

61. It is only as stupid of an Idea as going on DU to stop the Boycott....

...take this message to those it is directed to.

[Joe Fields]

62. I agree that driving less is the only way we have a shot at lower prices, but

having said that, I'm not convinced that the oil companies won't come up with lame excuse after lame excuse to keep prices current, or even raise them. After all, the oil companies have more excuses than Carter has pills.

[joefree1]

63. Actually not buying gas for one day helps the Oil Companies

It's a stupid useless gesture that distracts people from the only truly effective protest, conserving fuel.

But hey, did you hear about the poodle in the microwave ...

[bdamomma]

64. one massive strike would do it, anything that stops them (corp) from

money would do it, but there are too many people who count on their measly incomes.

[gratuitous]

65. Maybe it's not about sending the oil companies a message?

Maybe it's a way of demonstrating to ourselves and to the wider public what sort of power we have? I don't see that point addressed anywhere in this thread.

The latest Christopher Titus comedy special has him doing a three-minute riff on the terrible things White people have done over the centuries: enslaving Black people, genocide of the Native Americans, stealing the land along our southern border, nuking the Japanese. He talks about how it's an ongoing problem, and how it keeps people apart from each other, contintung to cause hate and friction.

He then asks the White people in the audience to stand, all together and shout, "I'm Whitey, and I apologize!" as a first step in reconciling these differences. It's not the be-all and end-all, it's just a matter of someone taking the first step, and since it was Whitey doing all these terrible things in the first place, he's asking Whitey to take the first step. So, on three, the audience thunders "I'm Whitey and I apologize!"

Titus gets all choked up and tells the audience what a beautiful thing they did. And he advises the other people in the audience to accept the apology with grace. With a sly smile he finishes, "And I suggest you accept that apology. See how fast we organized that?"

The point isn't that Whitey apologizing in a comedy concert is going to accomplish anything, any more than a one day spasm of not buying gasoline is going to do anything to the oil companies' bottom line. But that shared experience, that brief glimpse of the raw power of the consumers, that idea that we're more powerful than the oil companies, their big-shot advertising firms, their high-powered lawyers and their media shills, is worth a little demonstration. Not for their benefit; the oil companies know all too well that their power rests on perception, and not reality. But for our benefit.

[Kelly Rupert]

88. But this doesn't show any power.

We'll still end up buying just as much gas, for the exact same price. Saying "we have the option to choose whether we want to submit to our weekly raping on the 14th or 16th instead of the 15th" isn't exactly power.

[gratuitous]

117. I made my point badly

The point isn't showing the oil companies the power of the consumer; they're well aware of that. Perhaps the point is showing other consumers what kind of power we can generate.

In any event, I'll go back to my default position on these sorts of things: Whether one agrees with it or not, someone is doing something. If you can't endorse it or participate in it, then kindly stay out of the way. If you don't think it will accomplish anything, then do something else yourself, but don't get in someone else's way. I don't know what this might accomplish (and frankly, neither do you or the original poster), and I'm not inclined to make a big deal about it (I don't own a car), but I decline to do the internet equivalent of jumping up and down and screaming that it won't do any good. Because I don't know that.

[endarkenment]

66. Agreed.

Consider walking, biking, or using mass transit whenever possible.

[Babsbrain]

68. Buy Citgo only

That will piss them off

[Kelly Rupert]

87. No it won't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility

[iverglas]

157. well, I'm completely failing to take your point

So the commodity -- gasoline -- is fungible: if one variety of it isn't available, another will do.

As your wiki source says: "A good is fungible if one example of the good is indistinguishable from another example of the same good."

The good may be indistinguishable -- but that doesn't mean its owner is.

If you vow to buy no carrots from the grocery giant down the street, and all your carrots from the farmer directly, what does the fungibility of carrots have to do with the effect your actions have?

Your aim is to cut out the middle actor, and increase the profits of the producer. Presumably, you have done that. You have carrots, the grocery chain has no money, the producer has more money.

Ditto the proposal to patronize Citgo. Unless you are saying that Citgo will get its gasoline somewhere else, in order to fill demand. Is that it?

[Kelly Rupert]

176. Indeed it is.

Oil companies don't care who buys their oil; someone will, and that's all that matters. All that matters is net demand; the price of a barrel is the same in China as in America. If you buy no gas from Exxon, someone else will, be it China, or be it Citgo itself.

To reword: Each oil company produces X barrels. Each oil company will then sell X barrels, at market prices--which are determined by supply/demand. They don't care who they sell it to. It will get sold. I mean, you can reason it out in your head. Let's suppose there are two companies only, Citgo and Exxon, each of whom produce 100 barrels a month, and two markets, America and China, each of whom want 100 barrels a month. Right now profit is $1/barrel. Now suppose 75% in America wants to buy Citgo gas, and the other 25% want Exxon. Citgo sells 75 barrels to America, and Exxon 25. Now, Citgo has 25 barrels, and Exxon has 75. China wants 100. Exxon sells its 75, and Citgo its 25. Both companies have made $100 profit.

Now let's pretend there's only one market, America, and it wants 200 barrels. Take it to an extreme. And to make it even more extreme, every single person wants to buy Citgo gas, and nobody wants to go to an Exxon station. Citgo sells through its 100 barrels, and then buys Exxon's barrels at just below market value, and then resells them at market price (we're assuming there are price controls here, mimicking the natural price controls an open market would impose), making a very slight profit. Both companies have made about $100 profit.

In real life, of course, the situation is far more complex; this is a very, very rough outline. However, it's a decent way to understand two of the fundamental forces at work here.

With fungible commodities, the good and the owner are indistinguishable.

[iverglas]

182. but that just isn't quite so

With fungible commodities, the good and the owner are indistinguishable.

Not unless the owner isn't the producer -- if Citgo *does* buy oil from other producers to sell to consumers, and if the farmer *does* buy carrots to sell to consumers.

Let us say that people don't care whether their clothing is cotton or polyester -- they can't tell the difference without a label. Cotton shirts and polyester shirts are fungible: if one isn't available, the consumers will buy the other, without breaking stride.

But if cotton shirts are all made in India and aren't available because the weevils got the entire crop in India, and polyester shirts are all made in Venezuela using Venezuelan petroleum, the money is going somewhere else entirely *unless* India starts buying Venezuelan polyester.

I'm just not getting it. Fungibility relates to demand -- buyers will buy Thing A or Thing B; they don't care.

But if the consumer *does* care -- if Venezuelan-sourced gasoline is different, in the consumer's mind, from elsewhere-sourced gasoline -- then Venezuelan-sourced gasoline and elsewhere-sourced gasoline simply aren't indistinguishable, and gasoline is not fungible.

Whether gasoline is fungible to Citgo, that's another question. If Citgo substitutes elsewhere-sourced gasoline for Venezuelan-sourced gasoline, the consumer ceases to have choice. But gasoline still isn't fungible to the consumer. The consumer is just deceived, or defeated.


Just by the bye, I'm not saying that buying from Citgo is an effective way to combat high gasoline prices; it's just a moral kinda thing to do. I'm with Redstone on the principle.

I'd note that the collaborative blackouts that were effected when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was meeting earlier this year were of a different order.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/01/AR2007020101452.html
The intent was to demonstrate widespread demand for action, not to actually cut consumption and thus cause loss of profits; turning out the lights was just the symbol chosen to demonstrate the common intent and demand for governmental action. In this instance, the intent is apparently to scare oil companies into stopping price gouging, but unless actual consumption is drastically reduced and there is a promise to increase it again if the companies comply, stocking up or postponing buying, which is obviously what people will do, is just silly.

[Kelly Rupert]

190. But, you see, you can't tell if your oil actually comes from Venezuela

even with Citgo gas. Already a fair portion of their gas comes from the mideast. And even if you can tell where it comes from it is still fungible. Look, supposing a whole bunch of people decide that they want Venezuelan gas and buy from Citgo instead of Exxon. Three things will happen:

1. Citgo will sell fewer barrels to China, and more barrels to America. No difference in profit.
2. Exxon will sell fewer barrels to America, and more barrels to China. No difference in profit.
3. Citgo will buy some gas from Exxon and sell it to you. No change in profit.

Your shirt analogy doesn't work because fewer shirts are produced and sold. You aren't changing Exxon's production when you buy Citgo gas, you're just changing where they sell it. Your carrot analogy doesn't work because the farmer and store can't instantly buy and sell carrot futures in markets from Asia to Europe to America.

I'll make it even easier to understand:

The world will still consume the same amount of oil, and the same amount will be pumped. This means that the price of a barrel will stay the same. Citgo will sell every barrel it produces, whether to America or to China or to Europe or to India. It will make (barrels produced X market price) dollars. Exxon will sell every barrel it produces, whether to America or Europe or Asia. It will make (barrels produced X market price) dollars.

It does not matter who you buy gas from. All that matters is that you buy gas.

[iverglas]

198. ah, first we assume a can opener

The world will still consume the same amount of oil, and the same amount will be pumped.

yes, IF:

- Citgo buys elsewhere-sourced oil to sell to consumers
- consumers buy oil even knowing that it is elsewhere-sourced

IF consumers wish to buy ONLY Venezuelan-sourced oil, and IF they are aware that Citgo is buying elsewhere-sourced oil, then they won't buy Citgo either. These consumers may be entirely imaginary, certainly, but that doesn't affect the fungibility of the commodity in principle.

I'm sorry, but you are making too many assumptions, the main one being that consumers will buy whatever Citgo sells them. It may be true, but it's still an assumption.

For many years, I didn't buy *any* grapes, because the only ones available were grown either in Chile or in California. Consumers dedicated to buying only Venezuelan-sourced oil would have to do their homework, and might have to buy no oil if they were intent on buying only Venezuelan-sourced.

For as many years, I didn't buy South African wine. (Most of that time it didn't take much effort, since the govt-controlled liquor stores in Ontario didn't sell South African wine.) Wine is pretty fungible: one $8 bottle of Cabernet is pretty much like another. So I just bought a different one.

But in fact, it wasn't fungible -- or I would have bought South African wine when it happened to be a good deal. One $8 bottle of Cabernet was *not* just like another; one was made in South Africa, and one wasn't.

And funny thing -- consumers refusing to buy South African wine (and governments refusing to permit the importing of it) had an effect, on South Africa (and presumably an opposite effect on competitors in other countries). Even though nobody reduced his/her wine consumption.

Of course, South Africa couldn't just bottle its wine in containers with Italian labels and sell it to the local retailer, thus deceiving the consumer and defeating the boycotting consumer's purpose.

But the fact that Citgo can do that doesn't make the commodity fungible. There are *differences* between Venezuelan oil and other oil in some consumers' minds. Probably not enough consumers to make any significant difference to anybody, but that's neither here nor there.

[Kelly Rupert]

209. It. Does. Not. Matter. Which. Gas. You. Buy.

It doesn't matter if you think there's a difference or not. You could insist on only Venezuelan oil and get it. Everyone on DU could insist only on Venezuelan oil and get it. Citgo would still have the exact same profit.

They would still sell every barrel they pump at market price. The only way they WOULDN'T is if you're implying that you and everyone else would pay a PREMIUM for Citgo oil--that is, if y'all were to pay above market price for Citgo. Otherwise, both Citgo and Exxon will sell every barrel they pump at the exact same world oil-market price.

This is not difficult economics. This is sub-101 level.

(also: Wine is not fungible. Wine is not a mass commodity. My buying one barrel of Cabernet in Bombay is not the same as buying one barrel of Pinot Noir in Paris. Wine is about as far from fungibility as you can get.)

[iverglas]

213. I am so, so sorry to be so stupid

I admit that I didn't complete my fourth year economics classes. Hit me.

What I can't figure out is what you are not getting.

Everyone on DU could insist only on Venezuelan oil and get it. Citgo would still have the exact same profit.

And.if.everybody.did.that,the.other.oil.companies.would.have.no.profits.because.their.retail.outlets/buyers.would.sell.no.gas.

Did that help?

Kinda like South Africa sold a whole lot less wine during the international boycott.

I dunno. Maybe I'm still not being clear. Maybe this will help:

http://www.ftc.gov/opp/ecommerce/anticompetitive/panel/bolick.pdf

Wine is a classic example. There are thousands of wineries in the United States, the overwhelming majority of them small, family-run enterprises with small production. The number of wine wholesalers, by contrast, has shrunk markedly in recent years. Wine is not a fungible product; wine enthusiasts hold strong and highly individualistic preferences regarding their favorite wines.

Hmmmmmm.mmm.mm. If gasoline purchasers held strong and highly individualistic preferences (albeit concerted, to have any effect), then it looks to me like gasoline would not be fungible either.

"Country of origin" is a characteristic of gasoline exactly as "slightly peppery with a hint of honeysuckle" is a characteristic of wine.

The fact is that there were perfectly acceptable substitutes for South African wine, and that is one reason why the boycott was effective. A South African wine, on the other hand, would not have been a perfectly acceptable substitute for the little Californian number you were looking for but the local shop was out of, if the characteristic that mattered to you was country of origin.

Mutatis mutandis. Eh?

"All oil produced will be sold somewhere", the common thread in the blogosphere opposing this day of action, is true only if it can find a buyer. And as I said, I am not saying it won't. I'm saying that to people who are genuinely committed to buying Venezuelan oil products (or to not buying them), oil is no more fungible than wine is. They won't buy it just because it's sold at Citgo outlets -- they'll buy it only if it is Venezuelan-produced.

Of course, I'm assuming perfect knowledge. Sigh.

[Babsbrain]

207. What I don't understand

is, if all the companies operate on a level playing field, why did Exxon earn $36 Billion in profits and Citgo only earned $500 million last year? With fungability, shouldn't all companies earn the same profit margin?

I think the most effective action for us is to insist legislators enact a windfall profit tax. The profits the oil companies are making are disgusting.

I still will be visiting Citgo, if for no other reason that to bypass Exxon.

[Kelly Rupert]

208. I can think of two reasons off the top of my head.

Exxon is larger and more streamlined. They can produce more cheaply than Citgo, and they can produce more than Citgo can. Fungibility refers to the product, and not to the business operation.

[Babsbrain]

210. So we are making Exxon more profitable

It must be that more people are using Exxon rather than Citgo. So there is an advantage to using Citgo...taking the over-inflated profits from Exxon. So...buy Citgo if you want to make a statement.

[Kelly Rupert]

211. But you're not.

Citgo and Exxon will both sell every single barrel they produce for the exact same price. That's the way the world oil trade works. I'm guessing that Citgo doesn't pump as much oil as Exxon does, and that they're less-efficient at distributing it.

[Babsbrain]

172. Fungawhatever

Assumes all gasoline is the same. Somewhat true. However, sources of gasoline vary. CITGO does not get gas from the Middle East. It is basically a Venezuelan nationalized company. The whole reason bush hates Chavez is because Hugo insisted on the profits of the oil to be more favorable to the Venezuelans and to stay in Venezuela instead of lining the pockets of the US oil barons. Hugo's people love him. He actually CARES about his people. Imagine that.

Buy CITGO...whenever

[Kelly Rupert]

177. It doesn't matter what the source is.

See the post directly above.

[northzax]

Actually, PdVSA will buy petroleum whenever it is cheaper that producing and shipping it

last year, they bought about 10 billion dollars worth of oil from Russia to meet contracts in Germany. the Venezuelan oil fields produce about 2.6 million bbls/day, PdVSA refines, in the US, about 1 million bbls/day. the US uses about 10 million bbls/day of gasoline, and another 10 million in other oil products. Venezuela isn't even close to being able to meet US demand.

Secondly, the odds are good that the gas at your local CITGO is not actually refined from oil from Venezuela. It's all a matter of where the pipelines go. regions have a couple of wholesalers who sell gasoline to every station in the area. it's the same stuff. Some Chevrontexaco stations are selling PdVSA gas, some CITGOs are selling Saudi gas. they just put a different name on it.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kelly Rupert]

94. If one must be a brain-dead idiot to understand the concept

of fungibility, then count me in.

[Initech]

78. Buy hybrids!!!

That is how you get gas prices to go down!

[mcg]

202. and drive less!!! I reduced my commute and bought a Prius. nt

[bleedingheart]

80. yup...and I am doing my part

I am working from home more and using our Prius for most trips...

overall...I am doing far less driving..

[2008]

82. A one-day boycott would hurt two categories of people...

1) The consumers. Gas lines would be much longer the day before and the day after the boycott.

2) The minimum-wage cashiers at the gas stations, because their managers would not increase staffing (on the day before and the day after the boycott) in anticipation of a possible boycott.

BUT ... WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF, INSTEAD OF NOT BUYING GAS FOR A DAY, WE ALL STOPPED DRIVING FOR ONE DAY?

[GOTV]

120. Bingo! Another person gets it! n/t

[emald]

83. I had a friend explain why I needed to NOT buy gas on this one particular day

I laughed at him. One day? Are you kidding me? Just going to be a big day for the pumps on the day before.
I'm with you Redstone, I've given myself over to bike riding, even built a little trailer, for most of my trips now. Here in Alaska winter plays hell with this idea but a little thought should figure it out. I'm down to one tank a month. More cash, better health, time to enjoy the day, whats to loose? Can you imagine how much excess girth america would loose if most of us walked or biked all the small trips? Time for change in this society, hope it happens.

[earth mom]

84. Why do you feel the need to control what other people do?

I see nothing wrong with people boycotting buying gas for one day. And no doubt those same people are thinking about and implementing other ways to get away from consuming our precious resources or allowing the stranglehold that corporations have on all of us to continue the way it has been.

The entire point of a boycott is to do SOMETHING to send a message that we are NOT going to continue taking the crap corporate America is flinging our way. NO WAY NO HOW. We must show them that we are willing to fight back with our dollars-which mind you, is about the ONLY weapon that frightens the hell out of corporate America or any business in this country.

So why dog people for TRYING?! Isn't that part of what DU is about? Finding solutions and working to make them real? I really don't understand why you posted this thread in the first place. :eyes:

[Kelly Rupert]

89. To show that this is not a solution.

This "boycott" is not going to send a message. It is not fighting back. It is not withholding our dollars from them. It is nothing. You know what would frighten them? Buying less gas. But we're not doing that; we're simply buying gas on a different day. That doesn't show jack.

[uppityperson]

90. Just because it hasn't worked before doesn't mean it won't work now. Surge!

said mrbush about Iraq. But why must we be so negative.

On this (we are in agreement, btw), I am done with these topics. I am using hide thread for the second time in 2 1/2 yrs.

[bigtree]

98. now we're like Bush and Iraq, according to you

what hyperbole. What nonsense.

[Kelly Rupert]

127. Well, going along with a pointless, bad idea

even after you've been told it's a pointless, bad idea, just because you got the notion in your head that the pointless, bad idea would fix everything certainly is familiar.

[bigtree]

140. Of course, many like me disagree that it is a 'pointless gesture'

and no one is suggesting that this one action will 'fix everything'

[bigtree]

92. when we had a work walk-out we made certain that our job was done the day before

and worked extra hard the day afterward.

That didn't negate the walk-out at all.

Also, it's a bit presumptuous, as some have suggested, that this is the ONLY action we're prepared to take. Obviously folks who commit to this are willing to take many other measures to effect the results we seek. This is ONE action which could very well lead to a series of actions. In fact, if we had gone ahead and heeded the other calls for a boycott in the past, this would be part of a continuing protest.

Again, it is certainly valid to suggest that we drive less; even more valid to suggest that we don't drive at all on the 15th. But, I don't see what harm it's doing for folks to register their objections to the high prices and the record industry profits in this way, if they so choose. Certainly their efforts don't deserve the breathless pleas to desist from this action, or the ridicule for participating.

I would suggest that these folks who are committing themselves to this action are ripe for further activities which would help bring prices down over the long-term. They should be encouraged, not demeaned, for their concern.

[2008]

91. I think I can answer that

It's not about controlling what others do, or dogging people for trying. It's about pointing out something that is so obvious that it makes one want to scream.

We will never succeed in showing the oil companies that "we are willing to fight back with our dollars" if we buy the exact same amount of gas, but on a different day.

Such a plan affects only the consumers, and the gas station owners and employees.

Boycotting gas for one day is more than just ineffective - it's actually counter-productive. It's as if we decided to send big oil a message by boycotting cheese. That message would be: "We're even dumber than you thought we were."

[bigtree]

96. I don't understand the argument that this would be 'counter-productive'

just because 'big oil' thinks it's 'dumb'

Most protests like this one are a way of rallying folks to action. It can be used to motivate folks to other, longer-term efforts. It can catch the attention of legislators as they observe the numbers of folks who are committed to act. We don't have to tear the house down with this effort to make it a meaningful gesture. Our concerns aren't trivial, yet they don't have to be immediately effective, any more so than any of the long-term measures suggested to have significance. I heard this boycott discussed on Pacifica radio as an organizing point; part of a larger series of actions and efforts to confront the industry.

"Counter-productive" doesn't even begin to apply to this boycott, and I'm surprised you'd try and discourage action on that basis.

[earth mom]

115. That's what I was trying to say, but you said it far more eloquently.

:applause:

[2008]

215. I'm encouraging action, not discouraging it...

...although, admittedly, the action I encouraged was in a post higher up the thread.

The action I encourage is to use less gasoline. As I said in the earlier post (#82):

A one-day boycott would hurt two categories of people...

1) The consumers. Gas lines would be much longer the day before and the day after the boycott.

2) The minimum-wage cashiers at the gas stations, because their managers would not increase staffing (on the day before and the day after the boycott) in anticipation of a possible boycott.

Instead of using the same amount of gas, but buying it on a different day, it's my opinion that the most effective boycott would be for as many people as possible to stop driving on the same day, thus using less gas, period. That would send an organized message to the oil companies.

[GOTV]

121. But they're NOT boycotiing gas for a day. They're just changing the day they pay for the gas n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

147. Right, the proposed boycott attacks the wrong "problem"

The problem is not that gas prices are high. We have some of the lowest gas prices in the industrialized world. (Try the UK's $7/gallon or Japan's $5/gallon on for size.) One might argue that our gas prices are so LOW that they encourage unnecessary driving.

[Marie26]

85. "Take a Bus to Work Day!!"

Now that would be a change worth doing.

[GoneOffShore]

95. Not pissing on my parade there sunshine.

I'm absolutely behind you.

I realize that a lot of folks don't have the advantage of being able to walk to work and need their cars.

But, if you can walk, do it. If you can bike, do it. If you can take public transport, do it.

And if the public transport in your area sucks, make some noise. We're Democrats, right? We can organize, right?

[Cleita]

97. Do what I did yesterday.

Gas in my area yesterday was going from $3.51 a gallon to $3.60 a gallon. Since I can only afford $40 a month for gas, I fill up at the cheapest, which is Arco. However, listening to Thom Hartmann yesterday, he suggested we should buy gas at Citgo because 10% of the revenue goes for social programs for poor people in Venezuela since Citgo's petrol comes mostly from Venezuela. I can get behind that. I found my local Citgo station at the Seven-Eleven. I was pleased to see that they were charging the second lowest price in town of $3.55 a gallon. I think if we boycott the biggest offenders by not buying their gas, it will I hope force them to start lowering the price.

[Joe Chi Minh]

101. On the contrary, Redstone. It seems to me that the gas you buy will last a day longer,

so that they will always have missed out on a day's proceeds, once the purchase is made - whether before or after.

[MonkeyFunk]

114. No

that's only if people don't DRIVE for a day. This silly boycott doesn't propose that - it just proposes that people buy their gas on Wednesday instead of Tuesday. It makes no difference whatsoever to the gas companies.

[Joe Chi Minh]

131. Of course. My mistake.

[dsharp88]

102. No DRIVING on May15th is a FAR better idea.

[bigtree]

105. and that is what many intend to do

to effect their participation in the boycott,

Thanks for your suggestion.

[MonkeyFunk]

109. Thank you Redstone

not only is it stupid on its face, it's just wrong-headed. I don't think we SHOULD be pushing for cheap gas!

[Critters2]

110. Exactly. Thank you. nt

[Kelly Rupert]

134. Certainly we should be pushing for cheap gas.

This isn't going that. This is just wasting your time.

[MonkeyFunk]

137. Why should we be pushing for cheap gas?

so we can use more of it?

The price of gasoline ought to be doubled.

[Kelly Rupert]

139. Let me reword that to cheap energy.

I agree that oil isn't going to be useful.

[Warren DeMontague]

138. Why?

It's a finite resource that comes out of the ground. Meaning, there's only going to be less and less of it as time goes on. And it's only going to get more and more and MORE and MORE expensive.


Anyone who thinks they're somehow entitled to an eternity of low-priced petroleum is severely deluded.

[Kelly Rupert]

141. Of course. I should have worded that to "cheap energy,"

which is certainly not going to come from oil.

[Warren DeMontague]

142. Oh yeah, it's well past time we start putting our resources into THAT.

Cheap, clean and renewable, hopefully.

Agreed.

[Kelly Rupert]

150. Totally agree.

Though I'll go out on a limb here and say that I'm actually in favor of building nuclear plants.

[Redstone]

148. Now, THAT took guts to say. Thank you for saying it. I'd like to see a $1-per-gallon tax on

gasoline, with the money used to subsidize heating oil.

Redstone

[MonkeyFunk]

154. Nice idea

I like that.

We're not going to reduce our dependence on oil until it becomes too painful NOT to. And it's going to take decades to redesign our communities, improve public transportation, make better vehicles, etc. etc.

The longer we wait, the harder and more expensive it will be to do all those things, so we'd better get cracking on it. There's no doubt that those changes WILL occur - it's just a matter of when and how much more we want to pay for it.

[Spiffarino]

122. "Like a heroin addict saying, 'I won't buy any heroin today!'"

Thom Hartmann talks about this often and makes the analogy that Americans behave like drug addicts when it comes to oil. We say we can stop, and we just use more.

The oil companies regulate the supply by shutting down refineries, thus driving up the price. Thanks to generous campaign contributions (mostly to Republicans) they have complete carte blanche to do anything they want, so the only way we can counter their monopolist behavior is to reduce consumption. We have to end our addiction to oil.

Want lower fuel prices? Drive more slowly. Ease up on the gas pedal at the green light. Walk, ride a bike or use public transit whenever possible. Take a vacation near home, fly or take a train trip. Buy a hybrid (we love ours) or something that gets better mileage than your previous vehicle when you trade up. Buy a diesel vehicle and have it converted to biodiesel or straight post-consumer cooking oil (cheap, and your car smells like french fries).

Make Bush and Cheney poor...get off the oil teat.

[Warren DeMontague]

136. I drive a Toyota Corolla. Seems I fill it up maybe once every 2 weeks.

Anyone who has to plan ahead their multiple weekly trips to get a fix at the gas station has my sympathies. :patriot:

[TheFarseer]

143. Let's really show 'em

and drive a half an hour to a state with lower gas taxes! Show 'em who's in charge!

:sarcasm: for the idiots that drive to Council Bluffs for their gas and waste any savings by the extra driving.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

145. No flames from me, Redstone

The American people have been suckered into car-dependency by one of the biggest industrial conspiracies in American history.

Most Americans are car addicts. The only way to wean themselves out of the clutches of the oil companies and the auto companies is to drive less, move to less car-dependent areas if they can, demand that their municipal governments institute community planning that is friendly to walking, cycling, and transit; lobby their Congresscritters for better transit and intercity rail, and seriously and soberly examine their own lifestyles for examples of car idiocy liking driving three blocks to buy a carton of milk or insisting on driving to work when there's perfectly good public transit available (most of the excuses for not taking available transit amount to "But I don't WAAAANT to.")*

*Obviously real rural dwellers (as opposed to people who do silly things like moving to massive apartment complexes in the cornfields), or disabled people are in a different situation. I'm talking about everyone else.

[Redstone]

162. There's an easy way to be less car-dependent. Live in town, not in a suburban sprawl.

It's worked wonders for us.

Redstone

[goclark]

146. Someone said don't buy Exxon or mobil on the 15th

Is that a better way?

The email said they are the two biggest and if we hurt them , gas will go down.

?

[NoGOPZone]

149. Won't work.

While Exxon and Mobil, which are one company now, would lower their price if demand for their product significantly went down over an extended period, that won't cause the other companies to lower theirs. In fact, these other companies would likely RAISE the price of their gas since it is now in greater demand.

[Kelly Rupert]

151. Not quite true.

They'd just sell their oil to the others, who would sell it to us at the exact same prices. Oil is fungible.

[NoGOPZone]

153. Yes they would

but gas retailing is still a profitable venture for oil companies, and there still are a large number of stations that are corporate owned. While Exxon Mobil could handle consumers not purchasing their product, they would not welcome it.

[DollyM]

152. Maybe so, maybe not but it's at least something.

My family started observing TV turn off week several years back. Ahhh . . . sweet serenity, no fighting, kids who played outdoors instead of being planted in front of a TV, we talked more as a family. . . wonderful. So much that after a couple of years of doing this, we just went cold turkey, turned off the cable and put the TV in storage and haven't looked back since. I think that one day might not might a difference in oil company profits but it will at least get people thinking which might lead to them seeing they can find other means of transportation. To me, that is what it is all about. Just like doing without TV for a week showed us we could survive and find alternate means of entertainment, trying this may change the way you view jumping in that car to go two blocks down the street.

[Redstone]

158. Hey, a belated welcome to DU to you. We don't watch TV either. We do let the kids watch it (one of

them is 22, so he pays the cable bill)...Mr R and I just kind of got out of the habit, not that we had that much of a habit to start with.

Not that there isn't good stuff on TV - there is - we just never think of turning it on.

Redstone

[Maat]

155. One person here who cut her driving WAY DOWN, Sir!

Both Hubby and I work out of the house now, and, when we do drive, it's in a Toyota Prius! I symbolically flip off the CEO of ExxonMobil twice per week as I drive by the gas station thinking of the two tanks per week I WON'T BE BUYING. It makes me feel SO good! Kid's school is 5 minutes away; my real estate broker (under whose license I work) is 5 minutes away, and our grocery store is 5 minutes away!

On edit:
When we can't coordinate a trip (to use it for multiple purposes), we walk or use my kid's electric scooter. And we homeschool her three days per week too.

How are we liking it? A whole lot!!!

[Redstone]

165. I'll BET you're liking it a lot. Giving the finger to to the gas station must be really satisfying.

Absolutely NO sarcasm in the subject line. You've found a good path in life, and it must be damn satisfying. You're doing well for yourselves and all the rest of us as well.

I bet that your daily stress level is WAY down as well, compared to what it was before you started living like you do.

Redstone

[Maat]

167. Absolutely ..

it feels SO good doing SOMETHING ... that is what lowered my stress level.

I recommend it to everyone - just do something - any small step.

And, I really, really agree with your overall point, Redstone. Did I say that already? I hope that I did!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

174. For ten years, I lived without driving at all

which is a lot more fun than it sounds if you live in an area where the infrastructure supports it (Portland, Oregon). It was so easy and stress-free (no car payments, no gas purchases, no insurance bills, no parking fees) that I'm surprised more people didn't do it.

Now that I live in Minneapolis (which is better for me on all levels except the transportation part) I still drive so little that I get by with filling the tank once a month, and once I went six weeks without stoppinga at the gas station. This is possible because I live in a walkable neighborhood on a bus line. When I moved here, I specifically looked for these features.

I've known a lot of people who have bought a house in the exurbs without even considering transportation factors (only stuff like, "It's near an on-ramp"), only to find that, golly gee, they have to drive so much more. Well, duh.

[Redstone]

156. Boy, does it make me happy to see all the replies that say

"how about not DRIVING on May 15?"

I'll do that, you can bet on it. (But in the interest of honesty I have to say it's not exactly a sacrifice for me, because I'm fortunate enough to be in a position where I don't drive every day anyway.) I do, however, salute those who will have to be inconvenienced by not driving and still take that day off from driving. YOU are the people who will make a difference.

And all you people who HAVE to drive to work that day, because you have no alternative: Do not feel guilty. We can all only do what we can do, and we can't do everything.

I know I got a lot of people honked off with my original post, but if it spurs more people to sign on to the "don't drive on the 15th" idea, well, that works out pretty well for me.

Redstone

[Babsbrain]

214. Everybody's Happy

See how well it can work out? You don't drive on the 15th, you can't buy gas on the 15th. Not so stupid is it?

[JuniperLea]

159. This debate is stupid

I don't see a good reason for even posting this obvious flame bait, except a few want to bash on a few others and make their pompous asses feel big and bad.

Who cares? If some people feel this will make a difference, let 'em at it. Why piss on their parade? They aren't hurting anyone.

[Redstone]

164. Or, we could use the opportunity to throw personal insults at someone we don't like. That's MUCH

more productive. Thank you for your input.

Redstone

[JuniperLea]

166. I only know three people on DU, personally, that is

I can't say I don't like anyone here... but if you read this thread without the names (which is generally what I do, focus on the message and all) it reads like a dumbass waste of time.

[Redstone]

193. Thank you again for your input.

Redstone

[BlackVelvet04]

160. I agree.....

I was really proud of my little Sebring today when I checked my gas mileage....32 mpg average. I live in the country but I plan my trips if I have to go out and for the most part my husband does the shopping in the city since he drives in to work. I never make a trip for just one thing any more.

[wundermaus]

161. I am not buying Gas for the WEEK!

I am going to fill up on Sunday May 13th and drive to work until I run out. Then I am calling in for vacation time off until Friday. That's It! I am not suggesting others take time off from work but if you all could just minimize your use for that week, it would send a LOUD and CLEAR message to the corporate crooks that we know what they are doing... and that scalping the general public will land them in jail. Yes, even the big shots go to jail!

[krobar659]

168. USE ONLY WHAT YOU NEED

The effect just might be felt if everyone only purchased the amount of gasoline actually needed for the day. This, along with cutting out any extra driving. If everyone did this for one month, then there would be an impact felt by the big oil companies. Start a neighborhood carpool for those trips to the store---pick up the phone and call the neighbors and see who needs to go to the store and have them ride with you. It will end up being all of the little things that a person can do to send the message.

[adamuu]

175. great post. snopes.com has a similar opinion

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/nogas.asp
thanks :)

[ecstatic]

180. What if the purpose is just to make a statement?

I don't get the negativity and pessimism here. For the first time, a lot of Americans are being reintroduced to the idea of personal activism. Maybe May 15th will lead to other, more worthwhile ventures. So instead of telling everyone not to do it, why not tell them to do that AND drive less?

Example:

FW: Don't Buy Gas May 15th!

Reply All: Guys, good idea but to make it even better, let's cancel at least one trip for the week and cut out any unecessary driving for 30 days.

sheesh

[Kelly Rupert]

185. That's all we need; more slacktivists.

People seem to think they can change the world by sitting on their ass and not doing a thing, while making a few meaningless gestures. While gestures don't hurt anyone, too many people think they can make a statement and be done with it. Statements are a dime a dozen. What, you think that the oil companies don't know that people don't like expensive gas?

What would actually do something is driving less and buying more-efficient cars. So tell them to do that, but don't let them think that they've "done their part" when they've done jack.

[Redstone]

195. "Slacktivists?" Now, there's a word I like a LOT. But be careful of being so blunt (even though

you're absolutely right); sometimes the truth doesn't go over too well.

But I like what you said, and the way you said it.

Redstone

[bigtree]

199. You are in no position to define how folks will participate . . .

or what other actions they are taking (or intend to take) in conjunction with and as a continuation of this one action.

In fact, your effort here is a demeaning approach which probably is turning off more folks from giving heed to whatever positive steps you are proposing than you are attracting others to join in your ridicule of those who plan to participate.

How can you possibly know - having set yourself so far apart from folks who say they will boycott - what 'part' people are playing in the overall effort to challenge these higher prices and record industry profits? How can you possibly know that folks will take this one action and "be done with it?"

[uppityperson]

201. And the reason it won't suceed is not because it never has before, but because

we said it never has before. Aha.

[bigtree]

224. I imagine it's been discouraged before with the same intensity that's demonstrated here

that is a curious use of time and energy which has done NOTHING to influence me away from participating. In fact, it's hardened my resolve to boycott.

[uppityperson]

234. No, I have no recollection of being discouraged in the past ones.

Could be a reason I chose to not participate this time, experience and that. Best of luck and it would be really nice to make a difference.

[habitual]

188. i buy gas once a month anyway, what would the probability be that

my fillup day landed on the 15th? ( i know, i know 1/31 )

[ChairmanAgnostic]

189. WAIT! are you suggesting we DRIVE LESS? is that what you say?

oh, ok.

[PurpleChez]

191. I can't believe anyone still thinks this would work.

I get the weekly Urban Legends e-newsletter from About.com and I swear they debunk this one about once a month.

[Name removed]

204. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bigtree]

222. It depends on the goal

If the goal is to cripple or hurt the industry, then that's not realistic at all. If it is a protest action then it has as much validity as the numbers of folks who participate. There are plenty of ways to give that participation the visibility it needs to make the modest statement.

All of the 'debunking' is centered, though, on whether this would make a dent in some industry profits, of if it would elicit more than a smirk from them. But, from the conversations I've heard in support of the action, this event will primarily be a rallying point of action, not unlike other protests which had no realistic chance of moving the status quo.

The 'debunking' ignores all of that, probably because they don't have any interest in protest actions.

Also, it's not credible to suggest, as some have, that this event would be the ONLY motivation that the participants are engaged in. I would think that folks who take the time and effort to make their part in this boycott significant would already be doing other things which add to the longer-term solutions discussed and offered as alternatives. This is an EXTRA action for me, for example, not the ONLY one. The 'debunking' doesn't take that into account.

Any action we take can be countered by the industry now that they have a lifetime of profits to manipulate the market and maintain their monopoly. I think these efforts to rally folks behind this boycott or others can be used to enjoin the participants to more concrete efforts to reduce consumption and the like. The 'debunking' doesn't take that into account. In fact, the 'debunking' has been presented by many here as a way to ridicule the boycott and the participants. More would be gained, I think, by using their interest and participation in this boycott, (which most say wouldn't hurt anyone) to enlist them in other actions.

[PurpleChez]

229. I absolutely agree with your point, but

if the goal is actually to prompt discussion of conservation, to raise awareness or our dependency on non-renewable resources, etc., then why hamper yourself with the distraction of a ineffectual boycott that, for many folks, is going to get deleted along with the photos of the 100 pound cat and the African get-rich-quick schemes? These are, we all know, life-or-death issues for our planet, so why risk guilt by association with some widely discredited boycott that is void of sound and fury, signifying nothing?

[bigtree]

231. I would point you to the discussions which seems to have flowered from the original proposal

as some proof of its effect in raising awareness.

[Matsubara]

192. Two different Issues -

True the boycott will have little effect on prices, but then neither will diriving less. I have a car that gets around 40 mpg and I scarsely drive it as I can use a bicycle in the neighborhood.

Driving less and getting more efficient cars, or using transist and insisting that it's implemented when not available are important actions to take in reducing smog & greenhouse gases.

But to get gas prices down, we would need our government to pass a law limiting the profit per gallon the oil companies are allowed to take from petroleum.

They have reaped astounding profits over the last few years, and have no compunction about continuing to gouge, regardless of how much or little we use. The "demand & supply" issues they cite are just an excuse for gouging. They have voluntarily shut refineries during peak seasons just so they could raise prices further - it's no different than what Enron did in California.

[LonelyLRLiberal]

196. Screw it! I say sue the hell out of the oil companies -

Surely there's some legal basis for a lawsuit - price gouging, anti-competitive pricing, fraud . . . .

[Redstone]

200. Oh, yeah, let's SUE THE BASTARDS instead of USING LESS GASOLINE! that'll work!

Because, after all, as Americans, we have a RIGHT to cheap gasoline!

Redstone

[bobbolink]

212. Promise?

?

[derby378]

232. If you're going to boycott anyone, boycott Exxon/Mobil

How big was that platinum parachute their former CEO received, again...?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

239. You're Right. It Is A Monumentally Stupid Idea. But If Someone Wants To Do It Then No Harm Done

right? :shrug:

Sometimes people need to convince themselves they're doing something meaningful even when they're not cause it's better psychologically for them then feeling helpless. No harm in it really.

[Redstone]

240. No harm, but no real effect either. People want to delude themselves? Fine with me.

I put gas in my car roughly once a month. but if I need to go visit a customer on the 15th, well, I'll go buy the gasoline. Because if I postpone my trip until the 16th, it'll make NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE to the oil companies, Global Warming, the Energy Crisis, or anything else.

Redstone