You must log in or register to comment.
Agree with this one! More people being thoughtful about their mode of transportation is a positive aspect
I’ve been thoughtful for years about how there are no options but cars where I live
EVs of course, biking, carpooling, vanpooling, buying smaller cars, walking, all options that can still be done in a car centric location.
We’ve got oil heating, as we live in an old house in rural Scotland. A tank of oil cost £1100 last month and would last about 5 months. It’s now nearly 3 times that. If it doesn’t go down again I won’t be able to afford to heat our house.
The problem is Oil is bad but just you start using EV cause all other essential things come via transport methods which use Oil, so the price there increases a hell lot which affects everyone.
Consumerism…. My family is the same as every other, with SO MUCH CRAP that our house is fucking full. My wife likes to shop but I’m always the “where are we going to put that” police. Buying less crap won’t kill most Americans.
Removed by mod
Does everything else you buy get delivered to the shops by cargo bike?
You may not pay for it at the pump, but I guarantee you’re still paying.
Removed by mod
You’re confusing what is for what could be. And that “could be” could be implemented quite rapidly in an emergency situation.
“… When oil prices go up, we make a lot of money.” -The Guy, who OP obviously is.
Nope, just an EV owner tired of breathing in diesel fumes.
Oil prices affects more than just people driving their car
Even better. Time to start building nuclear power plants (ideally thorium based) and implement batteries and solar power wherever possible. If oil becomes more expensive, then the alternatives become more viable. Something needs to change.
I’m happy because it might finally be enough to trigger someone to shoot Trump or netanyahoo. I’d do it myself but I don’t live there.
I think people moving to EVs is great, but if you absolutely need to get a car, the more economical and environmentally friendly option is to purchase a second hand vehicle regardless if it’s electric or petrol based. Everyone suddenly switching to an EV would cause a catastrophic amount of waste to accrue. Second hand evs are also more expensive than second hand petrol cars AND are more likely to have problems. EV adoption will be gradual, but punishing the struggling working class for daring to use what they can afford AND not throwing working vehicles into the trash is pretty ignorant in my opinion.
We will be facing extinction by the end of the century if we don’t stop putting greenhouse gases into the stratosphere today.
Have any data to back up second hand EVs being less reliable than second hand gas cars? Everything I’ve personally experienced is that as long as the battery is liquid cooled, they’re practically maintenance free.
I don’t have any data on me to be honest, most of what I hear is based on people I know purchasing second hand EVs, and from what I know of EVs. They suffer from battery degradation which right now is an expensive swap, and charger compatibility is heavily dependent on infrastructure that takes forever to roll out where I am. Internal combustion engines will run great even after 150,000 kms, whereas conventional electric cars and even hybrids show degradation at 80,000 on a few models.
Newer EVs likely have less of these problems, but when I talk of purchasing second hand, I’m talking cars that are 10+ years old.
That makes sense. 10+ years ago many models didn’t liquid cool the battery which is what lead to the degradation. Anything in the last 5 years on the used market is much more likely to have no issues.
That’s good to know, that means in the next 5 years, EVs will be as practical to purchase (used) as ICE cars are.
The older models didn’t manage the temperature at all. Those batteries have been abused in hot and cold weather, which makes them die super fast. There are basically only two months every year when you can safely drive an EV like that. All the other days are more or less ideal for murdering that battery.
Oil is one of those “have to have” things for most people. Fixed demand + reduced supply = pure profit for those who sell it, and that’s about it. And not even a productive kind; it’s kinda a wealth transfer without any actual change in what’s being traded.
I’m hoping for $200 a barrel
I think over $100 is enough to force people to pay attention.
so everything can be more expensive! and the working poor can just die, amiright?
Do you have any other plan for preventing the literal extinction of the human race at the hands of runaway climate change?
Working people need to wake tf up to what is happening. They’ve been too comfortable to notice. Gas is a non thought in most of america, something you have to buy. They need to realize how utterly dependent they are on it.
My home town end to end was about five miles. Most people worked in town, and most people drove. Most of them could stand to learn that biking isn’t so bad.
I agree. We need every bit of war against fossil fuels, even if we burn with them!
If there’s one thing I’ve come to the hard conclusion of in the last couple months it’s this. People don’t change shit and will put up with a lot of bullshit until it seriously negatively impacts their quality of life. How does that take shape in capitalism? Everything is fucking expensive. Then things start to change for the better. There is no room for another bailout, the government is bankrupt, it’s debt from wall to wall. The change is happening, AI is like crack cocaine for the demise of capitalism.
You know whose hurt by high prices? Poor people. Guess whose not hurt by them? Rich people.
A lot of people in the US still have states that don’t allow mail-in voting, and can’t get off work to vote. Those people are poor.
A lot of poor people voted against this. Didn’t matter- they still got it.
They’re going to suffer heavily. We can all try to do what we can to reduce the use of fossil fuels, but consumers have not had enough power to do anything meaningful at any point in my lifetime.
Rich people will still technically be affected, but yeah they aren’t going to go hungry.
You know who could hurt rich people? Poor people.
You know who hurt people? Hurt people.
The cycle doesn’t end unless you end it. Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
That’s what they tell you. Funny, though, that nothing changes - for better or worse - until the threat of violence enters the picture.
Slavery wasn’t ended until the nation was ready for civil war.
Global fascism wasn’t stopped until the Nazis were slaughtered.
Peaceful protests are worthless on a small scale, in terms of affecting change. BLM protests, 1% protests, pro-choice protests - all are great for showing unity among your “tribe”, but they don’t directly change anything.
That’s why Trump is cracking down with ICE and weaponizing the DOJ. That’s why we see headlines like “Six Antifa protesters convicted of terroristic threats”. Keep the protests small, keep the average Joe scared of taking to the streets, stoke the fear of violence erupting and legal entanglements.
until the threat of violence enters the picture
Isn’t that one of the key definitions of fascism?
It’s a key tenant of several social conflict theories.
I’m no expert, but the way I understand it, many early sociologists focused on the systems and structures of society. They emphasized the order and structure of “civilized” societies, usually with a bias toward European societies.
Then people like Marx and Weber came along and proposed that these societies were not “civilized”, but rather oppressive. They pointed to class struggles and oligarchs. Other sociologists began to highlight the struggles of marginalized groups like women and people of color. They followed the money and power.
SO, as an example, we use a landlord and his tenant. We could describe the relationship as mutually beneficial. The tenant needed a roof over his head, the landlord provided one. The system functions as intended, benefiting both parties. But we might look deeper and see that housing prices are inflated. The tenant can’t afford a house, but the landlord owns 20 properties. The tenant wants to own property, but he’s shut out. The system is still functioning as intended, but the intention is to make the rich person more money and keep the poor person oppressed.
Obviously, there’s no hard and fast rules. There’s no final answer.
You know who hurts people? Greedy rich people. It seemed fitting when they dragged Mussolini through the streets.
Sure there are infinitely more people who suffer from this than people who benefit.
But people have a limited amount of energy to do things or even think. I believe with people who actually have to work for a living, most of the energy goes towards immediate necessities: the daily tasks, working, getting food on the table, paying bills etc. A huge amount of energy and even time is consumed by stress alone that results from living like this. The tiny amount of energy and time people have for passions and socialising are probably spent on those or resting, or just escapism.
How can people living and feeling like this actually change things ? I’d assume massive systemic change needs consistent mass movements.
People would need to have time and energy to think and act. We’d also need willingness to do those things. It feels like not thinking and not acting consumes less energy and time, and therefore is the more likely choice.
If it is possible to change things for the better for the vast majority of people, why aren’t they changing ?
Things aren’t bad enough yet. Watching the political scene for the past 10 years has been like a frog slowly acclimating itself to a boiling pot of water that eventually kills it.
Also, power IS power. Do you find yourself wondering why North Koreans put up with their Dear Leader? Or how the USSR was able to control half of Germany, along with Ukraine, Belarus and a dozen other nations?
You’ve been taught that in America, power resides with the people. But it never did. Power always follows the money. Those who own property have the power. It’s always been this way, a struggle against all the greedy, power-hungry fucks who can’t get enough.
rich people are stoked to be selling oil that high
Exactly. Based on this, and based on OP’s other responses, OP is basically saying “I want poor people to suffer so rich people can make more money” (off of new car sales with more efficient engines, or electric).
So my question for them is: is the income divide not great enough? If not, when will it be?
That’s mainly a problem for car-brained people. There are other modes of transportation, you know.
No, there aren’t.
Plenty of places have no other option.
“No, there aren’t.”
Yes, in a lot of the world there are. Your comment disagrees with itself. You can’t say “no, completely wrong” and then say “only in some places.”
You’re just being pedantic.
Obviously, the first sentence was meant as a rhetorical refutation.
Mimicking poor reading skills to make a point smacks of desperation.
And you’re being willfully ignorant when you ignore the main point, that for many drivers there are no good options.
have no other option yet
Yea, because alternate options just pop up over night.
People like you remind me of evangelical Christians.
You are all perfectly content to have other people suffer in hopes that a wonderful future will emerge.
If you want to suffer, go right ahead. Don’t expect other people to be miserable so you can feel superior.
yeah, let’s keep things just the way they are and stop hoping that societal changes can be a motor for improvement
all I’m saying is there aren’t alternatives YET, but situations like this could create a positive change in mindset and eventually infrastructure as well. fine by me if you want to be a glass-half-empty kind of person
So when people can’t afford basic life necessities today so poor people starve and go homeless, but that pressure has some unrealized future benefit the current generation likely won’t live to see, that’s glass half-full for you?
I’m hopeful for better too, but I’m not going to be happy about human suffering.
Yeah, in a major metropolitan area.
Trains are cool! There’s like two train tracks that go through town and they only carry freight. There are no passenger trains anywhere around here.
We also have buses. They don’t come within 5 miles of me. Also a non-starter.
I guess it’s cool to hate cars if you live with your parents, but for those of us with bills to pay, we gotta go get that bread. But uh, have fun with your online gaming or whatever. It’s just not sustainable for most of us.
You don’t have good public transit because you and your neighbors have chosen not to vote for it. Maybe that will change when gas is $7 a gallon.
The old bait-n-switch with a side of victim blaming. Gotta love it when they pull the rug out from under you and look down at ya like you were never gonna get ahead.
How’s the view from that ivory tower?
I graduated in '21, moved in with my gf at the same time, started working (to afford rent and surviving, you know) and bought a house last year. But go off I guess. I have bills to pay and hate cars as the sole method of transportation at the same time, it’s amazing! Even have my driver’s license since I was 18 (9 years already, how time flies). Crazy concept.
I’ll go have fun with reading a good book now. Cheerio!
Its true! I strongly believe in public transport. Particularly the transport that is also dependent on oil… Where I live though, if I wanted to get to work without my car it would change my trip time from 45m - 1.5h to about 2h-3h. Each way. I don’t feel like spending 6h travelling so it’s not really a choice for many of us.
At least you have an option. If I wanted to get to work without owning a car I’d have to call an Uber or a friend with a car.
When I started my job last year they straight up told us Uber doesn’t come out there cause it’s too rural and Google Maps still hasn’t bothered updating to list the street the building was built on last year.
Well, in a high gas price environment, workplaces are forced to stop requiring their employees to commute to bumfuck nowhere simply because they can buy land cheap there. Companies that insist on building factories or facilities without any respect for their employees’ commuting needs will simply go bankrupt, fools and their money being soon parted.
Oil products are used in a lot more things than just cars. But, you’re right. I’ll just ride a bike next time I have to travel 70 miles for one of my regular gigs.
There are many regions where alternative forms of transport aren’t very viable. Nearly non-existent public transit and bike infrastructure because everything was designed from the beginning with cars in mind. Zoning requirements that mean everything is spread out and impossible to walk between. Possibly even combined with terrible weather for much of the year.
Places where making changes to fix those issues, increase public options, etc. are met with stiff political backlash, not necessarily from the car people, but just simple conservatives or regressives that don’t think any money should be spent on that infrastructure, often simply because it’s not something they’d use.
but, and I realise this might be a bit utopian, the more people (have to) use alternative modes of transportation, the more the need for better infrastructure will grow. domino effect and all that
Oh definitely, but making those changes requires funding them. And that’s virtually impossible to get voters to approve in some places currently.
And that’s virtually impossible to get voters to approve in some places currently.
Which is why the pain has to come first and therefore high oil prices are good.
They really don’t require a lot of money. In an emergency, you can create a bike lane with nothing but a few traffic cones. Then later you can spend the money and put in a permanent install.
sometimes I’m really glad that I’m European
Much of Europe has the advantage here with simply existing before cars. Places that can’t fit car traffic, etc. so alternatives are either a requirement or already a higher priority than destroying existing infrastructure to make it fit.
Building a city wrong doesn’t mean “alternative forms of transport aren’t very viable;” it means the city was built wrong and that must be corrected.
And make no mistake, that is very viable: the Netherlands already did it (it was not always like that: it was rebuilt for cars after WWII and then rebuilt again starting in the 1970s when they realized they’d fucked up). Paris is doing it right now. It is not actually hard, and it is not actually expensive – at least not compared to the long-term societal costs of continuing car-dependency.
because everything was designed from the beginning with cars in mind.
This is a straight-up lie, BTW. All the cities – including “newer” sunbelt ones, like LA or Houston or Atlanta – were in fact built for walking and streetcars first, and then demolished to accommodate cars.
My suburb was built in the 50s, and it’s one of the oldest in my area. Almost half of the homes in the township are from the last 20 years. It was all 100% built for cars, there are zero other options. And moving isn’t really an option at this point.
Yes, it was built wrong. Europe was also mostly built post-WW2. They chose to build better.
People in dense cities who only drive are car brained. People who live where there are zero other options are simply getting to the store or to work the only way they can.
People who live where there are [legitimately] zero other options – i.e., actually rural – are a negligible minority. 80% of the population has no excuse, and trying to “whatabout the other 20%” is a bad-faith argument.
The majority of the USA lives in what is considered rural suburbs. Aka the nearest place for work is more than 10 miles.
https://www.axios.com/2024/03/24/average-commute-distance-us-map
That’s a lie. Why are you lying?
Suburbs count as urban, not rural. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/urban-rural-populations.html
I literally provided you data that shows that the majority of workers drive more than 10+ miles…most people are not in the middle of cities. Period. Stop trying to make it sound like the majority of the usa is in dense cities.
I mean…the census can define whatever it wants to define, but the rest of us still have to live in the real world.
Sure, you can call my satellite suburban neighborhood “urban”. But it’s 3 miles of twisting, turning roads just to reach the nearest convenience store. The nearest bus stop would be at least 7 miles away.
Maybe we shouldn’t rely solely on the Census Bureau in this regard? Perhaps a transportation authority of some sort would be able to provide better measuring stick for this particular discussion?
80% sounds very high. Do you have any data to support that? I see rough estimates closer to 50/50. Mass transit isn’t viable outside of Metro areas and a lot of people live far from big cities.
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/urban-rural-populations.html
Despite the increase in the urban population, urban areas, defined as densely developed residential, commercial, and other nonresidential areas, now account for 80.0% of the U.S. population, down from 80.7% in 2010. This small decline was largely the result of changes to the criteria for defining urban areas implemented by the Census Bureau, including raising the minimum population threshold for qualification from 2,500 to 5,000. The rural population — the population in any areas outside of those classified as urban — increased as a percentage of the national population from 19.3% in 2010 to 20.0% in 2020.
They’ve even tried to prop up the rural population counts by changing the definition, but it still only manages to be 20% anyway.
I think there’s some nuance missing here.
I’ve lived in suburbs where the nearest public transit was 4 or 5 miles away.
You can live in a densely populated city and still need to travel long distances regularly though… Especially if you’re poor.
Don’t know where you get your figures, but my research says otherwise.
45% of Americans have no access to public transportation at all, particularly in rural and outer suburban areas.
And, while 55% have access to public transit, it’s often not running when/where they need it to go. Or it might take hours of their life from them. Public transit isn’t such a great deal if it turns a 15 minute commute into 90 minutes. That’s an extra couple of hours per day of your time, unpaid and unproductive. It adds up.
But, this is the way the transit system is designed in the USA. It’s no accident that public transit is so inconvenient. Major car companies lobby against public transit, and the politicians gladly trade their integrity for a campaign contribution.
45% of Americans have no access to public transportation at all, particularly in rural and outer suburban areas.
And the primary reason for this is that gas is cheap and that there’s little political demand for public transport. Public transport sucks because only the poorest of the poor use it. In places where the working and middle class use it, it actually provides decent service.
Good public transport and low gas prices are mutually exclusive.
This might be true in some European countries, but it’s not in the US. You don’t have to be rural to not have public transportation options.
You don’t have to be rural to not have public transportation options.
But it does mean the lack of public transportation is illegitimate.
How so? It doesn’t exist. I can’t just will it into existence. It legitimately is not an option.
Even in suburbia public transport is perfectly viable. You can set up networks of high-frequency stops places decently far apart, so the average person is maybe half a mile from the nearest stop. Then people can use micro-mobility options like scooters to cover that last mile.
And if there aren’t bike lanes or places for people to safely ride scooters? A city can create those overnight with a few traffic cones. There’s just no political will to do so. When gas is $7 a gallon, that might change.
That’s mainly a problem for (poor) car-brained people.
Gonna just go for a spin in my private jet.
Taylor???
Are car brained people going to be the only ones affected by rising food prices due to an increase in transportation costs? How about those that don’t have any other means but to drive to work to make a living because public transportation isn’t available and buying an EV isn’t an option?
It’s not just an issue for car brained people, it’s also an issue for narrow minded people, such as yourself.
Oh no, rising food prices could be real. But that doesn’t mean other things should be expensive as well. There is always a chance to cut personal costs elsewhere - like transportation, for instance.
What I do believe is that it could be the thing that’s needed to push for better infrastructure and public transportation, but that won’t happen if you just look at it as if you’re only a victim and can’t do anything about it. If people can get vocal and push their (local) government to look at alternatives, you could achieve a lot. If you just want to sulk in a corner acting like “oh it’s bad and there’s nothing that can be done”, then you’re the narrow minded one. Look at the opportunity it brings and that could be solved in the medium/long term. Okay, you have a short term problem, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be solved. You said in another comment “because alternate options just pop up over night”. No, they don’t, but if you expect every problem to be fixed over night, you’re gonna have a very difficult life.
It’s a problem right now and getting worse. Long term goals for change are good, but in the best circumstances that takes years of planning and implementation.
People can cut personal costs, but that shouldn’t have to be done. That’s simply a work around for people to survive, but we’re here to live. I could turn my heat down to 50° in the house, but I shouldn’t have to live in discomfort to make ends meet. I could eat just rice and beans but I should be able to afford a balanced diet. Some of us can’t just cut costs on transportation because there aren’t any other options. Saying to just costs is a lot like victim blaming.
deleted by creator
You don’t think poor people suffer from climate change? Or are you a science denier?
Comically ignorant
Yes it is comically ignorant to pretend more people won’t suffer worse from climate change than from high fuel prices.
Comically ignorant. Lol the edits
Unless you drive a much bigger car than you need to (i.e. that guy who drives a ford 350 to the office), there’s probably not much to save on engine efficiency. Maybe a liter/100km
I’m hoping some of the poor people start to realize how dependent they are on gas though. They’ve been too comfortable with subsidized gas for too long, with us taxpayers all paying to lower gas prices artificially. It’s time they notice and start thinking that maybe it’s time to think about carpooling or buying smaller cars.
Me: 🤔this could at least trigger uprising of working class… Me, after 30s more thinking: 😪well, I thought so as well, as I learned that trumpet got elected…
Why?
Because of climate change and my hatred of breathing in diesel fumes when a truck passes by. I want to see more efficient electric vehicles. With gas prices high the alternative becomes more viable, and it exposes how volatile fossil fuels are.
Not a lot of massive cargo ships are gonna stop using bunker fuel in favour of turning electric. And that’s just one example.
It will happen over time, especially with higher oil prices.
Well, we’re either going to have to find a way, or we’re all dead. So maybe higher gas prices are a small price to pay for the literal salvation of the species.
Thankfully I can drive on E85 so I’m not that affected by the price hike. I would love to switch to electric. But can’t afford it. Maybe when the cars come down do 20-30k, then I could start thinking about it
Bought mine for £17k 6 years ago. Don’t buy off the forecourt.
Look at the used market! Plenty of EV’s in that price range. For instance: https://www.cars.com/vehicle/153a974c-1ea1-4a76-892e-31032334d488/
All the research and real world usage has shown that EV’s generally last well over 100K miles so you’ll get a lot of usage out of a used EV.
I agree, but expecting change in the next 6 months, maybe up to five years, is unrealistic, particularly under a government that actively encourages the use of fossil fuels.
But it can be a waking call for many people that didn’t though about changing to EV and solar panels.
I can buy so much diesel for the price of an EV. Those are completely out of my price range and higer fuel prices aren’t going to change that.
Diesel vehicles are the same price range as electric vehicles if not more expensive. The cost of ownership on diesels is way way more than an EV.
That’s hilarious. I’m not even getting a handshake at the local EV dealership for the price that I paid for my 17 year old work truck with 300k km on it. The cheapest used EV pickup truck for sale here currently is 25k€ and is completely unfit for what I need it for and the size of those American monster trucks - no thanks.
The amount of money you would have to spend to keep a diesel on the road for 300k is more than the cost of a new EV.
If we don’t stop putting greenhouse gasses into the stratosphere today then we will be extinct by the end of the century.
While I don’t know your use case or required vehicle type, there are many EV’s around $35K and tons on the used market for way less. There are tons of things to calculate but assuming a diesel vehicle is driven about 10K miles a year, you’ll spend around $2K/year on that, yea? Every year you own the vehicle you can deduct that from the purchase price to get the Net Present Value of the vehicle as home-charging rates are negligible at around maybe $100 a year. If you own it for 5 years, that vehicle could be considered to have cost you roughly $25K, net. 10 years would be $15K net. Then there’s the lower maintenance cost on EV’s to consider, as well. In the long term, EV’s aren’t as expensive as people think but you have to have the funds to cover the high purchase price at the start and plan to own the vehicle for a long time. As gas prices rise, these calculations only improve for EV’s and worsen for gas-powered vehicles. A helpful metric to use is that gas vehicles cost about $0.30/mile to run and EV’s, when charged at home, cost about $0.03/mile.
35k is a completely outrageous price to pay for a vehicle. That covers my fuel for 17 years, but it wouldn’t even buy me an equivalent EV. Those are up from 50k used.
I don’t have anything against EVs on principle. I just can’t afford one - whereas I could total my work truck tomorrow and just buy a new (used) one. Or five.
Today I have made the calc. With 1€ of electricity (at home) I can drive 75km. That 1€ gives me today half a liter of gasoline.
EVs are already cheaper than ICE vehicles. You pay a bit more up front, but you save long term of gas and maintenance.
There’s about 8k between the cheapest EV and the cheapest gas car. Whatever difference is overshadowed by the cost of gas.
You are looking for reasons.
You can throw up a bike lane in a few hours with nothing but a few traffic cones. This isn’t something that takes years to implement if there’s actually political will to do so.
Its not just america paying more for oil. Countries world wide will experience this and future volatility. It could be a tipping point for some to take alternative energy and transportation more seriously.
This situation is making oil more profitable for the other countries that produce it. Coincidentally, that includes the USA who started this mess, and who also kidnapped the leader of another oil producing country a couple months ago.
Climate change is a producer problem, and this price increase only hurts consumers.
Bring it, my preferred ride is a bicycle. I am usually bummed when I have to drive even though I have a fun car with manual and AWD.
Ditto on the manual with AWD. But I haven’t been able to cycle at all in the last 20 years.
this has a very bad side effect, as trump just removed oil sanctions from RUSSIA, now they are selling oil at a HIGH price to refund thier WAR EFFORT, which is bad news for ukraine. now they can afford to purchase more materials for drones, and missiles to use against ukraine.
