September 11, 2000
5:41 PM Subscribe
In fact, we sit in dark rooms eating hummus and vegan hotdogs and plan just how we can best use the money we receive from taxes on gas. A general breakdown of last nights meeting is as follows:
20% To Increase Teen Pregnancy (so they'll have abortions)
30% Desecration of the bible
50% Funding for Susan Sarandon
posted by Doug at 6:38 PM on September 11, 2000
posted by wiremommy at 6:40 PM on September 11, 2000
posted by wiremommy at 6:51 PM on September 11, 2000
posted by aramaic at 7:03 PM on September 11, 2000
posted by aaron at 8:59 PM on September 11, 2000
oh, and vice versa.
posted by mathowie at 9:26 PM on September 11, 2000
Poor, poor us. We had to pay almost $2 a gallon to gas up our SUVs.
Protesting high gas prices isn't liberal or conservative. It's short-sighted and greedy. Those are bi-partisan qualities.
posted by frykitty at 9:28 PM on September 11, 2000
frykitty: I'm interested in the silence and lack of celebration about the people taking control, not in the argument about gas prices itself. In any case, you're incorrect. In the US, neither Ron Wyden nor anybody else of either party got prices down. It was market forces, combined with new EPA regulations and changes in production levels, that caused the price to shoot up, and it was market forces, combined with a slow-to-arrive adjustment to the new regs and changes in production levels, that brought them back down. It's a different matter in Europe, largely because the taxes there are much much higher than they are here, and it's getting to the point there that the prices are seriously affecting people, not just rising up to a grumbling level.
posted by aaron at 9:39 PM on September 11, 2000
I do think your question is legitimate, if incendiary in this forum. In my opinion, we made this bed with our own stupidity. We built entire cities around a non-renewable resource that is damaging to the environment, and now we have to pay the piper. This is me playing "My Heart Bleeds for You" on the world's smallest violin.
The reason there is no celebration of these "empowering" events is there is no reason to celebrate. It's just people having a mass whine-in about getting hit in the pocketbook because of bad decisions. Decisions we made decades ago. No one ever said petroleum was renewable. We always knew it would run out. We knew it was vile for the planet a long, long time ago. Yet we decided to become dependent upon it anyway. Swift thinking, humanity. I've got a bridge to sell you.
posted by frykitty at 10:04 PM on September 11, 2000
“Heavy vehicles, usually banned from French roads on weekends, were permitted to drive Sunday to expedite fuel deliveries.”
How kind of them. Banned? Why? It sounds typical - people want fresh produce in the store Monday morning; they want their furniture delivered, their corner-station gas tanks filled, their newspapers and mail brought to neighborhood distribution points, but they’ll be DAMNED if they want to get stuck behind a semi on the way back from their weekend trip to the country.
posted by lileks at 10:49 PM on September 11, 2000
I would not have any problem at all with my government charging 80p a litre for fuel if they used the duty levied to research alternative fuel sources, invest in the rail network so that passenger services were reliable and widespread and (more importantly) freight was taken off the roads onto the rail system. But they don't. They claim the increases in tax are for environmental reasons but there is scant evidence of any envronmental policies being implemented.
I live in a small rural community - I have no option but to drive to the nearest station 25 miles away (the bus service was cancelled several years ago when bus services were privatised), in a few days I will not have any petrol left and will not be able to make my trip to the station except by bike which, if I were to do so would take me about 3 hours. I will not be able to go to work, neither will much of the country and business will begin to suffer. You can bet your life the Government will sit up and listen when the country's large companies go to them.
Maybe this situation, if it escalates into paralysis of the country will highlight just how reliant society is on the internal combustion engine and make more people realise what will happen when the finite fossil fuel resources really start to become scarce.
Then again, the likely outcome is that a concession will be made to the road hauliers (the ones actually blockading the refineries), they'll go back to work on cheaper diesel and the Governement will get a pat on the back for averting a crisis.
Meanwhile we'll all still be choking the system (and ourselves) slowly to death.
posted by Markb at 2:19 AM on September 12, 2000
posted by piefke3000 at 2:30 AM on September 12, 2000
Till then, I shall rejoice in the decline in vehicle traffic, making our cities safer for cyclists and pedestrians and the air cleaner for all of us.
Truly, popular protests do have such positive outcomes...!
posted by theparanoidandroid at 4:44 AM on September 12, 2000
Oh, and tax on fuel is designed to curtail supply.
posted by holgate at 5:01 AM on September 12, 2000
Oh, and Wyden is taking credit for lowering gas prices in Oregon? That's funny. Our senators in the Midwest are also all claiming single handed credit for saving us from Big Oil.
posted by norm at 6:05 AM on September 12, 2000
posted by holgate at 9:17 AM on September 12, 2000
posted by thirteen at 9:27 AM on September 12, 2000
posted by RakDaddy at 1:07 PM on September 12, 2000
« Older Does anyone really dig the new MSN? | Dubya gets subliminal? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by jblock at 6:16 PM on September 11, 2000