6 stupidly simple steps to save billions of gallons of gas

Ford SportTrac Forum

Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
The six steps all make sense to me.



No one's fault- it is what it is. If you don't like it, don't buy it.



Don't buy a truck and then complain about gas mileage.



Automotive transportation has been highly subsidized for years in the US. I'd like to see a little less subsidaization of autos, and a little more for mass transit, especially in urban areas.
 
Number 6 should be "Ban Tractor-Trailers during Rush Hour." Every stinking day, I hear of at least 2 accidents involving big trucks, some times more than that! Want to save money on fuel? Don't drive through the DC area during rush hour.



Jim
 
hey jim please dont judge all truck drivers, because of a few " billy big riggers " . 90% of professional drivers are " professional ! " . if trucks dont move, the country dont move.
 
OR . . . We could produce more domestic fuel, reducing our dependence on foreign oil and enhancing our national security. We could drill in ANWR, off the shores of FL and CA, and I believe some more oil reserves were recently discovered in the midwest. But the enviroweenies and the members congress who are beholden to them have so far been able to prevent that from happening.



Take the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR), for example. I've read that the section that would be opened up for oil production, relative to the size of the entire reserve, is equivalent to the size of two regular postage stamps on an acre of ground. Had we started on ANWR in, say, 1994, we'd have been enjoying its oil for about four years now (it takes about 10 years for an oil well to begin producing). But, noooooo. Can't upset the earth-worshippers. Thank you Bill Clinton, Algore, and the entire U.S. Congress. Bush didn't get it done in his 8 years either. Expect more of the same no matter who is elected president in November.



But let's get back to #3 and #6. All of you who think these are great ideas <I>chose</I> to drive <B>Sport Tracs</B> that get only 16-18 MPG on average, instead of saving the planet by buying a Prius. So what you're saying is, "Please punish me for choosing to drive a truck and, while you're at it, please make sure (via unreasonably high MPG requirements) that neither I nor anyone else can ever drive anything like a Sport Trac again, because otherwise, I just can't help myself." Now <I>that</I> is both @sinine and ret@rded (there now, that's less offensive, isn't it?).



I'm not saying that these are all bad ideas. Just #3 and #6. And, for people who live in rural areas like I do, #5 won't work out so well, either. But I could definitely benefit from #1. (I suspect that some of you will suggest that I am full of #2 . . . )





 
Last edited by a moderator:
All of you who think these are great ideas chose to drive Sport Tracs that get only 16-18 MPG on average, instead of saving the planet by buying a Prius. So what you're saying is, "Please punish me for choosing to drive a truck and, while you're at it, please make sure (via unreasonably high MPG requirements) that neither I nor anyone else can ever drive anything like a Sport Trac again, because otherwise, I just can't help myself."



First off, gas was less then $2 a gallon when I bought my Trac. I probably wouldn't buy one today. Second, I need a pick-up and lets face it, there isn't any such thing as a pickup that gets good gas mileage. If I could get by with a Prius then I would gladly buy one. (Okay, probably not a Prius). The problem is people that buy a truck that never use it as a truck. It's like Hummer owners that have never been off road. Hopefully higher gas prices will force people to make better choices.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JimJ, I think you are a little confused. I don't see where any of the above steps were listed as required by law, nor punitive.



As TomT said, many of us bought our STs when gas was 1/2 what it is today, and that's only 2 to 3 years ago for most of us. I suspect any of us would be rethinking investements into goods if the cost of keeping those goods doubled in just a couple of years.



TJR
 
Jim J, what makes you think that our gas/oil/diesel would be any cheaper just because we're producing it "locally." The private companies that would be doing the work would be looking to make the same profit as they do now. Just because we would be producing more on our home turf, means absolutely nothing in terms of price and to think it would make much difference is a bit optimistic to say the least.



IMO, gas is as inflated as it is, because we have oil people in charge of the country. Yes, there is something to say for supply and demand, and a global economy, but the type of increases we have seen are abusive. The hurricanes in the gulf in '05 didn't help either but I would think we would have seen these type of increases then if our gas consumption was truly locally produced.

 
Gas is inflated everywhere. Our President is not powerful enough to cause prices to be inflated everywhere. What is causing inflated prices is the fact that China and India are industrializing and demanding more oil, and the global stock markets are weak, which causes investors to put their money into hard commodities (such as gold, platinum, food and oil) The prices of all of these commodities are inflated as a result.



The US housing bubble caused this ripple through the World economy. This bubble was caused by greedy lenders and real estate speculators. Their greed is now causing riots in Egypt, because the poor cannot get the bread they require to survive. We are all linked together in this new global market. Our individual acts alone do not create these situations, but our combined decisions drive the World's biggest economy, which then affects everyone else.
 
NelsonOKC said:
The US housing bubble caused this ripple through the World economy. This bubble was caused by greedy lenders and real estate speculators. Their greed is now causing riots in Egypt, because the poor cannot get the bread they require to survive.



I beg to differ.



The greed of American home mortgage lenders has created some economic upheaval, that I will admit, and the ripple is felt around the world. However, to say that it is "causing riots in Egypts" and the riotors are Egyptian "poor that cannot get bread", than that is where I disagree.



The disparity between the Middle-Eastern rich and their poor has been in place ever since there has been Middle-Eastern oil. If we had such disparity in our country, our poor would revolt too. Egypt and Saudi Arabia (for example) have some of the richest national resources in the world, exporting billions a year, but their elite keep their poor down, literally starving.



Our sub-prime fiasco and our housing bubble may have turned the American economy upside down and have added to the Egyptian poor's problems, but we certainly aren't "causing" them.



TJR
 
The US housing bubble caused this ripple through the World economy. This bubble was caused by greedy lenders and real estate speculators.



Actually, the "housing bubble", and the current oil/fuel/food price situation wasn't caused by "greedy lenders and speculators", but rather by our wonderful elected representatives in Congress:



Congressional Problem Creation

by Walter E. Williams



Posted: 05/14/2008



Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place. Politicians and a large percentage of the public lose sight of the unavoidable fact that for every created benefit, there's also a created cost or, as Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman put it, "There's no free lunch." While the person who receives the benefit might not pay or even be aware of the cost, but as sure as night follows day, there is a cost borne by someone. Let's look at a couple of congressionally created problems.



The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, whose provisions were strengthened during the Clinton and Bush administrations, is a federal law that mandates or intimidates lenders to offer credit throughout their entire market and discourages them from restricting their credit services to high-income markets, a practice known as redlining. The Community Reinvestment Act encouraged banks and thrifts to make so-called "no doc" and "liar" loans to customers who had no realistic ability to pay them back. A decade of monetary expansion by the Federal Reserve Bank, contributing to the housing bubble, encouraged lending institutions to take risks they otherwise would not have taken. Government actions created the subprime crisis and now government-proposed "solutions," such as foreclosure holidays, bailouts and further regulation of financial institutions, to the problems they created will create more problems.



Congress, doing the bidding of environmental extremists, created our energy supply problem. Oil and gas exploration in a tiny portion of the coastal plain of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would, according to a 2002 U.S. Geological Survey's estimate, increase our proven domestic oil reserves by approximately 50 percent. The Pacific and Atlantic Oceans and eastern Gulf of Mexico offshore areas have enormous reserves of oil and natural gas. These energy sources of oil have also been placed off limits by Congress. Because of onerous regulations, it has been 30-plus years since a new refinery has been built. Similar regulations also explain why the U.S. nuclear energy production is a fraction of what it might be.



Congress' solution to our energy supply problems is not to relax supply restrictions but to enact the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 that mandates that oil companies increase the amount of ethanol mixed with gasoline. Anyone with an ounce of brains would have realized that diverting crops from food to fuel use would raise the prices of a host of corn-related foods, such as corn-fed meat and dairy products. Wheat and soybeans prices have also risen as a result of fewer acres being planted in favor of corn. A Purdue University study found that the ethanol program has cost consumers $15 billion in higher food costs in 2007 and it will be considerably higher in 2008. Higher food prices, as a result of the biofuels industry, have not only affected the U.S. consumer, they have had international consequences as seen in the food riots that have broken out in Egypt, Haiti, Yemen, Bangladesh and other nations.



What's the congressional response? On May 1, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, convened a hearing on rising food prices saying, "The anxiety felt over higher food prices is going to be just as widespread, and will equal or surpass, the anger and frustrations so many Americans have about higher gas prices." Congress' proposed
 
Last edited by a moderator:
re·tard·ed

Pronunciation: \ri-&#712;tär-d&#601;d\

Function: adjective

Date: 1895

sometimes offensive : slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development or academic progress



Usually considered offensive by disabled persons.



According to the medical report, Retarted is the proper diagnosis of her condition.





Tom
 
Tom,



Check the last two lines of the quote. You'll also find the "N" word in the dictionary to describe black people too, but I wouldn't advise using it, unless you also plan to use your gun.
 
The N-Word is not a clinical term to describe a disability.



If the term "Negro" is the proper term for someone that is black, but at the same time is offensive, then you would have a point.



Calling someone retarted that is missing a leg would be offensive to that person.



Calling someone that is deemed retarted by a professional doctor is a completely different and is perfectly acceptable.



It is no different than calling a person from Germany a German.



If you are retarted, you are retarted. There is no other way around it. Calling them a F'ing Retard is different. Saying they are Retarted is perfectly acceptable.





Tom
 
Amazing how a thread on gas mileage can end up being a lesson in semantics on two words.



Number 6 should be "Ban Tractor-Trailers during Rush Hour."



And then #7 is "only allow old people and soccer moms on the road between 9am-3pm when the majority of us are already at work". It would also force the soccer moms to have their precious cargo TAKE THE BUS which is paid for with tax payer money and is, next to walking, the least cost model of shuttling kids from home to school and back again.



So, in conclusion, it is soccer moms that are the root cause of why Americans fail to accept public transportation later in life.



JT#14



p.s. Please take this with the intended sarcasm but also know it would make the morning and evening commute much better!
 

Latest posts

Top