"The price at the pump was more than $4 a gallon in Vista, Calif., when Scott Hissem recently embarked on a trip to Texas [...] Gasoline cost just $2 and change. The gap has Mr. Hissem considering a move to escape California's high cost of living."
Texans have noticed that people arrive from California, and then start voting to turn Texas into California. There seems to be no awareness of the connection between policy and the cost of living.
It seems very on topic and relevant to the discussion. The preceding posts were:
Unfortunately, the effects of consumption aren’t contained to where (and when) one consumes
That’s why we need to enforce borders
So pointing out that the emissions (one side effect of unlimited consumption) aren't stopped by border control or a wall seems to be completely on topic.
...says a guy from a country that basically created the Mexican cartels out of thin air via the War on (some) Drugs.
Which "most lucrative market on earth" do you suppose they service?
You should really do a bit of additional research on:
The Monroe Doctrine. Henry Kissinger, Salvador Allende & Pinochet. United Fruit & Guatemala, and the list goes on...
We are ONE singular species and the climate crisis ain't the elephants or squirrels fault my friend.
Then there's this thing called a global market, but I defer to your urge to hide under the covers and suck your thumb instead of engaging with the real world.
Consumption drives a lot of valuable things. Like tax revenue, or research of semiconductor lithography processes which are later used to build medical devices and most other things. If someone consumes, someone on the other hand necessarily produces.
The other large driver to many of those things is war. I’d rather have consumption.
This is California gas price break down for August 2019 [1]:
========================
Aug 26
Branded Unbranded
Distribution Costs, Marketing Costs and Profits $0.410 $0.650
Crude Oil Costs $1.430 $1.430
Refinery Cost and Profit $0.850 $0.610
State Underground Storage Tank Fee $0.020 $0.020
State and Local Tax $0.076 $0.076
State Excise Tax $0.473 $0.473
Federal Excise Tax $0.184 $0.184
Retail Prices $3.440 $3.440
========================
Total State tax: 0.02 + 0.076 + 0.473 = 0.569
California high gas price might have more things to do with location, affordability, and demand than what people are willing to attribute to it.
The breakdown shows that California does have high gas tax, but it's not $2 high. Even within the Bay Area, I can see $1 price swing between the rich neighborhoods and other neighborhoods. Driving from SF to LA, and you can also see the price swing through different town. Some parts in LA county often have higher than $5/gallon. I'm guilty on multiple occasions when I just pull up to the closest gas stations and fill up without checking if I can save a bit more somewhere else. When half of your town earns at least $250K a year, the gas stations can jack up the price without being afraid of losing customers.
Rent and real estate prices influencing gas prices are also a large part due to the CA/SF gov...
Texas builds way more buildings and makes much better use of space. Not to mention the additional costs of running the business and employing people, which are also added to all of their supply chains. It adds up.
I remember moving to SF and being shocked I was getting taxed the same rate as living in Toronto, but that doesnt include health care or nearly as much benefits as Canada. Canada gets a lot of heat from Americans for being 'socialist' but there's plenty of counter examples, Toronto builds 100x more buildings than SF, our corporate tax is way lower than US, our ratio of economic immigrants:family migration is significantly higher, our banks/governments have been more fiscally conservative, etc. Plus Canada ranks higher on economic freedom index than America (8th vs 17th): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom
I hope this perception that the US is a market economy starts to change. A state-by-state distinction is much better. California is always the leading example of this change and the best signal of where the US is heading, as other US states seem to copy California for some reason.
> Texas builds way more buildings and makes much better use of space.
Only if you think being able to walk/bicycle places is undesirable. Just thinking about all those gated suburbs separated from each other by 6 lane roads and medians makes me shudder.
> California high gas price might have more things to do with location, affordability, and demand than what people are willing to attribute to it.
Not buying this. It'd been widely reported that California has different requirements for fuel than most of the rest of the states, so, there's probably a bit extra that goes into refinery costs in addition to your calculation.
There is quite a bit more refinery costs. But it's not just the cost to produce it, it's the fact that producing California has requires special plant configurations. So even a surplus of gas in Texas may not affect CA supply. There are sometimes shortages of the CA approved gas, thus causing price spikes.
I wasn't claiming the $2 was gas tax. Policy is more than just the gas tax.
Policy drives up "Distribution Costs". If it is hard to operate a fuel tanker trucking company in California, the cost of distribution will be higher. Truckers are regulated, trucks are regulated, tankers are specifically regulated, flammable liquid is even more regulated, there are normal business taxes to be paid, there are random fees to operate, and so much more. Policy makes the cost go up.
It is similar with "Marketing Costs". Simply operating a business in a highly regulated state is difficult. The ad agency will cost more, the places to advertise will charge more, and so on.
Refinery costs are much higher. California demands a special unique California formulation of gasoline. Even with California being a large state, this is a low-volume product. It's also a premium product. Actually running any sort of refinery under California law looks like a nightmare, and I'm sort of surprised that it is still a viable business in the state.
In the rich neighborhoods, the cost of land and property tax for a gas station is high. That ends up in the price.
California demands a special unique California formulation of gasoline
Two special CA-specific formulations: winter and summer.
Winter gas adds oxygenates, supposedly reducing certain emissions by 10%. However, it has 10% less energy per unit volume, so you burn 10% more of it. Net effect: more expensive with no real world benefit.
Best of all, they blame additional local price rises twice a year on the changeover. It's quite a racket.
> Texans have noticed that people arrive from California, and then start voting to turn Texas into California. There seems to be no awareness of the connection between policy and the cost of living.
Is that actually true? They are a self selecting group, not a random sample, and probably conservative if they hold views that would cause them to leave a liberal state.
> and probably conservative if they hold views that would cause them to leave a liberal state.
People move out of California because of affordability more than ideology, just like people move to California more for economic opportunity than ideology. (It's true that the realization of ideology through policy affects both affordability and economic opportunity, but people moving because of the conditions on either of those dimensions are often not motivated by ideology.
This is why I want to move to TX and help support the reason why Texas is good. All of these stories about CA people moving there worries me though. Not sure what a good plan B is that's not in a southern state with a backwards economy.
> Texans have noticed that people arrive from California, and then start voting to turn Texas into California
Its only a matter of time before people just ignore the idea from 13 east coast colonies trying to avoid population centers driving policy unilaterally and continent wide.
One ideology lives in sparsely populated counties and only barely has consensus in even those counties (usually just slightly more than 50%). Whereas the other ideology simply does have the numbers and if a tiny fraction of them could stand living in the middle of nowhere for 18 months they could vote the entire country their way forever.
Newsom tweeting in outrage at rising gas prices soon after signing gas tax hikes is interesting. Aren’t higher gas prices good for the environment and one of the reasons voters wanted him?
I am a CA voter and I do think gas prices should be twice what they are now (e.g. more like western europe). Of course, a change like that should be gradual but steady
Well, it's not clear that California isn't getting gouged right now. Saudi oil production is down, and the California refiners have jacked the price out of proportion, IMHO.
Personally, I'm quite happy that gas is expensive and hope it gets even moreso. Anything which accelerates California getting off of oil is a good thing.
I just wish the increases were gradual and continuous so that they are expenses that can be planned for rather than sudden surprise shocks.
No, the outrage is that accounting for gas taxes, the price of gas is still higher than what market analysis would predict. Newsom is studying why (eg price coordination).
Most voters supportive of the gas tax, including myself, voted because the revenue is improving road infrastructure and commutes.
Until electric cars are available for low income people I don't really care much for statements implying we should actively looking to increase gas prices for the sake of doing so.
The point of the article isn't about how expensive gas is, but how much the price of gas varies between different states in the US. It would be like paying $1.46/l in Sydney, while the folks in Adelaide are only paying $0.70/l.
Since this story is primarily interesting to Americans, the price abroad per gallon is more helpful.
In Germany, the average price is $5.87/gal.
The price varies in the EU, but mostly reflecting average income. No one is surprised that it's more expensive in Finland ($6.38) and cheaper in Romania ($4.32).
Yes, and that in absolute terms people in Romania pay more than people in the US.
A comparable price in US would probably be closer to $15. I don't know how to compute this with some public purchasing power parity numbers but I would be curious.
I'd imagine most folks in Romania can also easily get away with never owning a car in their lifetime, without any perceivable negative connotations to their quality of life, whilst it's not really a possibility in most parts of the US, especially in California.
Assuming that Romania is like the rest of ex-Eastern bloc, not really. You're good if you live downtown in one of the few major cities and don't need to get out of town (e.g. relatives in rural regions).
So sort of like US... If you move to NYC and don't need to get out of it...
I paid around $4.79 the other day in Poland - a country which is experiencing rapid growth in car ownership, because public transportation outside of cities has been all but dismantled.
All in all I think it wouldn't hurt to start driving either smaller or more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Poland is experiencing rapid growth in car ownership because people are getting wealthier and can afford cars and gas, while public transportation outside of dense cities is slow, inconvenient, expensive, or all of the above.
As bad as it is, the positive is that alternate methods of transportation are boosted when gas prices go up. The current trend of buying large SUVs to commute an hour or two a day is supported by the cost of gas. Gas prices go up, cars get smaller and public transport gets a boost, congestion goes down, air quality improves and people do more things in there local community.
I do understand that the negative effects on people who rely on long commutes to work, but difficult positions can spur positive change if people work together.
People buy large SUVs because the fuel efficiency law encourages it. Calculations for CAFE involve the vehicle mass and the area of pavement surrounded by the tires. Large SUVs have an advantage in the calculation.
People commute an hour or two because of laws that make it unreasonable to move closer to work. Taxes would reset, fees would need to be paid, and so many people would get their cut of the sale.
Regulation is one way to force people to drive more fuel efficient cars (because the less efficient cars will either be priced out of reach or be unavailable completely). But so are fuel taxes as the parent poster pointed out -- make gas more expensive and people will demand more fuel efficiency. I think both have a place -- make less efficient cars more expensive to buy and operate.
It's not just zoning laws that keep people from living close to work, some people just don't want to live in a city so they are happy to commute for an hour if it means they can have a 2400 sq foot house on an acre of land. No amount of zoning can provide large numbers of big single family houses on large lots that are also close to large urban work centers.
Though I just wish those people would stop complaining when cites repurpose streets for transit and bikes for those that do live closer to work and can more easily use alternative transit.
An interesting idea is a “gas ratchet”: set taxes as a dynamic floor so that the price of gas never decreases. This would increase predictability for businesses, and lead to economic pressures to switch off of fossil fuels.
The elephant in the room, which nobody seems to mention, is that the real price after adjusting for externalities like the climate crisis (largely caused by the burning of fossil fuels), should probably be closer to $10/gallon or even more.
I find it strange that we still have articles which discuss the new interesting arrangements for chairs on the deck of our Titanic.
The climate crisis being what exactly, other than hyperbole? It's 2019. Not one month this year has been higher than the highs of 1998. Over 30 years have passed since the global warming hypothesis was presented and we have yet to see runaway global warming. Northern hemisphere snowfall totals are more than one standard deviation above average, presently.
From the second (the first is purely about the technical measurements):
> „... Examination over a longer period (1980-2017) shows that the total amount of snow in all winter periods has decreased on average.
The ice cover on the Arctic Ocean has grown thinner and the amount and expanse of perennial ice has decreased. [...] Extreme weather phenomena including winters in which snowfall is quite heavy, and periods of little snow, will increase in the future.
The Arctic area is warming at twice the speed as the rest of the world, and the impact of climate change can already be seen in the Arctic regions. And the changes are affecting the rest of the Earth.
It's not surprising that ice loss occurred over the last few decades. Is this unprecedented in geological history? Not at all. The medieval warm period from 950-1250 was as warm as today if not warmer. It was followed by a little ice age that lasted 600 years, followed by the modern warming period which began in 1850, well before internal combustion engines took off.
The loss or gain of ice in the Arctic occurs regularly. It's been happening in spurts since the end of the last glacial period 20,000 years ago. There are natural cycles like the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation that have a huge influence on Arctic ice extent.
According to [1] we are already way beyond the temperatures of the medieval warm period. So not sure your argument holds. Also, apparently this effect was localized, not global.
I guess there is no one disputing that Earth climate is driven by multiple sources, so that’s not the point. The question is: are we driving climate change to a large enough extend that we could have an impact on it by changing what we do? And the consensus seems to be a strong yes. The other question is: is climate change a net negative? And again the answer seems to be a strong yes.
I don't think we should respond to trolls. Science agrees: we are in a climate crisis, which is human-caused. There is no longer a point in discussing this with amateur arguments, similarly to there being no point in discussing that the earth is round. It is a waste of everyone's time.
What I also find bizarre is that even if the climate crisis were not true, reducing fossil fuel consumption would be good for people, if only because of less pollution. So why would anyone in their right mind fight it?
60 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 111 ms ] threadTexans have noticed that people arrive from California, and then start voting to turn Texas into California. There seems to be no awareness of the connection between policy and the cost of living.
Unfortunately, the effects of consumption aren’t contained to where (and when) one consumes
That’s why we need to enforce borders
So pointing out that the emissions (one side effect of unlimited consumption) aren't stopped by border control or a wall seems to be completely on topic.
Which "most lucrative market on earth" do you suppose they service?
You should really do a bit of additional research on: The Monroe Doctrine. Henry Kissinger, Salvador Allende & Pinochet. United Fruit & Guatemala, and the list goes on...
We are ONE singular species and the climate crisis ain't the elephants or squirrels fault my friend.
Then there's this thing called a global market, but I defer to your urge to hide under the covers and suck your thumb instead of engaging with the real world.
Drugs are illegal in far more countries than the US.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The other large driver to many of those things is war. I’d rather have consumption.
========================
Aug 26 Branded Unbranded
Distribution Costs, Marketing Costs and Profits $0.410 $0.650
Crude Oil Costs $1.430 $1.430
Refinery Cost and Profit $0.850 $0.610
State Underground Storage Tank Fee $0.020 $0.020
State and Local Tax $0.076 $0.076
State Excise Tax $0.473 $0.473
Federal Excise Tax $0.184 $0.184
Retail Prices $3.440 $3.440
========================
Total State tax: 0.02 + 0.076 + 0.473 = 0.569
California high gas price might have more things to do with location, affordability, and demand than what people are willing to attribute to it.
The breakdown shows that California does have high gas tax, but it's not $2 high. Even within the Bay Area, I can see $1 price swing between the rich neighborhoods and other neighborhoods. Driving from SF to LA, and you can also see the price swing through different town. Some parts in LA county often have higher than $5/gallon. I'm guilty on multiple occasions when I just pull up to the closest gas stations and fill up without checking if I can save a bit more somewhere else. When half of your town earns at least $250K a year, the gas stations can jack up the price without being afraid of losing customers.
[1] https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/transportation_data/gasoli...
Texas builds way more buildings and makes much better use of space. Not to mention the additional costs of running the business and employing people, which are also added to all of their supply chains. It adds up.
I remember moving to SF and being shocked I was getting taxed the same rate as living in Toronto, but that doesnt include health care or nearly as much benefits as Canada. Canada gets a lot of heat from Americans for being 'socialist' but there's plenty of counter examples, Toronto builds 100x more buildings than SF, our corporate tax is way lower than US, our ratio of economic immigrants:family migration is significantly higher, our banks/governments have been more fiscally conservative, etc. Plus Canada ranks higher on economic freedom index than America (8th vs 17th): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom
I hope this perception that the US is a market economy starts to change. A state-by-state distinction is much better. California is always the leading example of this change and the best signal of where the US is heading, as other US states seem to copy California for some reason.
Only if you think being able to walk/bicycle places is undesirable. Just thinking about all those gated suburbs separated from each other by 6 lane roads and medians makes me shudder.
Not buying this. It'd been widely reported that California has different requirements for fuel than most of the rest of the states, so, there's probably a bit extra that goes into refinery costs in addition to your calculation.
Policy drives up "Distribution Costs". If it is hard to operate a fuel tanker trucking company in California, the cost of distribution will be higher. Truckers are regulated, trucks are regulated, tankers are specifically regulated, flammable liquid is even more regulated, there are normal business taxes to be paid, there are random fees to operate, and so much more. Policy makes the cost go up.
It is similar with "Marketing Costs". Simply operating a business in a highly regulated state is difficult. The ad agency will cost more, the places to advertise will charge more, and so on.
Refinery costs are much higher. California demands a special unique California formulation of gasoline. Even with California being a large state, this is a low-volume product. It's also a premium product. Actually running any sort of refinery under California law looks like a nightmare, and I'm sort of surprised that it is still a viable business in the state.
In the rich neighborhoods, the cost of land and property tax for a gas station is high. That ends up in the price.
Winter gas adds oxygenates, supposedly reducing certain emissions by 10%. However, it has 10% less energy per unit volume, so you burn 10% more of it. Net effect: more expensive with no real world benefit.
Best of all, they blame additional local price rises twice a year on the changeover. It's quite a racket.
Is that actually true? They are a self selecting group, not a random sample, and probably conservative if they hold views that would cause them to leave a liberal state.
The one piece of data I've seen is that had native Texans been the only ones to vote, Beto would have won. https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2018/11/09/native-t...
A popular bumper sticker in the 1980s was, "Welcome to California. Now, go home."
First of all it's a poll, not an analysis of actual turnout, and neither methodology nor numbers of pollees are given.
Secondly, no way do 99% of native Texans even respond to a media pollster.
People move out of California because of affordability more than ideology, just like people move to California more for economic opportunity than ideology. (It's true that the realization of ideology through policy affects both affordability and economic opportunity, but people moving because of the conditions on either of those dimensions are often not motivated by ideology.
Its only a matter of time before people just ignore the idea from 13 east coast colonies trying to avoid population centers driving policy unilaterally and continent wide.
One ideology lives in sparsely populated counties and only barely has consensus in even those counties (usually just slightly more than 50%). Whereas the other ideology simply does have the numbers and if a tiny fraction of them could stand living in the middle of nowhere for 18 months they could vote the entire country their way forever.
Personally, I'm quite happy that gas is expensive and hope it gets even moreso. Anything which accelerates California getting off of oil is a good thing.
I just wish the increases were gradual and continuous so that they are expenses that can be planned for rather than sudden surprise shocks.
Most voters supportive of the gas tax, including myself, voted because the revenue is improving road infrastructure and commutes.
Until electric cars are available for low income people I don't really care much for statements implying we should actively looking to increase gas prices for the sake of doing so.
https://cleanvehiclegrants.org/
We currently pay about $1.46 a liter....
so cry me a river US... you get it cheap.
In Germany, the average price is $5.87/gal.
The price varies in the EU, but mostly reflecting average income. No one is surprised that it's more expensive in Finland ($6.38) and cheaper in Romania ($4.32).
https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/Germany/gasoline_prices/
A comparable price in US would probably be closer to $15. I don't know how to compute this with some public purchasing power parity numbers but I would be curious.
So sort of like US... If you move to NYC and don't need to get out of it...
All in all I think it wouldn't hurt to start driving either smaller or more fuel-efficient vehicles.
I do understand that the negative effects on people who rely on long commutes to work, but difficult positions can spur positive change if people work together.
People buy large SUVs because the fuel efficiency law encourages it. Calculations for CAFE involve the vehicle mass and the area of pavement surrounded by the tires. Large SUVs have an advantage in the calculation.
People commute an hour or two because of laws that make it unreasonable to move closer to work. Taxes would reset, fees would need to be paid, and so many people would get their cut of the sale.
It's not just zoning laws that keep people from living close to work, some people just don't want to live in a city so they are happy to commute for an hour if it means they can have a 2400 sq foot house on an acre of land. No amount of zoning can provide large numbers of big single family houses on large lots that are also close to large urban work centers.
Though I just wish those people would stop complaining when cites repurpose streets for transit and bikes for those that do live closer to work and can more easily use alternative transit.
I find it strange that we still have articles which discuss the new interesting arrangements for chairs on the deck of our Titanic.
https://globalcryospherewatch.org/satellites/trackers.html
There was exceptional amounts of snow in 2018 across the northern hemisphere: https://m.phys.org/news/2018-03-exceptionally-large-amount-w...
We are on track for similar if not higher levels of snow this year.
That being said, you should worry more about cold temperatures than warm temperatures, because cold temps destroy crops.
From the second (the first is purely about the technical measurements):
> „... Examination over a longer period (1980-2017) shows that the total amount of snow in all winter periods has decreased on average.
The ice cover on the Arctic Ocean has grown thinner and the amount and expanse of perennial ice has decreased. [...] Extreme weather phenomena including winters in which snowfall is quite heavy, and periods of little snow, will increase in the future.
The Arctic area is warming at twice the speed as the rest of the world, and the impact of climate change can already be seen in the Arctic regions. And the changes are affecting the rest of the Earth.
Take Leonard Nimoy's word for it: https://youtu.be/mOC7ePWCHGk hard to argue with Spock.
It's not surprising that ice loss occurred over the last few decades. Is this unprecedented in geological history? Not at all. The medieval warm period from 950-1250 was as warm as today if not warmer. It was followed by a little ice age that lasted 600 years, followed by the modern warming period which began in 1850, well before internal combustion engines took off.
The loss or gain of ice in the Arctic occurs regularly. It's been happening in spurts since the end of the last glacial period 20,000 years ago. There are natural cycles like the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation that have a huge influence on Arctic ice extent.
I guess there is no one disputing that Earth climate is driven by multiple sources, so that’s not the point. The question is: are we driving climate change to a large enough extend that we could have an impact on it by changing what we do? And the consensus seems to be a strong yes. The other question is: is climate change a net negative? And again the answer seems to be a strong yes.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
What I also find bizarre is that even if the climate crisis were not true, reducing fossil fuel consumption would be good for people, if only because of less pollution. So why would anyone in their right mind fight it?