Gas prices in your state

[wade_rose]

Los Angeles 5/5/06<div></div>

[phoneguy]

DITTO!

[george_lupton]

You lucky lucky people - try 93.9p per litre. roughly equivalent to $8

per gallon - stop whinging

[dan park]

You see America used to be one big forest now its one big road. Even

where I live its almost unheard of to see someone walking because

quite frankly its too dangerous. We need cheap gas and lots of it to

keep the ants scurrying along the paths quickly moving goods from one

place to the next. Without it we have no identity or purpose because

what is an American except for a person who works in order to consume.

That is our national psychosis, that is America and gas is our blood.<div></div>

[pturton]

At 4.5 Litres per gallon it' retail cost has increased 18X since I

entered the work force. If I were still working, my wages would have

seen an increase of 28X. But, I'm retired and my income is only at

9X.<div></div>

[alaskan ivan]

dead american soldiers and utimatly the death of most of the human

race is the true price of gas.

[daniel_taylor]

"You see America used to be one big forest..."

 

No, it was never "one big forest." It always contained a wide variety

of environments like today, including massive deserts.

 

BTW, in many areas there are more trees and larger forests today than

there were when the pilgrims landed. U.S. forests have been growing in

area for decades.

 

"...now its one big road."

 

No. I forget the exact percentage, but less than 10% of the

continental U.S. is developed. Less than 5% of the U.S. including

Alaska. We have national parks that easily eclipse our largest cities

in land area, and massive swaths of undeveloped, untouched land.

 

Take a drive (oops...maybe a train) across the country sometime and

open your eyes.

 

"Even where I live its almost unheard of to see someone walking

because quite frankly its too dangerous. We need cheap gas and lots of

it to keep the ants scurrying along the paths quickly moving goods

from one place to the next."

 

We need cheap energy to live and work in a land area so massive. The

U.S. is the third largest nation in the world by land area. The

world's entire population could fit in an area the size of Texas.

Alaska is twice the size of Texas. Getting a clue as to our land area yet?

 

"Without it we have no identity or purpose because what is an American

except for a person who works in order to consume. That is our

national psychosis, that is America and gas is our blood."

 

When I was younger it was Catholics telling me I was sinful for

wanting to touch my girlfriend. Now it's environmentalists telling me

I'm sinful for wanting to drive.

 

If you're going to try and make Americans feel guilty, at least get

your facts straight first.

[dan park]

Daniel I just want to start off by telling you that I am an American.

Born and raised. In fact I'm even a car loving American. I wonder

how I could of sounded even the least foreign to you unless you think

it is un American to question America (our founding fathers didn't).

As for America I've lived all over from the northwest to the southwest

to the northeast and I currently reside in the southeast. So yes I'm

familiar with the different ecosystems of this country.

 

As for the forrests one of the largest roadbuilders in this country is

the Forrestry survice. Don't believe me look it up. Got to get the

logging trucks back up into our cache trees (which happen to live in

our national parks).

 

The point to my earlier comments was not to bash Americans of which I

would be including myself as well. It was simply to state that we

have gone from viewing cars as a relative novelty at the turn of the

last century to having them become essentially part of our individual

identity. Sort of like an armored second skin. As the population

grows each year the number of cars grows causing roads to get widend

and new roads to be added. Sure we got lots of room in this country

but we also got lots of roads too. Just take a look at the sattelite

photo of LA. Its a concrete lovers paradise. And just imagine if you

can what california looked like 100 years ago. Paradise absolute

paradise. Parts of it thankfully have been saved by the likes of

Theodore Roosevelt the rest squandered. Sold to the highest bidder

paved and a starbucks put up in its place.

 

So with all these cars comes a high price. The price which I think is

even higher than the financial burden of our current energy source

fossile fuels. The price I'm speaking of is the scarring up our

beautiful countryside with the roads. And I'm not talking about the

sedate meandering country roads that I love to drive on. No I'm

talking big honking interstates and mini interstates that connect wal

marts to wal marts.

 

Lets face it we are addicted to cars. And one thing an addicted

person never does is question there addiction. We'll I'm questioning

it. To what avail who knows?

 

Dan

 

P.S. Thanks for the reply. I always enjoy a good discussion. And

since this forum is really about pictures doing our talking for us it

would be a disservice not to add one. Oh and BTW super unleaded (what

my car takes) is 2.99 a gallon.<div></div>

[katzpjs]

<div></div>

[art_kramer]

what does that say, oowl induction? now we are wasting owls too, not

just gas.

[disneyry]

Daniel, where are you getting your statistics?

[wade_rose]

Just sold my 70 ssls5 454 got a 69 maro now merlin 540 4mpg 116

octane 7.00 agal....:D

[jautey]

Daniel is using statistics from a 1987 USDA study that measure only

urbanized land as developed land. It did not factor in agricultural,

mining, timber or ranching use of the land as developed land. So if

we are to use that limited definition he would be right, but I think

that such a limited definition is silly, since if you turn the soil,

dig a pit, cut a part of a forest that definitely constitutes

development. If we were to use the broader and more reasonable

definition of developed than I suspect that the percentage would

reach into the forty-percentage range. I'm not including Alaska

because that would skew just about any statistic on anything.

I haven't found any reliable studies on the more inclusive definition

of development so if anyone knows of any studies I would be happy to

amend statement.

Regarding the statement that there are more trees today than say 200

years ago, I've read that too. However, to state that there are more

forests now than then, is simply ignorant and smacks of talk-radio.

If we consider just the basic definition of a forest as any

biological community of plants and animals that is dominated by trees

and other woody plants and of large land area than we must exclude

those areas where most of the tree population growth has occurred,

tree farms and urbanized areas.

And Dan from 1990 to 2000 the lane miles in the United States

increased only 1.8 percent. Moreover the overwhelming amount of the

growth occurred in urbanized areas. So now we aren't building roads

over everything, logging roads aside. So don't sweat it, there are

millions of acres in the US that haven't been developed (yet). God

help us if oil is discovered under Old Faithful.

If you really want to do something about "national psychosis" than

drive a more efficient vehicle or even a flexible fuel or hybrid.

(There are pros and cons to both flex fuels and hybrids, but there

still better than any Hummer.)

Encourage your friends to do the same, encourage, don't preach.

I've been paying 2.25/gallion for the last couple of months and

havenﾒt noticed an increase in gas prices. But I put E85 in my truck.

[watermelon]

99.99 British Pence per litre where I bought my lunch yesterday. Good job the car wasn't with

me.

[grillot]

<div></div>

[daniel_taylor]

"Daniel I just want to start off by telling you that I am an American.

Born and raised. In fact I'm even a car loving American. I wonder how

I could of sounded even the least foreign to you unless you think it

is un American to question America (our founding fathers didn't)."

 

It was your characterization of America as going from all forest to

all road.

 

"The point to my earlier comments was not to bash Americans of which I

would be including myself as well. It was simply to state that we have

gone from viewing cars as a relative novelty at the turn of the last

century to having them become essentially part of our individual

identity. Sort of like an armored second skin. As the population grows

each year the number of cars grows causing roads to get widend and new

roads to be added. Sure we got lots of room in this country but we

also got lots of roads too. Just take a look at the sattelite photo of

LA. Its a concrete lovers paradise. And just imagine if you can what

california looked like 100 years ago. Paradise absolute paradise.

Parts of it thankfully have been saved by the likes of Theodore

Roosevelt the rest squandered. Sold to the highest bidder paved and a

starbucks put up in its place."

 

Some of California was a paradise. Much of what was a paradise remains

a paradise, thanks to many people including some that you mention.

Much of the rest of it was fairly plain, even ugly, empty land and desert.

 

This would include most of LA and the Inland Empire.

 

Looking at a map, I really don't have a problem with LA's concrete

when much more beautiful areas are preserved, especially when they

tend to be larger.

 

"The price I'm speaking of is the scarring up our beautiful

countryside with the roads. And I'm not talking about the sedate

meandering country roads that I love to drive on. No I'm talking big

honking interstates and mini interstates that connect wal marts to wal

marts."

 

Picking a route maybe we've both taken, I-15 from the southern

California area to Las Vegas: does that really bother you? Yeah, it's

crossing an otherwise "pristine" desert, but look at all that desert.

If you got out of your car and hiked a ways, you would never know the

freeway was there.

 

If you hiked far enough, you would die and turn to bone before anyone

ever found you, if you were ever found.

 

Is it really destroying nature to take that thin artery between

cities? How would we get between them otherwise? Railroads also take

up space. Planes burn more fuel.

 

"Lets face it we are addicted to cars. And one thing an addicted

person never does is question there addiction."

 

Oh yes, we are addicted. But what else would we use? Nobody has

invented a teleporter yet ;-)

 

"P.S. Thanks for the reply. I always enjoy a good discussion. And

since this forum is really about pictures doing our talking for us it

would be a disservice not to add one. Oh and BTW super unleaded (what

my car takes) is 2.99 a gallon."

 

I paid $3.49 this morning :-(

[daniel_taylor]

"Daniel is using statistics from a 1987 USDA study that measure only

urbanized land as developed land. It did not factor in agricultural,

mining, timber or ranching use of the land as developed land."

 

Whoa. I might agree that agricultural and mining should be included in

a definition. But timber and ranching? No. Just because humans decide

where some animals should graze rather than they grazing themselves

does not mean the land has lost all natural value. And forests used

for lumber have ecologies every bit as important and active as

protected "old growth" forests. As we have learned from fires, forests

which are cleared and regrown benefit nature in critical ways.

 

"Regarding the statement that there are more trees today than say 200

years ago, I've read that too. However, to state that there are more

forests now than then, is simply ignorant and smacks of talk-radio. If

we consider just the basic definition of a forest as any biological

community of plants and animals that is dominated by trees and other

woody plants and of large land area than we must exclude those areas

where most of the tree population growth has occurred, tree farms and

urbanized areas."

 

I couldn't disagree more. It is skewed to automatically label any

piece of land that a human has used in any way as "developed", where

to the average person "developed" means nature does not exist there

(i.e. a Walmart) but they can get gas and a coffee 24 hours a day. If

I dropped the average American off in the "ranch" that my friend's

parents own in Colorado, they would call it "wilderness" and die of

starvation before finding their way to a "developed" area.

 

Any way...I should probably post a photo...will do tonight.

[asafrye]

thought the gas was bad in my area. . .<div></div>

[grillot]

shhhhhh !! no words