What will you do when gas hits $10.00 a gallon?

[no1_vern]

Here in the US, its still about the cheapest in the world, but its rising. When it hits $10.00 what will you do? Would anyone even consider riding a bicycle, car pooling, or walking if need be?

[RayH]

The same thing when gas hit $1.00 a gallon. Pay it.

[Shipuuden]

Buy a moped...

[SoloCamo]

I'd definitely consider a motorcycle as a daily driver

[surreal]

I'll get a smart car, I don't want to ride a motor cycle in the rain and snow

[The Real Bingo]

Depends what I'm doing (job-wise) and where I have to travel when it hits $10. If I'm pulling in good money, then it probably won't matter too much. If I'm not, then maybe a motorcycle, or a classic VW Beetle. If I don't need to travel very far, then maybe a bicycle.

[Shipuuden]

Fly a Gyrocopter to work, beats traffic.

[cyphen]

Burn this mother down!

Either that or quit working and become a ward of the state. Stay home and play video games... watch cable... get subsidized... That way i wouldn't have to be pissed at gas prices.

[MTAtech]

I'm not typical. I more worry about those less fortunate than me that $10/gal would cause them.

I take the train to work already and only drive 3 miles a day. My wife drives a car that gets 25 miles/gal and drives 35/day.

If a rise happens immediately, the economy will go into cardiac arrest. (That's why I favored raising gas taxes gradually over the last two decades.)

[cyphen]

Well then of course you wouldn't worry about gas prices. You're hardly paying them directly. And the fact that you supported increases kind of shows you AREN'T that concerned about how it affects people less fortunate than you.

[MTAtech]

cyphen,

There are long-term benefits and there is instant gratification. We're paying now, with painful fuel price surges because the foolishly and short-sighted anti-tax crowd prevented increase in fuel taxes over the last 15 years.

A gradual increase in gas taxes would have been lightly burdensome, yet provided the incentives to gradually convert over to fuel efficient vehicles and alternative energy. We would now be benefiting from those decisions. The auto industry is ill-prepared and registering heavy losses at the same time they need to re-tool for smaller, efficient vehicles. We're feeling the shock because we wanted to be in denial for decades.

It's almost like the person who doesn't want to save for college or retirement bitching that they now can't afford college or can't afford to retire. We had the opportunity and the warning and we chose to squander that opportunity for short-term desires.

It's astounding that the conservatives are arguing against very conservative ideas, like planning for the future.

[pickel]

Here in the US, its still about the cheapest in the world, but its rising. When it hits $10.00 what will you do? Would anyone even consider riding a bicycle, car pooling, or walking if need be?

With cigarettes @ $10.00 a pack and when gas to $10,00 a gallon, I'll probably quit driving and start smoking again since a pack of cigs would last alot longer than a gallon of gas.

[SiliconJon]

My monthly budget for gas is $120, which is a bit less than two tanks full of gas at the current $4.39/gal. At $8/gal that will be a single tank of gas. I have no room for further consumption of gasoline in my budget as food and electricity are also on a rampant rise so I will be forced to cut my driving in half. For occasional trips I can cut into my food budget or savings plan, what little there is of that.

[SiliconJon]

It's astounding that the conservatives are arguing against very conservative ideas, like planning for the future.

I respectfully request you cease and desist the usage of that term [conservative]. Most who are self-proclaimed amongst that categorization are nothing of the sort, and most who use the term towards others also do not hold any consistant, and often no accurate, usage of the word.

[cyphen]

cyphen,

There are long-term benefits and there is instant gratification. We're paying now, with painful fuel price surges because the foolishly and short-sighted anti-tax crowd prevented increase in fuel taxes over the last 15 years.

We're paying because of manipulation of the futures market, which is a problem supported by a lack of local supply.

A gradual increase in gas taxes would have been lightly burdensome, yet provided the incentives to gradually convert over to fuel efficient vehicles and alternative energy. We would now be benefiting from those decisions. The auto industry is ill-prepared and registering heavy losses at the same time they need to re-tool for smaller, efficient vehicles. We're feeling the shock because we wanted to be in denial for decades.

If we had an increase in taxes - gradual or not, then we'd be paying even higher prices right now. Libs are always about oppressive taxes. Hey - why did we rebel against the King of England again? I can't remember! Something ..... without representation.... We're seriously lacking in representation when legislation is overturned at the judiciary... so we're missing that. We're also lacking in representation when congress votes in opposition to the will of the people... So we're short on the representation part.... what WAS that other part????????

It's astounding that the conservatives are arguing against very conservative ideas, like planning for the future.

Planning for the future - you mean like drilling our own oil to meet a growing demand? To give us the supplies we NEEd while developing alternatives - as opposed to FORCING higher prices prematurely through anti-energy expansion legislation, causing grief and chaos?

[Gomer]

Planning for the future - you mean like drilling our own oil to meet a growing demand? To give us the supplies we NEEd while developing alternatives - as opposed to FORCING higher prices prematurely through anti-energy expansion legislation, causing grief and chaos?

We've been drilling our own oil for decades, and ignoring alternatives.

Lack of local supply? Canada has 20X more oil than we do and is bringing it online. That's pretty local if you ask me.

[The Real Bingo]

Planning for the future - you mean like drilling our own oil to meet a growing demand? To give us the supplies we NEEd while developing alternatives - as opposed to FORCING higher prices prematurely through anti-energy expansion legislation, causing grief and chaos?

I know this is the en vogue topic, which is why this has been argued a dozen times on here, but I'll reiterate: oil is not our future.

If the market is infused with oil, prices won't go down - we just can't offer enough supply to impact price. Secondly, even if we could introduce enough oil to lower prices, that only means developing countries like India and China will take more oil. It's not as if domestically-drilled oil stays in the USA.

Why do you think alternatives would be developed with cheaper prices? That theory is contradictory to economic principles.

[MTAtech]

We're paying because of manipulation of the futures market, which is a problem supported by a lack of local supply.

Bingo and Gomer are both right.

If all this oil rushed into market, if at all possible, we would just delay alternatives longer.

We still have local supply and those local suppliers are getting the same world price (e.g. $138/bbl) as everyone else. In other words, they're not giving anyone a break. The definition of a bubble is when everyone rushes in to get that high price. We don't see that happening.

[cyphen]

I disagree... i posit that hurting us now is doing nothing more than hurting us now. And it hurts even more because it was unnaturally brought about. Effective cutting off of supply to "force" innovation is far worse than working normally and fluidly with available resources. Further, i argue that it forces us into the FIRST solution to market, rather than the BEST solution to market.

There's an investigation into the futures commodities market. Let's hope some heads roll.

[The Real Bingo]

I disagree... i posit that hurting us now is doing nothing more than hurting us now. And it hurts even more because it was unnaturally brought about. Effective cutting off of supply to "force" innovation is far worse than working normally and fluidly with available resources. Further, i argue that it forces us into the FIRST solution to market, rather than the BEST solution to market.

I don't see any forcing of the FIRST solution to the market. I don't see any solution, aside from conservation, which is a desirable outcome of an undesirable situation (high prices).