What to do about gas prices?

[gorilla]

Well, gas prices in the United states seem to be a major concern to a lot of people. And today, I was thinking, Rather than complain; why doesnt anyone do anything about it? So i came up with an idea I think could do some good.

Since obviously the Gasoline companies aren't going to let us go fully hybrid/electric vehicles any time soon, and gas is the most powerful and common fuel we have access to, there is little we as citizens can do about the limited supply being ravaged by so many heartless bigwigs.

So, what can we do?

Well, that all depends on what you can do. If I were to ask you to limit one day out of the week to not drive your vehicle, could you do it? Obviously, No one is going to take your keys.. And an emergency is an emergency. But if you never worked on sundays could you say to yourself: "I will no longer drive on sundays."?

Funny thing is, something so simple can do quite a bit!
( I may have to edit these #'s only a tad, because I left all the mathwork in my car. :p )

There are about 250,000,000 people who live in the united states. And, according to a study done in 2004, there are 752 cars for every 1000 people. At this ratio, There are about 188,000,000 million drivers in the United states. In 2004, Over 7 trillion miles were traveled in america by cars and light trucks. The average person to a car used 600 gallons in a year. At the average price today, $3 a gallon, that's $1,800 a year. Take that down by 365 days, And you're paying about $5 a day for gas!

If every driver, all 188,000,000 of us, were to take just ONE day from the week and say: "No, I will not drive today." ... We could cost the Gasoline compaines $94,000,000. That's 94 million dollars in one day. If we were to all do it once a week for an entire year, We could cost the gasoline companies Nearly 5 billion dollars. That's 5 billion dollars from their estimated 34 billion a year... I'm not sure of the exact %, but 5 billion dollars is not chump change in any way, shape, or form. ( I feel I should point out, That the gasoline companies estimated 34 billion dollars a year is only 10% of every dollar spent on gasoline. The amount of money america is spending is ludicrous. )

Now.. All this math is well and good, But WHY?
Because they're not going to give us anything. And, as a people, we do have the right to put our feet down and say: "Enough is enough." Boycott the bastards.

What will we gain?
Other than the satisfaction of punching the dictators where it hurts, Maybe something so simple as this could open their eyes to the true power of numbers. We are a full body of people, and if we work together, we can truly be a force to be reckoned with. Maybe this will get the prices down.
If money is not your top concern, as it is not mine, the environment would benefit. The amount of chemicals, pollution, and carbon pumped out into the atmosphere non-stop by automobiles all across the world is a rediculously frightening threat. Nowadays you can't see 100 feet in front of you in some cities, That had pefectly clean air 30 years ago. Our children and our grandchildren are suffering. Asthma and harmful effects associated with it is a quickly rising concern in our children. The numbers are staggering and far greater than just a few years ago.

As I do further research, I will add it to this thread.

For now, I want to leave you with something. This is a passage from the Declaration of Independance.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

[gorilla]

I voted yes.

[dredank]

i voted yes too

[gorilla]

Thanks for your input Dre. I also polled random people at work. The general public, at least where i'm from, seems to think it's a good idea. I think I got about 12 yesses, and 4 no's. The yesses were generally very much for this idea, as it seems most people don't like to drive much. :D The no's were of people too concerned with work or children.

[Fred Lemonjello]

:rant:
Well my feeling on high prices for many things in life and the low wages people are forced to accept... It's a conspricy to make people stay in their homes not go out to have fun and meet others who share your same ideas and opinions, but instead go to work, never take more then 5 days off at any single time, be up-standing American citizens and watch Faux Neuz! :flog:
People can't plot scheme and scam against the gov't if you keep em out of large groups and large gathering places... and if ya can keep em jus hungry enough.
The plotters against the gov't are easier to control in small groups that are hunkered down in close quarters!
Look at history... America was founded by men discussing against "The King" while meeting in pubs, taverns, and backrooms of local businesses.
Other past leaders of countries have met in groups in jus such places.

But then again... it could be jus plain and simple GREED by todays large businesses!
Politics, Business, and religion all sharing one common interest... grasping as much power and money that can be had! That's the USA.... oh boy!

And also... what the hell are we whinning bout... we don't pay as much as the Europeans do for alot of thangs! But then their public transportation system is about 1,000% better then ours is here in the USA.


:blah:
Fred

[gorilla]

Thanks for chiming in fred!

And also... what the hell are we whinning bout... we don't pay as much as the Europeans do for alot of thangs! But then their public transportation system is about 1,000% better then ours is here in the USA.

I think half the battle is.. They tell us everything is perfect.

Everything is perfect.

Everything is perfect.

Everything is perfect...

And eventually you belive it.

But it's not!

[CB]

ole honest abb once said....

when ya goverment fails you get a new one :eek:

i voted no

[Dawg]

I voted yes, but the I do isn't a selection.
My car is parked 3 days outa the week. I limit or consolodate trips the best I can as well. but not for the greater good. because these gas prices are crazy. The truck drivers are suffering bad in my area because of the gas prices.

[gorilla]

You're right: "I already do this" should have been a selection as well. I didn't keep that into account and I sometimes take for granted how busy my life is.

Here's some reading about the related sicknesses in america, as well as other places, in humans and namely children related with motor vehicle emissions.

MOTOR VEHICLE AIR POLLUTION AND PUBLIC HEALTH:
SELECTED CANCERS

Lung Cancer and Leukemia in the United States

Over the past decade, an increasing body of scientific evidence has accrued associating outdoor air pollution with certain types of cancer. Specifically, two major large prospective epidemiological studies first published in the early to mid-1990s and, in the case of one study, recently confirmed with a larger data base, found an association between exposure to particulate air pollution and lung cancer deaths1 2 3. These findings are consistent with the extensive body of toxicological and epidemiological scientific evidence linking particulate matter with lung cancer from studies of workers occupationally exposed to diesel particulate exhaust (e.g. railroad workers, bus and truck maintenance workers). Air pollution from motor vehicles also includes emissions of a variety of toxic organic compounds such as benzene. Benzene has been linked to increased risk of leukemia in workers who were occupationally exposed to benzene in various manufacturing processes, and is listed as a known human carcinogen in the National Toxicology Program Ninth Report on Carcinogens4.


Lung Cancer and Public Health

An estimated 169,400 new cases of lung cancer and about 155,000 deaths from lung cancer are expected in 2002, accounting for about 13 percent of all cancer diagnoses and 28 percent of all cancer deaths5. Approximately 87 percent of lung cancers are attributable to tobacco smoking6, with the remainder due to exposure to high levels of occupational pollution, indoor radon, and outdoor air pollution.
The incidence of lung cancer has decreased by 19 percent from 86.5 per 100,000 to 69.8 per 100,000 over the 1984 – 1998 period in men, while increasing in the 1990s for women to a level of 43.4 per 100,000 in 1998. This trend reflects the significant decline in male smoking during the 1970s and 1980s, while decreased smoking rates in women lags behind men.


Childhood Cancer and Public Health

An estimated 9,100 new cases of cancer are expected to occur and an estimated 1,400 deaths due to cancer are expected among children age 0 – 14 in 2002. While cancer in children is relatively rare, cancer is the leading cause of death from disease in children age 1 – 14. Approximately 30 percent of cancer cases and one-third of cancer deaths in children 0 – 14 are due to leukemia. Hodgkin’s disease, which has been associated with motor vehicle emissions in one recent study (see below), is relatively less common than leukemia and accounts for approximately 4 percent of childhood cancers.


Motor Vehicle Pollution and Lung Cancer

A study of the association of urban air pollution and lung cancer in Stockholm, Sweden estimated exposures motor vehicle-related air pollution (NOx/NO2) and heating-related air pollution (SO2) for more than 3,000 men age 40 –75. Approximately 1,000 of the men were diagnosed with lung cancer from 1985 – 1990, and more than 2,000 men served as controls. Average traffic-related NO2 exposure over a 30-year period was associated with a 20 percent increase in the risk of lung cancer for the highest exposed men. The study finding of a 40 percent increase in lung cancer risk for the highest group of average traffic-related NO2 exposure 20 years previously suggests a long latency period from exposure to disease, which is consistent with the latency of lung cancer from smoking and other environmental causes. Little association was observed between SO2 and lung cancer. The study authors concluded that urban air pollution increases lung cancer risk and that vehicle emissions may be particularly important.

An analysis of air pollution in central Copenhagen, Denmark10 concluded that traffic sources contributed 90 percent of the organic hydrocarbon (such as benzene-related compounds) levels on working days and 60 percent during weekends. The study used several different approaches to assessing the health impacts of these exposures, and concluded that the direct effect of exposure to these organic compounds and other mutagens in the urban air was a maximum of five lung cancer cases each year per one million persons.

An early study of the link between traffic-related air pollution and cancer was conducted in Hamburg, Germany11. Cancer frequency for almost 62,000 people living in street with high levels of traffic (>30,000 cars/day) were related to about 12,000 cancer cases for the period 1970 – 72. The study found an excess risk of 6 percent for all cancers, with a 12 percent overall excess cancer risk for men. More importantly, the study, which controlled for smoking, found an excess risk for lung cancer of 34 percent. Somewhat surprisingly, the study also found an excess risk for colon cancer of 68 percent.


Motor Vehicle Pollution and Childhood Cancer

A study of almost 2,000 children in Denmark12 diagnosed with leukemia, tumors of the central nervous system, or malignant lymphoma during 1968 – 1991 were compared with over 5,500 children randomly chosen from the general population. Using residential histories, the estimated average levels of benzene and NO2 for the children from nine months before birth until time of diagnosis of the cases as well as a similar period for the controls were calculated. Air pollution exposures during pregnancy and childhood were calculated separately. The study did not find an increased risk of leukemia, central nervous system tumors, or all cancers. However, a 25 percent increase in the risk of Hodgkin’s disease was found with a doubling of benzene levels, and a 51 percent increase in Hodgkin’s disease with a doubling of NO2 levels, during pregnancy.

A study in Denver, Colorado13 expanded on the analysis of an earlier childhood cancer study14 to include calculations of traffic-related density and emissions. For children residing in homes within 750 feet of roads with the highest traffic density (≥20,000 vehicles/day), the increased risk for all cancers was almost six times higher and the risk for leukemia more than eight times higher than for children with the lowest traffic density exposures.

A case-control study of children with leukemia from Los Angeles15, on the other hand, using similar methodology to the Denver study, found no association between traffic density and leukemia after controlling for wire-code. The Los Angeles study relied on more recent traffic measurements for exposure assessment. The authors, however, were unable to explain the difference in outcomes between this and the Denver study.

Another study assessed the linkage between children 0 –15 years old in the West Midlands region of the United Kingdom diagnosed with leukemia in 1990 – 1994 and residing within 100 meters (330 feet) of either a main road or gas station16. Using children with solid tumors as controls, there was a 61 percent increased risk of leukemia for children living near a main road. The incidence of leukemia in these children was increased by 16 percent for residence near a main road when the overall population of children was used as a control group. However due to the relatively small sample size of children with leukemia in this study neither statistic was statistically significant.

An early study of the link between residential traffic density, used as a potential marker for exposure to motor vehicle exhaust, and childhood cancer17 used the residence of 328 cancer patients and 262 controls to assess a possible association between these factors. The study found a 70 percent increase in the risk of childhood cancers and more than a doubling of the risk for leukemias when comparing children living in areas with high (≥500 vehicles/day) and low traffic densities. Significantly greater risks for childhood cancers and leukemias were found when the traffic density cutoff was increased to areas with ≥ 10,000 vehicles per day, with more than a three-fold increase in total cancer risk and almost a 500 percent increase in the risk of leukemias. Accounting for suspected risk factors for childhood cancer did not substantially change these results.


Conclusions

A relatively small but rapidly growing body of epidemiological studies has emerged that links proximity to high-volume traffic roads and motor vehicle air pollutants with lung cancer in adults and with leukemia, and possibly Hodgkin’s disease, in children. There exists strong evidence that occupational exposure to high level of diesel particulate emissions increases the risk of lung cancer, and similar levels of evidence for the link between occupational exposures to benzene and the risk of leukemia. Therefore, it is biologically plausible for similar associations to exist at the relatively lower ambient air pollution exposures that are associated with residing for significant length of time in close proximity to high volumes of motor vehicle traffic. As noted in many of the studies summarized above, this is an area that warrants substantial further scientific investigation.


General Policy Considerations

This review of the medical literature indicates that current levels of motor vehicle air pollutants, specifically diesel exhaust mixtures and benzene, are potentially associated with increased risk of lung cancer and leukemia, respectively. General policy considerations should therefore be designed to reduce ambient levels of diesel exhausts and benzene, and to reduce residential exposures to high-volume traffic.
Policy options available include further reducing air emissions. While some improvements have been made to on-road diesels engines in recent years, leading to reduced emissions, off-road diesel engines have not been more tightly regulated, and could most easily be reduced. Because most diesel vehicles have long periods of use, changes in new diesel engines would not be expected to produce lowered on-road diesel emissions for many years. Therefore, policies that lead to retrofitting of existing on-road diesel vehicles would speed up reductions in diesel emissions. Lastly, although emissions from gasoline-powered motor vehicles have been substantially reduced over the past 20 years, the increase in miles driven has kept total emissions from decreasing significantly. Improvements in fuel efficiency and further tightening of emission standards of the motor vehicle fleet would aid in lowering overall emissions.
In addition to policies requiring re-engineering of motor vehicles, transportation policies that reduce vehicle miles traveled are also needed to reduce overall air pollution emissions. Such policies include support for mass transit, increasing and improving incentives and facilities for bicycling and walking, and shifting to non-road modes of freight transit, including water and rail.


Specific Policy Recommendations for TEA-3

Reduce concentrations of diesel air pollution- recent analyses indicate that diesel emissions convey the largest proportion of cancer risk of all hazardous air pollutants. Steps need to be taken from a public health perspective to reduce toxic diesel emissions..

1. Require all new diesel vehicles to meet drastically reduced emissions standards.
2. Require effective inspection and maintenance programs for medium and heavy-duty vehicles, and retrofit existing diesel vehicles to reduce emissions.
3. Increase funding for public transit, the Enhancements program and the recreational trails program to shift trips made to less-polluting modes than private motor vehicles
4. Require routine accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists in all projects to help promote these non-polluting modes of transportation.
5. Advocate for state/local “smart growth” land use planning to encourage development of existing urban areas and appropriate mix of commercial and residential development with mass transit access to minimize motor vehicle use.


Increase distances between major roads and residential areas- since residence near a major road has been shown to convey particularly increased risk of lung cancer and childhood leukemia, all efforts should be made to increase the distance between major roads and residences.

1. Require health impact evaluations of all new projects, and include distances of residences, schools, and recreational areas as a measure to be evaluated and maximized. Ensure land use planning requirements require any new road project anticipated to carry ≥ 10,000 vehicles/day includes a buffer zone of at least 1000 feet to minimize direct vehicle emission exposures to nearby populations.
2. Increase public involvement in the planning process.
Improve accountability and provide more data to evaluate impacts of projects on community health
1. Establish health-based performance measures for new projects.
2. Include specific funds for assist public health programs in tracking cancer rates.


Doubt many will get through that one. I could hardly.

[gorilla]

ole honest abb once said....

when ya goverment fails you get a new one

i voted no

Can i ask why, cb?

For the sake of argument

[Cranky]

whats the price per gallon over there???its about 4 pounds 50p here,thats about 8 bucks a gal.

fukin rip off i say...

i think its the same with ciggys.there about 9.5 US bucks for a pack of 20 over here but that dont put people off;)

prices will go up and people will saty the same...its why the world is the way it is today.

just my 2 farts worth:D

voted i dont drive.

cranky

[tHEaNIMICnEEDLE]

ride a bike

I voted yes

gas is ridiculous

but europeans pay much more for gas by the litre

and gas smells bad too.....

[tHEaNIMICnEEDLE]

unless its NY deisel!!!!!!

[LdyLunatic]

i voted yes ....my car actually has sat for sometimes three or more days in a row not started

i am Scottish ....yes i am VERY much the stereotype cheap Scot ;) i save my chores into a few things to do and do them all in one shot

i work from home though too so that enables me to not leave if i chose :cool:

[gorilla]

Next time you go poke a badger..

Ride a bike there.

Do your part! :p

[Fred Lemonjello]

Next time you go poke a badger..

Ride a bike there.

Do your part! :p

BWAHAHAHAHA! Good one G Mon!

I'ma gunna havta say NO to this one....
I'm not going to pick a day and not drive on that day... I mean I jus don't go out driven round jus ta burn fuel.... work N home, bout it.
Don't go anywhere during the weekends, so there.... guess I have two days of no driving.

I think a better question would be... would you, or are you ride sharing, or taking public transportation instead of paying the high prices for fuel?

Fred

[gorilla]

There are definately some .. "flaws".. to my plan, and the numbers.

The average $5 a day is not wrong, it is what the general american pays if he were to fill his tank from E every day.

However.. The amount of drivers does not take into account people with more than 1 car, and people who already are not driving every day.

The way my life is at the moment, I can't remember the last day I haven't used my car. It's go to work, go to the kids, go shopping, go home, go to school, go the store.. it's go - go - go.

But the point of this whole thing is not to cost 94 million exactly. That number isn't a big deal. However the ongoing effects that constant fuel use has on our economy, society, and planet can't be ignored anymore.

I just wanted to poll on here, as well as in real life, because I was curious as to how many people would say: Yes, let's, as a whole, drive less. Not only to save money, not only to take money away from the greedy bigwigs, but to stop destroying ourselves and our way of life.

We live in such a delicate phase of existance and we beat the hell out of it.

Thanks for your time and thoughts, I love to go back and forth.

[CB]

Can i ask why, cb?

For the sake of argument

sure G-mang but that doesnt mean i will answer :p

hmmmm lets see....first thing that came to mind when i read ya post is cali try'n to get hemp production going..... which could produce alot cleaner fuel at a lower price no?

why should i punish the gas companys by not drive'n or buy'n fuel for one day..

i just kinda see it as a control issue not a money issue

if everyone didnt drive on the same day once a week i dont think it would really change anything.... the US cant produce oil for are on needs and must rely on other countrys to take up the slack so we can save our reserve for war efforts :rolleyes:

i know, lets mess with iran and piss them off so they will cut us off drive'n the price per barrel even higher than it is now :eek:

pretty sure most of the oil fields that havnt been tap'd in the US are tied up under land use laws left behind from clinton and his super fast pen as he left office :mad:

think i will go smoke a bowl :D

and go for a drive

peace

[gorilla]

Didn't mean we should make it a holiday, CB. Just that if everyone drove one day less than they do now, it would add up.

why should i punish the gas companys by not drive'n or buy'n fuel for one day..
Do you know who makes the laws?

I just think using it, on the whole, is a bad idea. ( It would not be such a bad idea, if there weren't such better ones. )

:idea: Let's all do it once, and cut the automobile pollution this year by a 365th. :D

:peace:

[LdyLunatic]

can we take up a collection??? i don't have a bike...but i would love one like Fred's in PURPLE :D





Next time you go poke a badger..

Ride a bike there.

Do your part! :p

[Fred Lemonjello]

Ya mean a Schwinn Grape Krate like this LL?
An excellent choice..... my second favorite color... Lemon Yellow being my first choice of course!

Fred

https://svr52.ehostpros.com/%7Ehomegr52/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4888&stc=1&d=1152838639

[wakka]

I drive an electric mobility scooter. and while I know it isn't a car, I have been driving it for over two years now, and other than having to replace the batteries, there has been absolutely noting wrong with it.

electric cars have so little that can go wrong with them. when you take that and the fact that you turn a crank and you get electricity, it is the hands down winner.

extremely low maintenance, the realized capacity to produce electricity with no by product what so ever. what more do you want?

[gorilla]

You need to ask the gas companies, wakka. Haha.

Looks like prices are going up again, everyone. Due to the current war in the middleeast, israel...whatever it is. Just know we're gonna get hit again.

Its not going to just.. stop.

[StoninStanley]

yeah these gas prices are hopeless. people keep expecting them to go down but they are only going to go up. our government(s) need to put some policies in place to help small independant groups that are working on alternate fuel sources a chance...give them some funding or something....unfortunately in america we have a cocksucker leader that owns oil rigs and loves the fact that the prices go up....fuckin bastard

[Cranky]

i want one of these

http://www.homegrownbud.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5007&stc=1&d=1152977095

not becuzz of gas prices but just becuzz im a lazy barstuward:D

cranky

[CB]

i want one of these

http://www.homegrownbud.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5007&stc=1&d=1152977095

not becuzz of gas prices but just becuzz im a lazy barstuward:D

cranky

but why does it still have peddles if its electic :shrug:

:share:

[gorilla]

Probably needs a crank or two to get going, CB.

Not to mention, seems like a backup plan if you run outta battery.

Don't mean to point out anything stupid, but ya need a place to put your feet too. :D


In the poll, at the moment, 61.5 % are willing. If this were true for the whole country, 115,625,000 drivers from 188,000,000 would be willing. At this rate, in one (theoretical) shot, we would cut the gasoline profit by $57,812,500.

Everyone else, all 72,380,000 of them, would spend (theoretically) $361,900,000... And the gas companies would profit 10% of that, or $36,190,000.

Point being.. Not everyone has to participate for the rest of us to accomplish something.

Will this ever happen? Probably not. But it's food for thought. And I thank everyone who participated for the meal. :eat:

[CB]

And I thank everyone who participated

no prob mang :D

peace

[Fred Lemonjello]

Here's one I heard taday.... wife works at a gas station... says fuel prices may hit $4.00.. one their sisters stores had a Bum-Rush for fuel... emptied all the fuel in town... had lines N all kinds a crazy shit!
Now that's jus INSANE there... come on people!!! Geezzzzzz
:crazysign

On a good note... the wife found a ladies purse in the bathroom at work and was able to return it! :D Bummer for them though... the airlines would not allow them on the plane because sthe lady did not have ID, so they had to drive 4 hrs BACK to retrieve the purse... and will drive 4 more hours back to get on the plane. :mad:
Oh yea.... the couple was going to drive another 1.5 hours further from here back to where they originally started out this morning before the loss of the purse.
So theres 11 hours of wasted time & fuel. :rolleyes:


Fred

[gorilla]

Yup, $4. that's what I had heard too.

Can you believe that?

Last year price was less than $2.

[ZenLunatic]

$4.00 a gallon... that's just terrible...

Then again... we're paying $1.18 a LITER right now.... :eek: Hey! that's $4.72 a gallon!

zL

[gorilla]

Can you help me get this straight, then...

Is the united states generally lower in price than other countries? I belive from what i've read on here both england and canada are more expensive than our, apparently measily, $3 a gallon.

[Fred Lemonjello]

Yelp G Mon.... most other countries sell fuel by the liter, 3.78 liters to the gallon, and at a much higher cost then here in the USA.
Do a little research on how much tax is on a liter of fuel, then look to see what kinda tax we pay in the USA, we're not taxed as much here. :eek:
Now I'm not saying that it's taxes that'er makin fuel costs so high her or in foreign conutries.... tis World affairs and the oil companies doin that... I'ma jus sayin that others counties pay a tax on thier fuel as well as higher costs to get he fuel to the individual filling stations becuz it hasta be trucked/ piped further distances from the import/ refiners areas.

Hey G Mon..... do a lil research on Canada's oil researves.... jus load it in trucks... separate the oil from the overburden material thru a hot water process.

Also do some research on Brazil and it's Biofuel use.


Fred

[gorilla]

This is taken from YaleGlobal online, and summarizes a bit about Brazil's biodeisel venture.
Brazil has found an alternative to oil that it is touting as the future of fuel. “Alcohol,” a bio-ethanol fuel made from sugar cane, is increasingly powering Brazilian automobiles, and President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva speaks of an “energy revolution,” led by his country. Biodiesel, a renewable fuel, is seen as a way to make Brazil,and indeed the world, less dependent on oil. Its manufacture provides jobs for the poverty-stricken interior regions of the country and Lula has high hopes that, if the trend catches on across the globe, Brazil may become a large exporter of biodiesel. Others say it is unrealistic to expect European countries, for example, to re-engineer their networks of service stations and build the many plants necessary to make biofuels from sugar and maize. Like the hybrid car, biodiesel may be an innovation with a global potential that will never be tapped. For the time being, the world will watch as Brazil embraces the renewable energy source and eagerly attempts to prove both its feasibility and benefits. – YaleGlobal

As far as Canadian oil reserves go, I couldn't find a good source to cite. However, What I did learn is that Canada will soon be venturing into the "Tar sands". With new technology and time, Canada will have the ability to pump out much more oil than it is at the moment. - Don't ask me what this means for the world, and/or the prices.

It's a little tough to find straight up facts about Fuel taxes, as there is so much controversy and opinion. What I have taken from it is that the Fuel taxes are supposed to be used as a means to cover road and highway repair costs. However, in the united states, our fuel taxes actually aren't high enough to cover the costs. We haven't raised them like other countries, who are now much more expensive than us. Not so bad.

http://www.homegrownbud.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5037&stc=1&d=1153062394
Funny thing about this chart. Like I said earlier, last year prices were under $2.00. Now it's $3 and there is talk of $4.