What if you had to pay $6.02 a gallon for gas?

Well I think there will be a few types of people who deal with it in different ways (beyond the inevitable cost of goods increases).

1) Deny the reality... and continue to pay heavily until the breaking point (current strategy by most)

2) Make modifications... one of or a combination of:

• Move closer to work (accelerated by the housing market collapse, where people bought more house than they could afford on a monthly basis for various reasons)


• Buy an alternative energy vehicle (in the next 5-10 years the technology will have improved even more... I can't wait for the Volt)


• Choose areas that are more walkable so that you can go to places like the grocery store on foot (I have lived in a couple neighborhoods that way, and let me tell you, it's great) eliminating the need for many vehicle trips

3) Although we're way behind the 8-ball in this region on this topic, but more people will choose mass transit.  A study from Transit Riders United (TRU) said that if you make $12 an hour or less, you can't actually afford a car and not, to paraphrase, rob Peter to pay Paul in your budget.  And that's at last year's gas prices. 

Unfortunately, there is no other choice for most people as our transit system is woefully inadequate to give a hand up (as opposed to a hand out) to the people who are disadvantaged but want to work.  It's practically impossible from many areas of our region to get to the other without a car - which means that there isn't much hope for people even if they want to work, or if something happens to their shoddy car, they're out of a job, too... and no job creates a slew of other problems that our entire region faces.

I like Jeremiahs's 2a - Move closer to work. Not only would that save money on gas, but your vehicle would last longer. And more importantly, you'd spend less time commuting. You would have more time for more important endeavors - family, self-improvement, community serivce, and participating in MCC discussions. 8{)

2b isn't really practical - yet. Ehtanol costs more energy to produce than it saves, and it puts a gob of non-CO2 pollutants into the air, so we're really sending the planet backward by using ethanol. OTOH, if we collected the methane produced by covered-over land fills (another bad idea, covering the land fill, not the land fill itself) and used that directly or in fuel cells, we'd save a pile of energy right there. Methane is great for mass transit busses.

Again, Jeremiah is correct - we need a mass transit system in Detroit. I can go to Washington D.C, San Francisco, or Seattle and get around just fine without a car or a cab. Mass transit is proven to improve tourism and overall business.

Agree totally on the Ethanol - it's not a good technology because of all the other food implications, etc. no one seemed to take into account.

I was thinking straight electric or advanced hybrid fuel/gas.  My next new car will of such ilk, and not an Ethanol.  Hopefully, the price gap of $10k-$14k more for the Volt vs. the Prius (which starts out at $21k) gets eliminated.  I hope with advances in technology it will.

Jeremiah, I also can't wait for the Volt. Most of the time we won't spend any money for gas since it goes first 40 miles on a single charge, enough for most people to get to work and back, and you charge it at home over night. Every charge should cost $.80 for electricity. The sad part is that they had this technology for years and killed it in mid '90s even ater it was a huge success.
Have you seen a documentary called "Who killed the electric car"?

Interesting incentive plan from Chysler to control cost of gas for their new customers.

Enjoy!

http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/565/chrysler-offers-gas-card-as-incentive/;_ylc=X3oDMTE0czZzZjBqBF9TAzI3MTYxNDkEc2VjA2ZwLXRvZGF5BHNsawNnYXMtY2FyZA--

I haven't, Almir, but I've heard of it a few times and should check it out.  There are other electrics on the horizon too...

As to the Chrysler deal, David, that is an interesting one, and a great stop gap until they get a hybrid in their lineup, an area they recently acknowledged they're going to move in. 

However, for a variety of reasons that are valid enough by themselves, but appeal to a wide variety in the spectrum together - getting us off of oil, or using less of it, should still be the priority.  No matter which candidate wins, there will continue to be a focus on that and that's a good thing.

The excellent thing is that this also can be a huge opportunity for Detroit to do well.  Look at companies like Borg-Warner.  I went to an event where the CEO spoke and they talked about how well they're doing working with these new technologies, and how it's opened up whole new markets to them creating parts for these cars.  We have all of the technology and expertise around here - just need the will.

As any business owner or entrepreneur on here would know, the only thing that is constant... is change :-)