Ways to Save on Fuel Costs With Rising Fuel Prices

jnrbargainr on 08/03/2022 - 23:15
Last edited 09/03/2022 - 09:14 by 1 other user

With fuel now reportedly over $2.20 p/l for unleaded at number of service stations across the country, what strategies have you employed to either save on the cost of fuel or alternatives?

I've used the 7-11 app to lock in a lower fuel price to be redeemed in the next week. I'm now considering if the higher fuel prices become a more permanent fixture the economies of an electric car look more attractive..

WA based consumers looking at hitting a record petrol price in the next day: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-08/petrol-to-cost-more-t…

The eastern states look to be close behind and rising rapidly.

Automotive Fuel

Comments

  • DashCam AKA Rolts on 08/03/2022 - 23:28
    +2

    what strategies have you employed

    Petrol Spy + reduced use.

  • [Deactivated] on 08/03/2022 - 23:40

    fuel saver app, not much else i can do. can't afford an EV and not really interested until they improve the technology and lower prices, i also have to park on the street so i wouldn't be able to charge overnight at home (1 car wide driveway and i am not the first to wake up and leave). i would also be concerned about battery health, especially if regularly using the fast chargers as they degrade the battery faster than slower charging.

    i just checked and lowest price for unleaded 91 is $1.91 per litre.. what a joke.

    lowest for 98 is $2.15 while most are $2.20 - $2.30 per litre.

    • Stopback on 09/03/2022 - 00:03

      More expensive in Europe

    • Hackney on 09/03/2022 - 06:30
      +1

      @Alasdair,You think that is expensive?Wait until it hits $200 USD a barrel.$300USD is even being mentioned.It is here for the long haul.Better get use to it.

  • USER DC on 09/03/2022 - 00:30
    +5

    Dude it is insane honestly, West vs Russian conflict is seriously affecting our budget.

    • rektrading on 09/03/2022 - 00:50
      -2

      It's not the West.

      It's Ukraine vs Russia.

      • USER DC on 09/03/2022 - 01:13
        +5

        It is West vs Russia, if not, then Russia wouldn't have had that many sanctions.

        Its just a different kind of conflict. Ukraine v Russia is a full on military conflict (a war) but West v Russia isn't a military conflict.

      • AustriaBargain on 09/03/2022 - 01:19

        Well the West instigated the war by starting Nato which prevented Russia from invading all those countries decades earlier.

        • rektrading on 09/03/2022 - 07:31
          +3

          American lawmakers are sludge. They're boomers that do nothing but suck the life out of poor working-class Americans and send their children to die in wars for oil and gas.

        • donga100 on 09/03/2022 - 10:46

          What are the odds of four US politicians all having children working for Ukrainian gas companies?

          Probably not too low. Oil and gas is very big business and relies heavily on government policy. Employing children of politicians would be seen as a very cost effective way of lobbying the politicians compared to "donations" which then have to be publicly disclosed by both sides. A bonus for the companies is that those children are usually well educated thanks to mummy and daddy having influence with universities to get special treatment.

      • EightImmortals on 09/03/2022 - 09:14

        Yeah, nah. Zelensky is the west's puppet in Ukraine IMO.

        "Biden is now proposing to ban all Russian Energy sales to the West. Prices will rise sharply still and Biden is blaming Putin claiming this is the “price of freedom” for Ukraine which is all BS so governments can avoid responsibility for the collapse in the supply chain thanks to COVID and their shutting down fossil fuels for Climate Change. Now it is time to blame Putin for the continued rise in gasoline which is their agenda to save the planet. Their clock in NYC that they were telling the world we had only 7 years left if we did not ban fossil fuels is being accomplished under the pretense of “freedom” for Ukraine. I warned in the private blog that cryptocurrencies may end up being suspended. The excuse will be 'Russia' and the news is out now that Biden will sign an Executive Order to regulate cryptos because Russia can use it to circumvent sanctions."

        This guy is worth reading.

        https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/blog/

        • rektrading on 09/03/2022 - 09:17
          +2

          Biden is now proposing to ban all Russian Energy sales to the West.

          Glorious. Less car, less pollution.

          • EightImmortals on 09/03/2022 - 09:19
            +1

            @rektrading: Whatever floats your goat. I'm sure the twats making these rules wont be giving up their luxury yachts, power hungry mansions, sports cars and private jets any time soon.

            • rektrading on 09/03/2022 - 09:23
              +1

              @EightImmortals: It's part of their plan.

              2020/21
              Rona > lockdown > fewer cars > less pollution.

              2022/?
              War > $128 oil > fewer cars > less pollution.

              • EightImmortals on 09/03/2022 - 09:38
                +2

                @rektrading: Well they certainly trashed the airline industry which has also added to their reduced emission goals.

        • DingoBilly on 09/03/2022 - 09:29
          +4

          You always have… interesting views. After seeing the kind of blog posts you read I'm not surprised, this guy is absolute trash lol.

          "The New York Times even hid the death of 7 million Ukrainians by Stalin because they wanted communism."
          "Journalism is now working hard to further the hatred of Russia and to propel the West into World War III."
          "Putin Offers Peace – Zelensky Declines"

          This guy is a complete moron, please don't read his posts and don't encourage others to read this trash.

          • EightImmortals on 09/03/2022 - 09:37
            -1

            @DingoBilly: Sure champ.

            1) https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/wal…

            2) It's self-evident, and in case it isn't for some reason, one of my sister in laws is Russian so we know first hand the effect the propaganda media is having on the masses (again).

            3) https://www.newsweek.com/zelensky-rejects-putins-demands-end…

            Maybe it's your sources that are moronic and shouldn't be read?

            • donga100 on 09/03/2022 - 10:54
              +1

              @EightImmortals: How could Zelensky refuse such a generous offer of peace from Putin?! All he asks for is that Ukraine hand over half their territory to Russia now and don't make any defensive alliances which could prevent Russia from taking more territory later.

          • dstar012 on 09/03/2022 - 11:21
            +1

            @DingoBilly: I personal favourite I just read:

            I warned ion the private blog that cryptocurrencies may end up being suspended. The excuse will be Russia and the news is out now that Biden will sign an Executive Order to regulate cryptos because Russia can use it to circumvent sanctions. Not only is Biden authorizing the regulation of digital currencies, but he is also instructing to move forward with a central bank cryptocurrency. Once that is done, all other cryptocurrencies will be seized and folded into the government’s crypto. There will be no competition. Money historically has also been the Divine Privilege of Kings and Tyrants.

            • rektrading on 09/03/2022 - 11:25

              @dstar012:

              central bank cryptocurrency.

              What is this?

            • rektrading on 09/03/2022 - 11:31
              +3

              @dstar012: Nvm.

              It's sludge.

              Martin Arthur Armstrong (born November 1, 1949) is an American self-taught[1] economic forecaster and convicted felon who spent 11 years in jail for cheating investors out of $700 million and hiding $15 million in assets from regulators.[1]

              • dstar012 on 09/03/2022 - 11:35
                +1

                @rektrading: Oh yeah, its some guys blog. Its total garbage and a waste of megabytes. Why someone would ever use think if it as a creditable source is baffling.

        • rektrading on 09/03/2022 - 11:32

          He is a convicted felon

          Martin Arthur Armstrong (born November 1, 1949) is an American self-taught[1] economic forecaster and convicted felon who spent 11 years in jail for cheating investors out of $700 million and hiding $15 million in assets from regulators.[1]

          • EightImmortals on 09/03/2022 - 11:43
            +1

            @rektrading: Means nothing in the U.S. The full story is that the government went after his computer model which he refused to give them as well as his coin collection and some other assets he had been building since he was a kid. He also had an investment fund with mostly Japanese customers held at Republic bank and a couple of the people there did some dodgy stuff with the accounts without his knowledge. So as he refused to hand over his computer model and his private coin collection, the 'judge' decided to lock him up for 'contempt' (who wouldn't have contempt for these pricks?). The 'law' says you can't lock someone up for contempt for more than 18 months….they held him for 11 years.

            In the meantime Republic Bank fessed up to the fraud and the 2 people involved were sent to jail as well and the bank paid back all the investors lost money. After 11 year the 'justice' dept. told Armstrong he could plead guilty to the fraud charges and be lumped in with the people who actually did the crime OR face 135 year in jail. Not much of a choice really.

            So your comment is wrong, he did not spend 11 years in jail for fraud, he was jailed 11 years for 'contempt' for not handing over his private property to the corrupt government. He only plead guilty to avoid another 130 year in jail and has always maintained his innocence. Wouldn't be the first time the U.S. 'justice' system went after an innocent person, not by a long shot.

            And all of this is totally besides the point, I was asking you to give him any money, I was just sharing free information relevant to current events from a guy who has been doing this for a VERY long time. If you prefer Karl Stefnovic as the font of all wisdom and truth then more power to you.

            • rektrading on 09/03/2022 - 11:54

              @EightImmortals: It means something to me.

              I'm not interested in the opinions or stories of a convicted scammer.

              • EightImmortals on 09/03/2022 - 11:57
                +1

                @rektrading: Or a wrongly convicted one either by the sounds of it.

                Or anyone else who doesn't agree with your apriori assumptions about the world.

                Whatevs……

  • HairyChickens on 09/03/2022 - 00:50
    +3

    Laughs in my chopper

    for now

  • rektrading on 09/03/2022 - 01:50
    -4

    State of the Union: Biden touts courage of Ukraine, makes 'clear' US troops won't engage in conflict
    Brooke Singman - Mar 2

    Biden made "clear" U.S. troops would not be engaged directly in the conflict, but instead, will defend NATO allies in the event Putin "decides to keep moving west."
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/state-of-the-union-bide…

    This is NOT a West vs Russia war. This is a Ukraine vs Russia war.

    A West vs Russia war means WWIII.

    Australia better pray that doesn't happen. Biden will ask Australia to send young Australians to die on foreign soil in a war you didn't start.

  • popsiee on 09/03/2022 - 07:49

    Welcome to the new price cycle coming soon : $2.30 - $2.70 .

    • Hackney on 09/03/2022 - 08:32

      That ‘cheap’?Seems like a ‘bargain’.Believe me, it will @ some point.$2.00 is a bargain atm.

  • Ghost47 on 09/03/2022 - 08:24

    I feel sorry for people who have to buy 95 or 98 fuel because of their car.

    But yeah petrol spy/fuel check and not driving much. WFH more (although I prefer going to the office).

    • Hackney on 09/03/2022 - 08:28
      +2

      @Ghost47.I use 98,it is what it is, nothing anyone can do about the prices.They will eventually stabilise @ some point in time.I also have two vehicles, one has a full tank & has not been out in over two weeks.I am one of the fortunate ones, were I do not have travel very far.Some parts of Sydney are sitting on $2.44 a litre.

  • Euphemistic on 09/03/2022 - 08:27
    +4

    Avoid driving where possible. At least all the rain we’ve been having has cancelled a few kids sport/training journeys. Don’t press the go pedal so hard when we do have to go.

    You gotta pay the going rate, the best you can do is reduce usage.

  • GG57 on 09/03/2022 - 09:05
    +1

    WFH

  • EightImmortals on 09/03/2022 - 09:17
    +1

    My old car died last year so we upgraded to a hybrid. Great timing.

    • jnrbargainr on 09/03/2022 - 09:19

      What hybrid did you buy and how's its economy?

      • EightImmortals on 09/03/2022 - 09:21
        +2

        Got the Rav4 Cruiser, it has cut my fuel bill by about $150 a month. Until now of course. :)

    • popsiee on 09/03/2022 - 09:24
      -1

      Work out the deprivation and you will find out your losing more .

      • TimOfEastBNE on 09/03/2022 - 10:04
        +1

        You mean "depreciation"?

        • Mr2gt on 10/03/2022 - 03:04
          +1

          Nah just the deprivation of having to drive a hybrid.

  • cloudy on 09/03/2022 - 09:50

    Lift and coast to red lights and anticipate traffic is all I can say, do these things well and I reckon you can save 10-20% fuel usage. (I made up the %figures from experience)

  • djones145 on 09/03/2022 - 10:32
    -1

    dig for oil!
    then buy refinery plan
    storage
    service station
    make money

  • Keplaffintech on 09/03/2022 - 10:35
    +1

    Use E10 or 91 if your car supports it. 95 and 98 will make almost no difference to economy or performance in these cars, and they don't 'clean your engine' like the ads would have you imagine. (Change your oil on time if you want to keep your engine clean)

    • Hackney on 09/03/2022 - 10:41

      E10 is rubbish!Hardly any price difference between it & 91.Avoid @ all costs!You even get less mileage with the stuff.In fact one of my vehicles states in the owners hand book:91 ‘minimum’ octane.But,advises to go to a higher octane for better engine performance.

      • Keplaffintech on 09/03/2022 - 10:53
        +1

        E10 is rubbish!

        Lol, got any substance to that? Any car designed to run on E10 is safe to run on E10 as it would have been designed with corrosion resistant parts. E10 actually has a higher octane content than 91 (94), so you'll get less knock in high performance/stress engines (e.g. turbo engines).

        Energy density is only about 3% less, which is consistent with its discount from 91.

        But,advises to go to a higher octane for better engine performance.

        In the real world you'll see almost no performance difference. Maybe 1-3%. So if that's worth 25c to you go for it.

        Personally, I got my car tuned on E10, it now makes 50 kw more yet I can still run it on E10.

        • donga100 on 09/03/2022 - 10:59

          Energy density is only about 3% less, which is consistent with its discount from 91.

          It is usually only 2c/L cheaper which with current prices is only 1% less. I would consider 91 better value for money at the moment.

          • Keplaffintech on 09/03/2022 - 11:02

            @donga100: Sure. If you've got a low stress engine, e.g. corolla, camry. I'd pick 91. If you have a turbo engine I'd choose E10.

        • Hackney on 09/03/2022 - 11:16

          It is not good value, there is hardly any difference in pricing between it & 91.So,why would you waste money & time to get your vehicle tuned for the stuff.You are hardly(if any) saving any money.The stuff is false economy.95 will eventually be the default octane.

          • Keplaffintech on 09/03/2022 - 11:23

            @Hackney:

            So,why would you waste money & time to get your vehicle tuned for the stuff.

            Cause it's higher octane than 91, so you can get more power out of it.

            As I mentioned, my car is tuned to about 20% more power than stock when running on E10. So I get the benefits of cheap petrol with high performance. I couldn't achieve this result with 91.

            • Hackney on 09/03/2022 - 11:27
              -1

              @Keplaffintech: I use 98,so getting more ‘power’ is not what I am after.The owners manual in one car says ‘91’ minimum octane,but,says a higher octane is recommended.I have always used higher octane fuels.Does the cost worry me?Sort of, but it is what it is.There is absolutely nothing you can do about it.

              • Keplaffintech on 09/03/2022 - 11:35

                @Hackney: So you're just following the owners manual without understanding what the octane even does? That's a lot of money to waste, and that's exactly why I wrote my original comment.

                If you want to reduce the amount of money you spend on fuel, use the 'minimum' specified fuel by the manufacturer. If you want to spend more money to get nothing out of it, then that's your choice.

                • Hackney on 09/03/2022 - 12:23

                  @Keplaffintech: Actually I do understand,I have for years.Premium fuels optimise an engines ability to make more power, through increased fuel density(that is a known fact btw)that offer a more controlled burn,reducing engine ping @ resulting in a smoother power delivery.They do not however,clean your engine any better than regular fuel.All fuels have cleaning agents.If the owners manual says you can use it, then do it.I have been using premium fuels for many, many years.

                  • Keplaffintech on 09/03/2022 - 20:28
                    +1

                    @Hackney:

                    Premium fuels optimise an engines ability to make more power, through increased fuel density(that is a known fact btw)that offer a more controlled burn,reducing engine ping @ resulting in a smoother power delivery

                    This will only have an impact if your engine is actually knocking on 91. Engines that are specified as 'minimum 91' will not knock (much) on 91, as they have been tuned to support it. That's why jumping to 98 won't make much of a difference, if it's not knocking on 91 then 98 isn't going to make a difference.

                    Some cars will run less timing on 91 but those are performance cars / high psi turbo engines, not the average Corolla. This is why I suggest E10 (94) for these. That will get them running at standard timing due to the higher octane.

                    If you want more evidence check this out, V8 Commodore ran up on the dyno on the various fuels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6chOdlNch60

                    91 - 287.5 KW
                    E10 - 293.8 KW
                    98 - 294.1 KW

                    Is it really worth the extra 25c for a 1kw increase?

    • Techie4066 on 11/03/2022 - 20:53

      Except the fact they reduce the sulphur you emit by 60-70%. But yeah whatever.

      • Keplaffintech on 13/03/2022 - 11:23
        -2

        Are you suggesting 98 reduces sulphur emissions vs 91? got a source on that 'fact'?

        • Techie4066 on 13/03/2022 - 11:37
          +2

          Yes 95/98 has 50ppm sulphur in Aus. Instead of being patronising and confrontational learn how to search Google :)

          • Hackney on 13/03/2022 - 11:59
            +1

            @Techie4066: Yup,91 is currently on 150ppm.Nearly all western countries(including China btw) are on 10ppm.We are due to change(I believe) around 2025-27 when new laws governing fuel comes into effect.Our fuel is actually rubbish.This is one reason we do not get a lot of the new technology in European vehicles engines coming to this country..We are so way behind, it is crazy.

            • Techie4066 on 13/03/2022 - 20:01
              +1

              @Hackney: Glad there's at least someone on the same wavelength.

              • Hackney on 14/03/2022 - 06:19
                +1

                @Techie4066: 91 is just rubbish.My stepdaughter has a 2005 Mazda 2 Genki(I gave it to her)always ran it in 98(& yes I am going to get hammered on this).She started putting 91 in the old girl,started complaining of ‘rotten egg gas’ smell(sulphur actually),thought it could be the cat converter.Took it to the mechanic I use to use, he checked the car out thoroughly, he said straight away,stop using 91 because of the high sulphur content,& go straight to a higher octane fuel.Issue solved.It has never reappeared again.

                • Techie4066 on 14/03/2022 - 09:52

                  @Hackney: Exactly, all of these older cars running around smell really bad going down the road on cold starts. I get a pretty bad sulphur smell on start-up of my late model Renault with a PPF just because even 95 has 5x the sulphur limit of Europe. It's plain stupid. Bring on the fuel standard changes.

                • Euphemistic on 14/03/2022 - 12:27

                  @Hackney: So you put premium fuel in just because 91 smells funny?

                  • Techie4066 on 14/03/2022 - 12:30
                    +1

                    @Euphemistic: So you put 91 in just because you don't care about minimising acid rain and eye/skin irritation?

                  • Hackney on 14/03/2022 - 12:37
                    +1

                    @Euphemistic: As I alluded to,& you need to take notice,it is rubbish,it has a very high sulphur content(not good).Why do you think 10ppm is know the norm, or more specifically, do you not understand that?

  • pegaxs on 09/03/2022 - 10:40
    +2

    what strategies have you employed to either save on the cost of fuel or alternatives?

    This guy gets it…

    • Hackney on 09/03/2022 - 10:41
      +1

      Don’t use the car!

      • pegaxs on 09/03/2022 - 10:54
        +2

        My work is about 5km away. I ended up starting to use my electric scooter. I have to drive to work twice a day (split shifts) so it's 20km/day. That's about $4 a day in fuel just to go to work when it is $2/l. ($20 a week, $80/month or $892/year)

        The electric scooter gets charged during the day while I am at home via my solar and cost $0 to fill.

        I think "dont use the car" is a totally viable solution for so many people. Only use the car when you have no other option. A lot of people work within this 5km~ish limit form home and there are much better options to get to work that cost nothing. Walking, bicycle, kick scooter, skateboard.

        Cheaper options may also be finding a more economical car. Do you really need a V8 SUV to drive the 10km trip to work? Do both family members need great big hulking SUV's as their daily, or can you get away with one Prado and a Kia Picanto? Or, like me, could work be close enough that an electric motorcyucle/scooter be an alternative?

        • Hackney on 09/03/2022 - 11:20

          I am fortunate, that these fuel prices have little or no effect on me.It’s the people in the commuter belts that it is going to effect massively,& you really have to feel for them.People say, buy an EV? But why, you can purchase a lot of fuel for that premium price of an EV.The economics do not stack up.I have two vehicles, one a small run ‘runaround’,the other a medium SUV.The small has a full tank of fuel,& has not been out in over two weeks.Do prices worry me?Sort of, but I am not panicking about it.It is what it is.

    • donga100 on 09/03/2022 - 11:14
      +1

      He forgot to add tailgating large trucks which can give you a 39% gain in efficiency.

      • Hackney on 09/03/2022 - 11:17

        Hell,that’s an idea!

  • rektrading on 09/03/2022 - 10:43

    Hi fam,

    Breaking News

    President Biden announces U.S. ban on Russian oil imports:

    "Today I'm announcing the United States is targeting the main artery of Russia's economy…The American people will deal another powerful blow to Putin's war machine." https://t.co/3HtvXxEWfR

    🎄 2022 has been ❌.

  • Hackney on 09/03/2022 - 10:45

    Coca Cola is cheaper!

    • ol mate on 09/03/2022 - 11:47
      +1

      ASX:Z1P is cheaper too 😂

  • Hackney on 09/03/2022 - 11:31

    The thing that concerns me the most, is the effect on our economy,& the world’s economy @ large.Fuel could very well get to $200USD a barrel.$300 was mentioned as well.That would be catastrophic on the worlds economy.Not a very pleasant outlook.

  • JIMB0 on 09/03/2022 - 12:38
    +1

    Biking

    • Neoika on 09/03/2022 - 19:38

      Public Transport.

  • USER DC on 10/03/2022 - 11:53
    +1

    Man went to refill my sister's car, 1/2 a tank of fuel costing $65 now (60 L tank), was lucky to get fuel @ 189.9 cents but still man. There was a time when we could fill up full tank with same price of $65.

    Honestly so pissed of actions of America. this is absolutely absurd of USA, Wont be honoring my vote to liberals, next as they did not condem action of banning russian oil without getting oil supply up.

    Same in USA man, Biden is not coming back dude.
    Cost of living is sky rocketing.

    • Domicron on 11/03/2022 - 23:00

      What car is it? 60L tank is by no mean small.

      • USER DC on 11/03/2022 - 23:13

        any bigger sedans generally has 60L, personally have a Holden vectra and a Holden cruze in family both have 60L fuel tank, also have a 44L fuel tank in barina in family too. My guess would be like camry, elantra, epica, commodores etc. similar type Sedans or bigger (like SUV, UTE) etc will have 60L tank easily.

  • Ugly on 10/03/2022 - 20:53
    +1

    Make sure the air pressure in your tyres is as high as it should be. (https://www.tyrepower.com.au/news/how-does-tyre-pressure-inf…)

    Clean out the car - Take out everything that doesn’t need to be in there, so you aren’t paying to cart around extra weight for nothing. 50kg can equal around 2% difference in fuel usage.

  • JIMB0 on 11/03/2022 - 09:41
    +2

    Only drive down hill.

  • Neoika on 12/03/2022 - 11:07

    Ampol Cash giftcards obtained from 16% off and/or 5% off with AmEx offer not long ago. Some sites in NSW sold U91 for 190c yesterday, close to the cheapest 7-11. Used Woolies 4c off and targeted Ampol 7x pts offer all together. I actually did it on Wednesday for pump price 187c.

    They all jacked up today.

  • Euphemistic on 12/03/2022 - 20:40
    +2

    Why do they still insist on xxx.9cpl for fuel? Once it got over $1 they could have stuck with 3 digits, rounded up the price and no one would have blinked an eye. It’s not like the .9 makes any meaningful difference to our perception of the price - we pay whatever is the going rate anyway

    Back in the good old days some would end in .7 or something different occasionally. Haven’t seen that in ages. There was a servo I used to almost exclusively use because it was 0.2cpl cheaper. Must have saved at least $1 over a year.

  • SlavOz on 13/03/2022 - 20:17
    -5

    Best way to save on fuel costs? Vote wiser. If you think fuel prices are bad now, imagine what they'd be like if we had Labor or the Greens in charge demanding we abolish all fossil fuel sources and switch to cars powered by unicorn farts.

    We're seeing the same thing in America. Trump specifically warned about this in the 2020 election debate and got laughed out of the room for it.

    As an added bonus, if you don't vote for the left, we won't be sending millions of dollars a day to fund Putin's war machine.

    • Hackney on 14/03/2022 - 06:12
      +2

      What a rubbish post!

    • Quantumcat on 14/03/2022 - 08:56
      +1

      Or, vote for them, and have more investment in future energy, subsidies for electric cars, investment in electric public transport, and we can start to decouple our economy from oil prices and never have this problem again.

      • SlavOz on 14/03/2022 - 10:30
        -2

        Biden made the exact same promises, had this grand vision of a world with no fossil fuels, and look where it got them. They pulled all their development and funding for natural oil and gas to the point where they're now completely reliant on Russia or the Middle East to keep the country functional.

        The left's ideas are sometimes good on paper but they rarely work out with the utopian promises they're coated with. This is why young people disproportionately vote progressive - they don't know any better. When you haven't been hit by reality yet, everything sounds good.

        • SBOB on 14/03/2022 - 12:14
          +1

          They pulled all their development and funding for natural oil and gas to the point where they're now completely reliant on Russia or the Middle East to keep the country functional.

          all in under 2 years… thats some impressive delusions you have there.

        • Euphemistic on 14/03/2022 - 12:30

          You want to blame someone? Blame the oil cartels. Althea slow production deliberately to increase prices. Then, look at the profits of the oil companies recently. Massive profits.

          The government’s best response is to move as quickly as practical away from fossil fuels.

          • SlavOz on 14/03/2022 - 12:57
            -2

            @Euphemistic: We'll move away from fossil fuels when there are no more fossil fuels left. May as well use them while they're still viable.

            This push to force the world to go green is an elitist response from people who dream of owning a Tesla and eating their vegan organic biodegradable food, but it doesn't translate well for the regular working class or poorer countries who are disproportionately reliant on fossil fuels.

            • Euphemistic on 14/03/2022 - 15:08
              +1

              @SlavOz:

              This push to force the world to go green is an elitist response from people who dream of owning a Tesla and eating their vegan organic biodegradable food,

              No it’s not. It’s a recognition of the damage significant increases in co2 has been doing and will continue to do and a concern for the future of our next generations.

              In any case, changing to renewable energy sources cannot be a bad thing. Even if there is any doubt on the damage fossil fuels are doing (and there isn’t) it’s a pretty good bet to reduce our reliance on a polluting source that is being depleted.

              • SlavOz on 14/03/2022 - 18:08
                -3

                @Euphemistic:

                No it’s not. It’s a recognition of the damage significant increases in co2 has been doing and will continue to do and a concern for the future of our next generations.

                While ignoring the practical, social, and moral implications of abandoning our only reliable source of life, especially for the poorest among us. You really think impoverished Africans living in a makeshift hut relying on a combustion car or heater care about a green future? Telling them to give up the luxuries of life just because their privileged counterparts in the West have used them too much for the past hundreds of years is as selfish as it gets.

                Besides, green options don't necessarily solve the problem. Batteries and other materials required for renewable energy produce massive levels of pollution, especially when they need to be disposed.

                Even if there is any doubt on the damage fossil fuels are doing (and there isn’t)

                Well, this just about proves your stance is ideological rather than practical. There are plenty of unanswered questions when it comes to climate change which frankly need to be answered before humanity takes up a massive sacrifice and risks our own survival.

                We don't know how much global warming is attributable to human causes, how much of a threat it would pose in proportion to the technological advancements humans make over the next century, how much time were actually buying by going green, etc. The earth has been warming and cooling for hundreds of years, this push to convince everyone of inevitable doom is just misinformation at its finest.

                • TEER3X on 14/03/2022 - 18:15
                  +1

                  @SlavOz: No. Just no.

                • SBOB on 14/03/2022 - 18:17

                  @SlavOz:

                  is just misinformation at its finest.

                  from the master himself

                • Euphemistic on 14/03/2022 - 19:57

                  @SlavOz:

                  You really think impoverished Africans living in a makeshift hut relying on a combustion car or heater care about a green future?

                  I really think they’d be better off with renewables. Solar powered water pumps and lighting for a start. No ongoing fuel costs. But let’s not go to extremes. We aren’t going to stop fossil fuels without having an alternative.

                  Well, this just about proves your stance is ideological rather than practical.

                  Not ideaology, science. The practical side comes to a TRANSITION from fossil fuels. We aren’t going to stop them overnight, but need to significantly reduce reliance on them. The majority of thee worlds scientists agree that fossil fuel use is contributing to climate change.

                  There are plenty of unanswered questions when it comes to climate change which frankly need to be answered before humanity takes up a massive sacrifice and risks our own survival

                  That’s being a bit defeatist. We are risking our survival by not doing anything. Changing our wasteful lifestyle to decrease our impact on the ecosystem isn’t that difficult.

                  We don't know how much global warming is attributable to human causes, how much of a threat it would pose in proportion to the technological advancements humans make over the next century, how much time were actually buying by going green, etc. The earth has been warming and cooling for hundreds of years, this push to convince everyone of inevitable doom is just misinformation at its finest.

                  Not sure if serious or drunk on kook aid.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join