Rising California Gasoline Prices Highlight Growing Divide in U.S.

Then stay in California and enjoy it.

Consumption drives a lot of valuable things. Like tax revenue, or research of semiconductor lithography processes which are later used to build medical devices and most other things. If someone consumes, someone on the other hand necessarily produces.

The other large driver to many of those things is war. I’d rather have consumption.

Rent and real estate prices influencing gas prices are also a large part due to the CA/SF gov...

Texas builds way more buildings and makes much better use of space. Not to mention the additional costs of running the business and employing people, which are also added to all of their supply chains. It adds up.

I remember moving to SF and being shocked I was getting taxed the same rate as living in Toronto, but that doesnt include health care or nearly as much benefits as Canada. Canada gets a lot of heat from Americans for being 'socialist' but there's plenty of counter examples, Toronto builds 100x more buildings than SF, our corporate tax is way lower than US, our ratio of economic immigrants:family migration is significantly higher, our banks/governments have been more fiscally conservative, etc. Plus Canada ranks higher on economic freedom index than America (8th vs 17th): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom

I hope this perception that the US is a market economy starts to change. A state-by-state distinction is much better. California is always the leading example of this change and the best signal of where the US is heading, as other US states seem to copy California for some reason.

> California high gas price might have more things to do with location, affordability, and demand than what people are willing to attribute to it.

Not buying this. It'd been widely reported that California has different requirements for fuel than most of the rest of the states, so, there's probably a bit extra that goes into refinery costs in addition to your calculation.

I wasn't claiming the $2 was gas tax. Policy is more than just the gas tax.

Policy drives up "Distribution Costs". If it is hard to operate a fuel tanker trucking company in California, the cost of distribution will be higher. Truckers are regulated, trucks are regulated, tankers are specifically regulated, flammable liquid is even more regulated, there are normal business taxes to be paid, there are random fees to operate, and so much more. Policy makes the cost go up.

It is similar with "Marketing Costs". Simply operating a business in a highly regulated state is difficult. The ad agency will cost more, the places to advertise will charge more, and so on.

Refinery costs are much higher. California demands a special unique California formulation of gasoline. Even with California being a large state, this is a low-volume product. It's also a premium product. Actually running any sort of refinery under California law looks like a nightmare, and I'm sort of surprised that it is still a viable business in the state.

In the rich neighborhoods, the cost of land and property tax for a gas station is high. That ends up in the price.

I lived in LA for a while and knew a few very liberal friends that moved to Austin because of the cheaper cost of living, for what its worth.

  Is that actually true?

Absolutely. California was the same way 50 years ago. It didn't turn blue for most statewide candidates until 1992.

A popular bumper sticker in the 1980s was, "Welcome to California. Now, go home."

  had native Texans been the only ones to vote, Beto would have won

I don't believe that for a second.

First of all it's a poll, not an analysis of actual turnout, and neither methodology nor numbers of pollees are given.

Secondly, no way do 99% of native Texans even respond to a media pollster.

> and probably conservative if they hold views that would cause them to leave a liberal state.

People move out of California because of affordability more than ideology, just like people move to California more for economic opportunity than ideology. (It's true that the realization of ideology through policy affects both affordability and economic opportunity, but people moving because of the conditions on either of those dimensions are often not motivated by ideology.

Regulation is one way to force people to drive more fuel efficient cars (because the less efficient cars will either be priced out of reach or be unavailable completely). But so are fuel taxes as the parent poster pointed out -- make gas more expensive and people will demand more fuel efficiency. I think both have a place -- make less efficient cars more expensive to buy and operate.

It's not just zoning laws that keep people from living close to work, some people just don't want to live in a city so they are happy to commute for an hour if it means they can have a 2400 sq foot house on an acre of land. No amount of zoning can provide large numbers of big single family houses on large lots that are also close to large urban work centers.

Though I just wish those people would stop complaining when cites repurpose streets for transit and bikes for those that do live closer to work and can more easily use alternative transit.

Guess you did not read the linked articles?

From the second (the first is purely about the technical measurements):

> „... Examination over a longer period (1980-2017) shows that the total amount of snow in all winter periods has decreased on average.

The ice cover on the Arctic Ocean has grown thinner and the amount and expanse of perennial ice has decreased. [...] Extreme weather phenomena including winters in which snowfall is quite heavy, and periods of little snow, will increase in the future.

The Arctic area is warming at twice the speed as the rest of the world, and the impact of climate change can already be seen in the Arctic regions. And the changes are affecting the rest of the Earth.

I don't think we should respond to trolls. Science agrees: we are in a climate crisis, which is human-caused. There is no longer a point in discussing this with amateur arguments, similarly to there being no point in discussing that the earth is round. It is a waste of everyone's time.

What I also find bizarre is that even if the climate crisis were not true, reducing fossil fuel consumption would be good for people, if only because of less pollution. So why would anyone in their right mind fight it?

California has programs provide grants and financing for low income drivers to by new and used EV's (and hybrids as well).

https://cleanvehiclegrants.org/

Worth noting that with what people make in Romania on average, $4.5 feels like $10-$15/gallon would feel like to Americans.