Since the demand for gasoline starts with the production of cars, wouldn't it be effective if Americans?

Question

simply stopped buying new cars powered by gasoline to pressure Detroit to produce an affordable alternative?
The federal government is in bed with the oil companies. It collects hundreds of billions of $ in gas taxes. The government will do nothing that will harm that revenue base.
If Americans simply stopped buying new cars for a month or two, perhaps Detroit would get the message and come up with an affordable vehicle powered by alternative energy.
As fragile as the auto industry is, it could not handle a month long period without sales. Two months without sales would kill the industry. Two months without buying a new car would hardly effect consumers.
Could the problem of high gas prices be solved by boycotting new cars?
Your thoughts?

Answer 1

That would work, but only if everyone really did it. There was a boycott on gasoline on May 15th, but people didn't drive any less, so they just bought gas the day before or the day after. Weekly inventory numbers based on refining capacity actually showed we used MORE gasoline that week. So all the oil exec's just laughed.

If we boycotted cars for a month, car maker exec's would just wait a month and laugh too, because they know sales the next month would skyrocket as many more people really need a new car.

The only way to get the message across is for people to stop buying SUV's and gas guzzlers and start buying fuel efficient cars, and hybrids. This will show them that AMericans are interested in these types of vehicles and they will make more. Unfortunately, this is the only way.

Answer 2

As an idea thats great but people cannot stop buying cars for a period of time so that Detroit gets the idea. I think its easy to blame the industry but business is customer driven. Even before the first and worst gas crunch in the 70's Detroit (who had had meetings about the eventual reduction of fuel in the world) produced a full line of gas efficient cars. The Ford Falcon, the Chevy Vega, the Chevette 50 mpg,the 50mpg diesel VW rabbit, the first Ranger (imported) and Hondas started coming in with a tiny little Civic that got 40 mpgs. People did not buy them. Gas was not expensive then but in the 70s we went through periods when gas was hard to find. Production is demand driven and so you are right that if people will stop buying the gas monsters it would be very effective. But think about this. We have been in a gas crunch with ever rising prices for about seven years. The use of the V8 engine has reduced a lot and the in line 6 is the standard. Gas mileage is about double for most standard models then it was 10-15 years. And yet there is still demand for the monsters vehicles. Look at the models that have been selling in the past decade. The Hummer, the four door full size trucks, Expeditions and Navigators and then Toyota and Nissan began competing (this year too) for who is making the largest truck in America. The Big Three tried in the 70s to offer fuel efficient cars and no one bought them. Sadly, it does take rising gas prices to reduce demand for outrageous vehicles though the true impact on these prices is on the working poor and poor. You are putting the horse before the cart. There is demand for gas efficient cars in the US (witness the sales of Hondas, Subarus, HHRs, Focus etc.) but there is still a strong demand for the gas guzzler. People can stop it by not buying them but the idea of a boycott is meaningless if the people who demand big cars don't participate. The rest of us are already trying everything we can, people with money can do whatever they want no matter what the cost. Sadly, the argument that "why save gas, if we save it, it will just cost more per gallon so that oil company profits will remain strong" has some merit.

Answer 3

Lead by example. Do you own a car? Do you ride in a car or bus? They use gas. Buy a bike and try to go a month without using gas. Oh and don't use electricity because most of that comes from fossil fuels. Oh and hot water either that is heated by fossil fuels. Lead by example.

Oh and send an e-mail to Detroit and tell them what kind of cheap effordable energy they should use in your new fanaties car. The first person to come up with something like you said will be the richest man around. You don't think people are working on that day and night? What world do you live in? "Tell detroit to do it" is not an answer to our energy problems. Nuclear power plants would help are you for that? I bet not.

Answer 4

It's a good point, but there would be serious repercussions in the economy (TONS of people would lose their jobs) and American automakers are already falling far behind foreign automakers.

Also, there aren't any options unless you go hybrid, and for a lot of people these are simply too far out of reach economically, and I know for the Prius, 2006 was the last year you can take a tax deduction for the car. I don't know if this will be renewed, though.

Look at the electric car! Can't get them, all pulled and destroyed.

I do agree that there has to be a way to force the issue, but the only people who would be harmed by a boycott would be workers in the plants (who are already worried about layoffs) and in the dealerships. These aren't people who count to CEOs and Stock Analysts. Because what CEO is willing to settle for $1M less to keep jobs? In fact, as we've seen recently with Kimberly Clark stock, mass layoffs because of weak market share seem to send prices soaring. Go figure.

Answer 5

Yes I think it could. I think that is a great idea. If people only bought flex fuel cars and hybrids then eventually the automakers would get the message and only start making those types of cars. I only buy flex fuel myself. I have a 2006 Mercury Grand Marquis flex fuel and I use E85 in it religiously. You cast a "vote" that has an affect on our economy every time you buy a new vehicle or fill up your tank. Cast your vote for ethanol by buying flex fuels and using it. The increased demand you create will encourage more auto manufacturers to make flex fuel cars and more gas stations to sell E85.

Answer 6

Sure it would, but its not going to happen. America has a love affair with their cars. They will continue to pay the price for gas no matter how high the price goes. The sale of lockable gas caps will increase, as will the sale of siphon apparatus. Crime will increase as people "drive off" from the station without paying and steal gas from any source available. If a boycott on cars were to go into effect, Detroit would drop the price so much that when the boycott was over, present sales would make up for the loss.

Answer 7

Your right about the fragility of the auto industry, but I believe that it just insn't that easy to convince the American public to not buy anything period. Every day, we are bombarded with advertising for this or that. We have to face the fact that we are consumers and until we change our ways as a whole, nothing else will change. I just hope that are children do not follow us down this destuctive path. Otherwise there will be nothing left to consume, cars and gasoline included.

Answer 8

You are very right. I am of the view that it is in the hands of the individuals to control the issue of rising prices of gas. We could have a cheaper/safer means of mass transport. Or use pool-in vehicles, that's a better option then using individual cars! The governments all over the world are no doubt hand-in-glove with the automobile manufacturers (though they may be crying themselves hoarse about global warming!) The economic concerns are a major hindering blocks-in taking tough environmental stands, which most leaders either delay or ignore (unless of course there is some public outcry!).
So basically, it is the individual who has to take a stand.

Answer 9

You're right about one thing, the government profits from gas prices; more than the oil companies, in fact, and the gov't has zero overhead or risk! However, in destroying the auto industry, you would also destroys lives. What would you do with the tens/hundreds of thousands of unemployed auto workers, their familes, their homes, their futures?? The idea that lives are at stake as a result of gas consumption is far fetched and unproven. It's a fact, however, that lives would be seriously, negatively impacted if we stopped producing cars. Also, cars are not the only thing that use fossil fuels! Electrical generators use different petroleum products, including coal, to provide electricity. We are able to find all kinds of consumer products made from petroleum products (plastic, for example). And how would these products get to the shelves without transportation? Crazy idea. Got any others?

Answer 10

As an thought thats super yet human beings can not stop buying vehicles for a quantity of time so as that Detroit gets the belief. i think of its basic to blame the marketplace yet corporation is shopper pushed. Even before the 1st and worst gas crunch in the 70's Detroit (who had had conferences on the subject of the eventual alleviation of gas in the international) produced an entire line of gas valuable vehicles. The Ford Falcon, the Chevy Vega, the Chevette 50 mpg,the 50mpg diesel VW rabbit, the 1st Ranger (imported) and Hondas all started coming in with a tiny little Civic that have been given 40 mpgs. human beings did no longer purchase them. gas replaced into no longer high priced then yet in the 70s we went by sessions while gas replaced into troublesome to discover. production is call for pushed and so which you're suited that if human beings will stop buying the gas monsters it would be very valuable. yet think of approximately this. we've been in a gas crunch with ever increasing costs for approximately seven years. using the V8 engine has decreased a lot and the in line 6 is the common. gas mileage is approximately double for many classic fashions then it replaced into 10-15 years. And yet there remains call for for the monsters vehicles. look on the fashions that have been merchandising in the previous decade. The Hummer, the 4 door finished length vehicles, Expeditions and Navigators and then Toyota and Nissan began competing (this year too) for who's making the main important truck in u.s.. the vast 3 tried in the 70s to furnish gas valuable vehicles and no person offered them. regrettably, it does take increasing gas costs to shrink call for for outrageous vehicles nevertheless the real effect on those costs is on the working undesirable and undesirable. you're putting the pony before the cart. there is call for for gas valuable vehicles in the U. S. (witness the sales of Hondas, Subarus, HHRs, concentration and so on.) yet there remains a stable call for for the gas guzzler. human beings can stop it through no longer buying them however the belief of a boycott is incomprehensible if the persons who call for vast vehicles do no longer participate. something anybody is already attempting each and every thing we can, those with money can do in spite of the fact that they choose no count what the fee. regrettably, the argument that "why shop gas, if we shop it, it is going to easily fee extra in line with gallon so as that oil corporation income will stay stable" has some advantage.