Gasoline consumption on the rise

December 2, 2014

After eight years of declining consumption, California’s gasoline purchasing rose 0.9 percent during fiscal year 2013-14, offering another sign of an improving economy, according to data released by the California State Board of Equalization (BOE) Tuesday.

“Gasoline consumption increased for four consecutive quarters, even as prices were variable, reflecting California’s economic recovery,” Board Member Betty T. Yee said.

gas compare


In the fiscal year 2013-14, Californians consumed 14.574 billion gallons of gasoline, a 0.9 percent increase from 14.444 billion gallons used in fiscal year 2012-13. California’s average price of gasoline was $3.92 per gallon in the fiscal year 2013-14, which is a decline of 2.5 percent from the average price of gasoline of $4.02 in fiscal year 2012-13.

In fiscal year 2013-14, BOE gasoline revenue estimates for excise and sales and use taxes came in at $1.651 billion for sales tax and $5.759 billion for excise tax.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

They can take any statistic and spin it into something to further their lies about the economy improving.

Maybe it’s because people now have 3 part-time jobs instead of 1 full-time job. Lots more driving to do.

Now that prices are falling and consumption is increasing, the legislature is likely plotting its next gas tax hike.

It’s on it’s way. 2015 is when the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32) is supposed to rear it’s ugly head. You can thank our wife cheating, Falcon Jet driving, hummer gas guzzling, hypocritical former Governor Arnold for his departing gift. Of course he had plenty of help from Fabio (my son murdered someone on the streets of San Diego and Arnold commuted his sentence) Nunez. What a bunch of jack holes these self serving idiots were to this state. Burn that coal China. Keep contributing 1/3 of the world’s green house gases for 30 more years while we cripple our middle class – with elitist, left wing energy policies that won’t mean squat.

Ah, finally, someone makes a rational argument against efforts to fight Global Warming (or Climate Change if you prefer). Fighting global warming is expensive and paying the price makes our economy less competitive if our competitors don’t pay it. While we do contribute a substantial amount to the problem, it is about the same as the Chinese at this time. Until they (and India and other developing countries) also make a firm commitment to help, the most we can do is slow down the rate slightly and we will suffer economically in the process.

Despite the denials from those brainwashed by the right wing pundits and their sponsors who profit greatly from burning carbon, global warming is a reality and human life contributes significantly to it. Unfortunately, it is also inevitable given the need for human societies to agree to cooperate in fighting it. That won’t happen until the consequences hit so hard that almost everyone can’t rationalize away the truth. The longer that takes, the more harsh the consequences will be. I am not optimistic.

I will do what I can to minimize my contributions to the problem up to a point. But I am not going to live like a caveman while others ignore the problem to live in a life of relative luxury.

Actually, China blew past the US back in 2002. They are now the #1 emitter of CO2 in the world-

As far as AGW vs. natural cycling, it’s hardly a matter of the brainwashed masses vs the scientific community. Unless YOU personally are educated enough to examine the data yourself and come to a conclusion, you are taking the matter on faith, based on your trust of the source. So, 99.9% of the public is simply forming a belief, based on their faith in the source of data. That’s not science, that’s closer to religion.

In fact, even the scientific community is not forming their opinions on evidence-

“Expertise, ideology, perceived consensus, and perceived conflict were all independently related to respondents’ views on climate, with perceived consensus and political ideology being most strongly related.”

In other words, the strongest indicators of these scientist’s views on AGW were “what do my peers think?” and “what is the party line?” That’s not science either.

Can we kill the sacred cow yet? Science isn’t science when it’s politically driven. If you don’t think politics, both public and personal, play the greatest role in research you haven’t spent much time in academia.

Me personally, I don’t have an opinion, either way, because the truth is, I don’t know. And I don’t trust EITHER source of information, the Al Goreians or Big Oil, they are both interested in their own gains. I do know less use = less pollution, and that’s something I feel strongly about.