Gas prices, global warming and 2008 photo trips

I posed this question last year and with warmer weather photo outings on the horizon will be brave enough to go again. Our local news is predicting $4 gas this spring and since last year there seems to be more of a positive link to global warming and human activity, if you can believe the scientists in the media. And the warming may be happening faster than previously thought. There are probably other opinions on this, but it appears the general direction of things as best I can tell.

Do you plan any adjustments or limits to your photo travel this year? Those of us who may only have a small income from our photos or none at all have a low return on investment and also a contribution to green house gasses.

Last year I tried to consolidate my photo efforts to just a few longer trips, and more short local trips. And drive a pretty gas efficient little pickup. But have to say that I get discouraged of the difference I can make to the big scheme of things.

There will be no vacations for us, nor any lengthy photo trips. I'll probably have to increase the rate I charge for photo excursions because I provide the transportation, even as the numbers of clients who are willing to travel to Ely for photography will drop because of gas prices. I'll have to bump rates on traveling for portrait and wedding shoots, too.

While I feel I provide a lot of value for what I charge, there ARE limits, and I am not a happy fella.

I don't make any money from photography but do it only as a hobby. I'll do around six ten-day trips to countries outside of mainland USA, and probably another ten one-week long trips around the mainland. Probably a couple of more trips than last year. I told myself that I wouldn't do that, and that I would work on my business more... but it's not working out that way. I've already booked most of my travel for the coming year. Part of my reasoning is that I'd better do it now before gas is $8.00 a gallon and the longer I wait the less wildlife there may be to see..... and I still can hike 20 miles with a backpack full of camera if I have to. I've just signed up for two trips led by NPN members that I found out about here.

I’m still planning my road trips, the one thing to remember is everything will change. When I was a kid, which seem not so long ago now, gas was 29.9 cents a gallon; but a great job paid $150.00 per week also. Today, $100,000 plus doesn’t seem to be that much. To get those photos, I want I will go on my road trips with a bit more attention to conservation. I always drove a car that gets good mileage think that the key in every business is keep the expenses to a minium.

Then there's the philosophy that at 60 years old and still in pretty good shape I am not getting any younger. So if I want to do stuff while I can I had better do it. So, while funds are limited by the price increases, our time is also limited by health/longevity. My plans, so far, have not changed.

Ed, I hear you on the age thing. I took early retirement this year and had always dreamed of travel (and photo travel). I'm trying to rethink things a little. For me gas cost is a bit of an issue, but I'm also trying to reconcile a responsible lifestyle for the upcoming generations, and how I contribute to the environment of the future.

It is getting harder to decide and my guilt level is up a bit. Like others have said already, I agree, I wanna go while I still can! I drive a gas efficient car and don't fly anymore… Probably will curtail travel next year, as I have already planned my several more major trips for this year.

I'm with Ed, at 61 I want to do my traveling while still able. I have three trips planned for this year. The only thing that has changed is the mode of transportation. Instead of my 15 mpg 4x4 p/u, I will be driving our new HHR 30 mpg retro chevy. We have new grandsons in St Louis (125 miles away) and with the gas savings on the HHR it almost pays for itself. And we are cutting back on what we put into the environment. Also, I am doing trips where I am mostly in one area with minimal driving around.

It is indeed a dilemma. I thought about going somewhere by plane to take photographs after receiving my MSc degree in April. However, I'm wondering whether I should just stay here in ole Switzerland and ask a friend of mine who's an experienced mountaineer (does that word exist?) to be my guide on some trips to the Alps. I guess equally great photographs can be had if I go to the right places... it's cheaper, too.

Basil

If gas goes up much higher than last year I'll be restricting my trips to an 8 hr driving radius. I'm fortunate to have Rocky Mountain in my back yard. The Tetons 7.5 hours away, and in March I'll be hitting Moab and the Canyonland area a 6 hour drive. We have a travel trailor which drastically reduces our housing and food cost once we arrive on location.
Remember if you have a buisness license you can write your milage off which helps somewhat.

All I can say is get your whooping crane photos fast because they are going to be killed by "crashing into the towering wind turbines and transmission lines or because of habitat lost to the wind farms." But, there must be some sacrifices for a green America.

www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2008/02/28/news/state/149827.txt

I'm not into clothes, shoes, or designer handbags. My camera lenses are worth more than my Jeep. My small motorhome is as efficient as possible.
Photography is very dear to me, and I'll scarifice whatever else i have to, to be able to travel and enjoy it, but i'll consolidate trips and take fewer short, repeat ones.
I'll help the environment in as many other ways (besides cutting gas consumption) as possible.

sandy r

I really don't want to be morbid or depressing, but as a Doc several of my colleagues and I have had recent conversations on how long we can realistically stay as active as we are now. Most of us do one or more of the following - hike, ski, do photography, play tennis, go to the gym some and don't smoke, etc. We are all late 50's to early 60's and see a lot pf patients every day. The consensus is that, while there are exceptions, it is unusual to be this active in your 80's and, for most, high quality of life declines by 85 no matter what medical intervention is done

Remember, there are exceptions, but this is a pretty good general rule. So, for those of us who are in our 60's we can realistically hope for 20 good years.

I do want to protect the environment in a responsible manner. However I may forgo some things to pay for travel while I can do it. The last thing I want is to be in a nursing home wishing I had done that one trip I held off on because it cost a bit more.

Now, please understand that my wife and I don't have any children, so leaving a nest egg for them is not a factor. We are in the position that we will spend it on ourselves, leave some to a few charities and keep it from the government.

OK, I rambled too much - sorry

Good thoughts Ed, Thanks. We probably won't solve the problems of environmental pressures here and I'm interested in what others think. Travel and photography are important to me too, and I don't plan to stop, but may find different ways to do it.

As a Doc, you know that there are things we can do to help our odds of being healthy and active in our older years, even though it doesn't preclude the inevitable. Maybe the same goes for the environment of the planet, but the guidelines aren't quite as clear.

Roger Rouch said:

"As a Doc, you know that there are things we can do to help our odds of being healthy and active in our older years, even though it doesn't preclude the inevitable. Maybe the same goes for the environment of the planet, but the guidelines aren't quite as clear. "

Hey Roger,

Wonderfully put.

Thanks.

Cheers

Carl

The price of gas is definitely putting a crunch on my traveling. I will still go, but instead on taking lots of short weekend trips I will try to stay in one place longer. Fortunately, we live at the beach, so no long trips necessary for a family vacation. I recently visited my Mom in Alabama (3 hour trip). Round trip cost me $65 in fuel! That hurts!! Used to cost less than $20.

Between gas prices and health care, I don't see how folks on a fixed income are surviving. Very sad.

Today gas prices locally in the SF Bay area are averaging $3.50/gallon. A jump of 20 cents in a couple weeks. Last week I made my first road trip in three months driving 1,400 miles on a trip to the Southern California desert areas that had a good bloom of early wildflowers. About $180 worth of gas but it was well worth it though I ought not count my chickens until the eggs hatch or rather receive the 35 exposed 4x5 sheets still not back from film development haha, During this winter I have refrained from making my usual few trips to the Yosemite and other Sierra Nevada areas each time a good low elevation snow storm hit mainly due to gas cost. The 500 miles on such trips works out to about $70 worth of gas I chose not to spend. This is from the perspective of someone that hasn't done real work for over 4 years and not making anywhere near enough money off photography to prevent regularly raiding a dwindling bank account. So yeah I've cut back and plan to get back to working m-f 8-5 as a test engineer. Once I do that the cost of any weekend trips will be inconsequential. But not now as a dirt bag photographer.

Regardless in the near term, I will be chasing the imminent wildflower blooms down south churning through some modest cash. Besides spending money on gas, film, and film development, I can get by cheaply out on the road if I need to. Always camp in free areas as NF or BLM lands and eat supermarket food instead of at restaurants. ...David
...David

I do most of my photography while working my sales job, so my gas is paid for. I try not to be wasteful though. I have no plans to reduce my personal travel. I want to go places and see things. The money isn't a concern. I really don't see gas hitting $4 a gallon this year. Keep in mind it's an election year and the news media may be trying to influence how we feel. Notice how quickly all that talk died off once it was mentioned. I'm suspicious. All in all, my thinking is get out there while you can. I've worked with people in nursing homes who were eaten by regret.


Kent in SD

Hey Kent,

Your position is, then, that one has no responsibility to the health and future health of the planet if it means restricting one's lifestyle - as long as one can afford it, of course?

IMO, it's this whole "get out there while you can" approach that's a large root of the problem we're wrapped in. That's why there's less than 3% of the original forests of this country left, less than 10% of the large fish in the world's oceans remain, and so on.

Cheers

Carl

Gas aint gonna hit $4??? Kent, its already there in some spots! People seem to overlook just how wide-reaching the effect of higher prices is, it effect heating cost, food costs, retail costs (all those trucks use fuel too). It worries me greatly, especially since i just opened my latest propane bill (which rose 35% this year) Im going to drastically change my way of travel etc, im due for a new car and am already looking at the most cost-efficient, fuel-efficient options. Carl, i freely admit im cynical, but i believe that it's totally hopeless unless the greatest single underlying environmental problem is adressed--exponential population growth.

Carl, i freely admit im cynical, but i believe that it's totally hopeless unless the greatest single underlying environmental problem is adressed--exponential population growth.

Bingo! That is at the root of all of our problems! If our current global population had only grown to 1/10th its current size, I suspect that the vast majority of today's environmental woes would not exist, or at least be far less threatening. Unfortunately, no one wants to discuss how to address this political hot potato.

Thats cheap gas IMO. We are paying approx $1.70 NZ a litre, so thats $6.80 NZ, translates to $5.30 US a gallon. They are talking here at this time next year to be $2.40 NZ a litre. Now at that rate, we won't be going anywhere unless its urgent

We are all paying for ........ things happening elsewhere on this planet and thats the same for all countries. Someone has to pay, thats quite simple really.

Danny.

For a major trip, I typically drive 500-1000 miles, one way, to get somewhere. But I sleep in the back of my truck, eat camp food and don't spend much money on anything else. So while gas prices definitely increase the cost of a trip, it's still a much cheaper vacation than flying my wife and I somewhere for a week, staying in a hotel, and constantly dining out.

I'm planning to head down to the Sierra or to southern Utah next month for 10 days. I estimate it will cost about $600-700 in gas, about $100 in food and nothing for lodging since I usually find BLM or Forest Service land to park the truck for the night. $800 for a 10-day trip is twice what it would've cost a couple of years ago, but still not bad. And given the reward of visiting some amazing places, it seems like a bargain.

My wife and I flew to Seattle not long ago and stayed for 4 nights. Plane, hotel, dining, rental car... total cost of about $2,500 - $3,000. We had a blast, but I think we enjoyed our 4-night visit to Escalante - replete with $7 camp chairs, $20 in firewood and free lodging - even more.

I will still travel as much as allays , but luckily i usually don't go very far . An occasional trip to "CRAZY " California to visit old friends and family is as far as i travel . Most of my photography trips will be be within a 300 mile radius of my home . I sleep in the bed my truck , eat over a camp fire , so gas is my only real expense .

Well over here in the UK were paying £1.12 a litre of petrol ($2.17) it works out at $8.23 a US gallon. It's more expensive for diesel, admittedly you get a higher MPG with a diesel though. I have a 2 litre that costs me $115 to fill the tank, if I drive carefully I can get 45 to 47 miles to the gallon. The Goverment take about 70% of the price in tax over here which is one of the reasons it is so expensive. It wont overly alter my photography though as most of my trips are within a 100 mile journey.

Kent wrote:

' I really don't see gas hitting $4 a gallon this year. '

Hey Kent,

$4.09 9/10 for a gallon of regular at the Exxon next to the Watergate, in Washington, DC. And it's not even June yet. :)

Cheers

Carl

Hey Folks,

More on gas prices

I wonder when it will hit $5.00 a gallon.

Cheers

Carl

Although I'm not a professional photographer, I do enjoy taking a drive to a new area & photographing the beauties of the world. And yes, I've already noticed that due to the inflated gas prices, I've been enjoying my hobby less. It sure does upset me how the little people are getting the screws put to us through this whole thing!
Cheerxs photographer Abu Dhabi

It sure does upset me how the little people are getting the screws put to us through this whole thing!

Linda, all those little people sure help to get the screws to themselves! If the demand for oil would not be so high (not just for our direct personal transport, but also for transport of the goods we use and for the production of plastics etc), this whole escalation would potentially not even be here. That's what happens when you go totally for something that will not last. We so totally 'go for oil and plastic' that it would be quite fair to say that our whole society is based on it by now. I think it's too simple to just point a finger at the big guys at the top, although it is true that not much help is to be expected from that direction yet (although it may happen quite fast if peak oil really pushes through). But pointing fingers up will not help make a necessary change top-down as effectively as just acting in the bottom-up fashion. The masses have the power to change things if we can just find the holes in the walls formed by our culture that limit us.

Scientists everywhere are warning us about global warming! Except, did you know, meteorologists and climatologists? Talk to one of them about this. Do you have the courage to? Did you know there is a network of oceanic buoys they use, about 3000 of them worldwide, that for the last 7 years have detected no rise in the average ocean temperatures? Do you know that the polar caps on Mars are also melting and getting a lot smaller than they were 20 years ago? I could point out a lot of other contradicting facts too. If you bother to ask our best educated weather experts, and ignore those whose expertise isn't weather or climate focused at all, they will tell you that what we are seeing is far more likely a mostly naturally occurring event, one that is very cyclic. Ask them about what we know about cycles of warming/cooling. They have great amounts evidence to back them up too. So, while I think it is a great idea to rid ourselves of fossil fuel dependency and find 21st century GREEN ways to do things, I think once again you have to be very careful what you believe. Or better put, who you believe. Even better stated, take the time to look at the facts for yourself, compared to listening to what is presented to you as being all the facts. Most of you will scoff, but this global warming doomsday stuff is a house of cards, junk science at its worst.

Gas prices? Funny how nobody has any problem getting all the gas they want. This is all about profits, but I think it is the countries of the Persian Gulf who are manipulating the price for increased profits, far more than American oil corporations are. If you do the math, gallons of gas/diesel used per day in the US, then throw in the cost and then the quarterly profits of Exxon and the like, you will see that they really are only making 10-15 cents a gallon profit free and clear.
W's foreign policy is making the Arab world angry at us, enough so they are making a statement to us. They are deliberately crippling our economy, and know exactly what they are doing. Many of these people have threatened or suggested to do exactly this for decades before now. It is the media in this country, along our elected leaders, who aren't telling us the truth about this. God forbid someone speak factual truth about the economic state this country is in, or what is being said and done about all of this Iraq mess outside of our borders. God forbid someone speak ill about W and the decisions he has made, the ones our House and Senate have mostly gone along with. They are silent today still.
We are 5-6% of the worlds population and we use 25% of the worlds oil supply. There is no serious push to change our ways, to double up while going to work, to make a lot more use of public transportation. As they say, you reap what you sow. Had we done what Carter proposed 30 years ago, we would today probably be rid of almost all our needs of foreign oil at all, or at the least a huge, vast majority of it.
I am lucky, because most of my photography is done within a few miles of home, and I drive a 30+/- mpg car. I can stay in State (small) and get what I want. It is just my trips to Florida for bird photography that may be somewhat in question right now. How much will airfare and other costs increase because of oil prices? Time will tell, I will make my decisions later.

Geoffrey Nswander wrote:

'Scientists everywhere are warning us about global warming! Except, did you know, meteorologists and climatologists? Talk to one of them about this. '

Hey Geoffrey

Do you mean people like James Hansen?
Or Bill Patzert?

Or do you mean folks like Richard Lindzen and Willie Soon (energy corporation schills)

From Nasa's website:

"Causes of global warming

Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases."

Which, specifically, climatologists should we ask?

Cheers

Carl

Oh how I would love to embrace the idea that the climate change problem is indeed a house of cards and junk science. Most people would. Oh absolutely, there are those earning good money while working to push everyone into believing in human-caused climate change, but they are quite rare. Quite a bit more rare in fact than those making good money while working to say that the other side is practising junk science... and then practise some junk science for themselves. Both sides are guilty of using ways that are not clean and that do not tell the whole truth. And when I try to filter the junk out from both sides, I'm still convinced that humans cause climate change. Unfortunately so. But I promise you I'll be among the first to jump for joy if it would finally be proven beyond doubt that there is no problem.

And yes, naturally there is a cycle. There is a good chance that it would have warmed up here as well without our spewing out of CO2 and methane and such. But that as such of course is a junk reason to say that we therefore simply cannot have an influence. It is not so much about that it is happening, but the speed with which it is happening. It has been shown by a great number of what I would think of as trustworthy scientists, that this speed cannot be explained by "natural cycles" alone.

Oh, but to repeat all the arguments that have been given before... If I am one who just repeats what he reads, by the way, and you are one who looks at the facts, I am very curious what the difference in method is. I would have sworn I was looking at some facts too. Documented facts. Documents written by both camps. Trends visible all around. Stuff like that. What completely new sources do you use that make you so certain? Don't just give names of other scientists, because I am not unlikely to have read or heard them already. And really, I [i]am[/] yearning to have my mind changed. I am not rigid. I will change my mind just like that if I see a good reason to.

Ah, and here's another junk scientist I assume then . He's from some club called SANA or something. Oh yeah, NASA it was.

And while we're at it. I actually don't have that much faith in scientists who have become so specialised into one tiny particle of their discipline that they have completely lost sight of the larger picture. That's about scientists in both camps by the way.

Geoffrey,

Since you asked, I will address your topic as a meteorologist. There are certainly some facts that appear not to fit the mold of the general theme of warming. And as scientists it is important to look into all of these, especially since we do not know what the mold is. We haven't run this experiment before, and unfortunately there are no controls to check data against.

Equally important, while it is not good practice to dismiss the facts that appear to go against the hypothesis, it is important not to throw away the entire data set, most of which supports the overwhelming concencus. Some of the greatest scientific minds are working towards this problem, with THE most powerful computers in the world running incredibly complex models. And what do they find: looking deeper, we have found some of the pieces that appear not to fit, actually fit quite well.

My favorite example of this is the contrarian view that global warming (I prefer global climate change personally) doesn't exist because the ice on interior greenland and antarctica are getting thicker. But looking deeper into thermodynamic models, it does support. Air temperatures rarely reach the freezing mark in these regions (South Pole's all time record high is 7F). Historically these areas have been deserts because air that cold tends to hold very very little moisture. As the climate warms however, the air over these caps can hold an exponential quantity more water, but still remains at temperatures that do not support melting. Hence, warming = thicker glaciers over the interior.

The UN climate report was the work of 2500 collaborating scientists that worked to identify and quantify the problem. And the report states that we are, within 90% certainty, causing a dramatic shift in the climate. Individual feedbacks will be tough to quantify, and impacts are tougher yet to predict, but I think most in the scientific community would be offended that their lifelong persuits and attempts to get a fair warning out to the public are being called junk science because of a few apparantly diverging observations...

Thanks a lot for that post Jim. The info about how growing glaciers can support the theory of climate change. That really is new to me! Thanks!