Today I got an email forwarded to me by a coworker. It asked me to NOT purchase any gas on May 15, touting how this boycott had been going on annually for 10 years now and had made gas prices drop by 30 cents overnight. Being the good doobie that I am, I immediately checked Snopes.com and found out some things that I’ve included below this quotation from the email.

—–Original Message—–
>I only pass this on as asked & will abide Let’s do this
>
>NO GAS…On May 15th 2007 Don’t pump gas on MAY 15th In April 1997,
>there was a ‘gas out’ conducted nationwide in protest of gas prices.
>Gasoline prices dropped 30 cents a gallon overnight. On May 15th 2007,
>all internet users are asked to not go to a gas station in protest of high gas prices.
>Gas is now over $3.00 a gallon in most places. There are 73,000,000+
>American members currently on the internet network, and the average car
>takes about 30 to 50 dollars to fill up. If all users did not go to the
>pump on the 15th, it would take $2,292,000,000.00 (that’s almost 3
>BILLION) out of the oil companies pockets for just one day, so please
>do not go to the gas station on May 15th and let’s try to put a dent in
>the Middle Eastern oil industry for at least one day. If you agree
>(which I can’t see why you wouldn’t) resend this to all your contact
>list. With it saying, ”Don’t pump gas on May 15th’

Here’s what I learned from Snopes:

  • The first email-based boycott of gasoline for a day was in April 1999, not 1997.
  • It didn’t make any difference.
  • People just bought gas the day before or after instead, so there was no change in the overall market.
  • A boycott is a long-term campaign where people totally and continually DO WITHOUT something to get their point across.
  • The very premise of this idea is flawed because the amount of gas being used doesn’t change at all.
  • Avoiding driving (or at least severely reducing it) would have more impact that not pumping gas on one day.

Their conclusion:

Not buying gas on a designated day may make people feel a bit better about things by providing them a chance to vent their anger at higher gasoline prices, but the action won’t have any real impact on retail prices. An effective protest would involve something like organizing people to forswear the use of their cars on specified days–an act that could effectively demonstrate the reality of the threat that if gasoline prices stayed high, American consumers were prepared to move to carpooling and public transportation for the long term. Simply changing the day one buys gas, however, imparts no such threat, because nothing is being done without.

Gasoline is a fungible, global commodity, its price subject to the ordinary forces of supply and demand. No amount of consumer gimmickry and showmanship will lower its price in the long run; only a significant, ongoing reduction in demand will accomplish that goal. Unfortunately, for many people achieving that goal would mean cutting down on their driving or opting for less desirable economy cars over less fuel-efficient models, solutions they find unappealing.

An event like a “gas out” can sometimes do some good by calling attention to a cause and sending a message. In this case, though, the only message being sent is: “We consumers are so desperate for gasoline that we can’t even do without it for a few days to demonstrate our dissatisfaction with its cost.” What supplier is going to respond to a message like that by lowering its price? Those who really want to send a “message” to oil suppliers should try not buying any gasoline for several months in a row.

And there was a nice list of “Sources” at the end of their article.

I replied to the email I received with the following:

For what it’s worth:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/nogas.asp

Truth be told, it’s never had an effect on the gas market or prices. The email campaign to boycott gas stations began in 1999, not 1997, and the prices did not drop 30 cents a gallon overnight. Prices HAVE changed that much in one day, but not because of a boycott (or one-day abstention).

Just thought you should know.
Scott

Their response? “Thanks for the clarifications. I’ll be participating. Ethics are what its worth to me.”

From my point of view, no disrespect intended, ethics would require either doing an actual boycott or not pretending that my one-day thing was efficacious.

What it REALLY comes down to is self-delusion, convincing yourself that what you’re doing matters, even if all the evidence says there is no effect. Again, no disrespect intended, but if it really was a matter of ethics, then they should work at taking steps that CAN reduce the price instead of just trying to feel good.

Current music: On the Way to Bethlehem (Music of the Medieval Pilgrim)