Originally posted by lazs2
beet... we are getting closer..
Awwwww....
:)
are you saying that you do not think there should be any additional taxes or fees(a fee is a tax) on American fuel and that we should let supply and demand set price?
Not for me to dictate American fuel price policy. If there were to be a small additional tax, demand might be less, but as 69% of people questioned (in excel's report) said that the current price of gas is causing them financial hardship, it might not be a good time to be increasing fuel taxes. Even our own chancellor, Gordon Brown, has backpedalled on tax rises on fuel, and for
him not to tax something you know it must be serious. I think he's still smarting from the memory of the 2000 fuel tax revolt!:eek: As for whether a gasoline tax would be good or bad, I think there is merit in Mr. Toad's suggestions further up ^ in which a proportion of the price of a gallon of gas goes to organisations who can develop and deploy a renewable fuel source such is biodiesel or fuel from wheat etc. Apparently, ~40% of road fuel used in Brazil comes from these renewable fuel sources. (More on it in that Fiona Legatte link ^)
You seem to be saying that we let price set demand while I am saying to let supply and demand set price... those can be very different.
I'm saying that
world-wide demand is going to be high regardless of American consumption, because of China's industrialisation. The price of crude is likely to stay where it is or rise higher -
much higher if everyone follows your lead to use up the world's remaining oil in the shortest possible time. Thus the price will stay high, and will govern (ie. suppress) demand in the USA.
Now you are saying that the more scarce oil becomes the more that we will dvelop new tech which is exactly what I have been saying all along.
I've been saying that all along myself. Clearly there is no way (concerns about global warming notwithstanding) that billions of $$ are going to be spent developing a new source of energy if there were to be 250 years worth of oil sitting in the ground waiting to be tapped.
Do you now agree that the sooner supply dwindles the sooner new tech will be developed?
Supply will dwindle quite fast enough, without any concerted effort to use up the oil as fast as we can! Besides which, if your whole country were to do what you'd like them to do, and drive hotrods that get (dare I say it) 12mpg., the extra demand for crude oil would push up the price, and that would depress demand, and people would switch to fuel efficient Japanese imports. Oh wait, they already have. So as you can see, the rate of consumption will find its own level, and will be governed by one thing, and one thing only: Price.
sooo... anyone driving a car that conserves fuel is part of the problem while Americans are the biggest part of the solution as usual?
The higher the demand for crude oil, the greater will be its price. If demand could be reduced, the reduction in price might even leave some spare cash for the development of alternatives. But by driving ridiculous gas guzzlers that get... er, (no! I can't say it twice in the same post LOL) you're just playing into the hands of OPEC and doing exactly what they want you to do.
The big problem for America is that it is dependent on ~13m barrels of imported oil daily. In an oil sellers' market, which is what we have right now and may have for years to come, you're going to be at the mercy of OPEC. That's bad enough, but is made worse by the fact that quite a number of OPEC member states are not sympathetic to American interests.
