Shell surveys driver attitudes towards fuel efficiency

[Diesel_Dave]

Originally Posted by Ryland

I would like to see gasoline prices as high as they need to be so that my tax dollars are not used in any way and so that no tax brakes are given and from what I remember that would bring the price up to $8 to $10 per gallon, but I'm sure someone else has exact figures.

Okay, I can see that this thread is going to rapidly descend into a political descussion. Nonetheless, I'll put in my $0.02 worth.

Before we get too excited about all those "tax breaks" that the evil oil companies are getting so they can make huge gobs of profits, consider profit the oil companies make vs. the tax revenue collected:

[slowmover]

The fuel price, subsidized, still doesn't fairly take into account environmental damages. That $11.62/gl without subsidies would be higher if it were. Then, if we were to add in health-related problems (productivity losses) it would change still further.

All of which is to say that we -- individually and societally -- do not practice honest accounting. But, as we are exceptions to history this is of little concern to right-thinking people.

Ran across this, this morning:

If the annual American per capita annual oil consumption is 23/bbls, then that of the Chinese is 1/bbl. They can absorb a much higher price than we, perhaps 20% or more. (Especially as so much of American use is for transportation).

If the American economy starts to hurt at $90/bbl, the Chinese may not feel that pinch until $110/bbl or greater.

To keep domestic disturbance under control, the Saud familys' "nation" needs, increasingly, a projected $90/bbl or higher -- ramping even farther in the future with projected demographic growth -- to maintain todays level of benefits. Ain't goan be no A-rab Spring in Riyadh

.

[brucepick]

Originally Posted by Kodak

...
A price is nothing more than a quantification of a product's value. And if the seller sets a ridiculous price, the consumer tries to leave. The seller wants it as high as consumers will tolerate, and consumers want it as low as possible. Really, a product's price is determined by what the market (the aggregate of the people) will tolerate.

Why artificially increase it?

It's true that the economic principles of the free marketplace determine the price of goods.

However in the case of oil (and many other items), the price is artificially lowered. It's lowered by our government and our military spending billions, if not trillions every year, to keep the international scene "safe" for the energy trade. You can add to that the costs of any tax incentives/rebates/credits given to the oil companies.

If those costs were to be charged directly to the oil companies it would have a significant effect on prices and on all economies where oil figures prominently (that is, any economy other than a third world backwater).

In other words, oil in fact is very expensive, and if we had to pay the full cost at the pump we would refuse. Instead, we pay for it via our taxes, and we complain about the taxes instead. Those taxes are there to pay for all the stuff we keep asking our government for. So I say pay the taxes, or live in an unorganized society where it's all out everyone for themselves.

Here's another cost: How about a sign on the pump "My son or daughter died in a desert so you could fill your tank"? That concept is actually not so unrealistic; we just don't want to think about it.

It's just one more case of "conservatives" trying to work both ends of the same lever. They want everyone to be self supporting - including business and government. But if you really attempt to make that happen, things don't necessarily work out smoothly.

OK, end of rant.

[PaleMelanesian]

Fossil Fuels Got More Aid Than Clean Energy: IEA - Bloomberg

Aid to cut the price of gasoline, gas and coal rose by more than a third to $409 billion as global energy prices increased, compared with $66 billion of support for biofuels, wind power and solar energy, the Paris-based International Energy Agency said today in its World Energy Outlook.

[ecomodded]

Our countries have implemented laws to increase auto fuel economy, and to start selling hybrid vehicles. This is how our western countries will / do enforce fuel economy not by jacking the price up so we all pay more to drive to work. It is the manufactures and the governments who will change our future not jo blow who rides his bicycle to work because he cannot afford gas. imo
Mass production of hybrid/ electric cars will be our only hope for saving fuel on a national scale. imo laws not higher gas prices
I am wondering if Frank Lee was jesting with his reply.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by Kodak

Should? On what moral or economic grounds is this based upon?

A price is nothing more than a quantification of a product's value. And if the seller sets a ridiculous price, the consumer tries to leave. The seller wants it as high as consumers will tolerate, and consumers want it as low as possible. Really, a product's price is determined by what the market (the aggregate of the people) will tolerate.

Why artificially increase it?

Because the government has a vested interest in petrol sales (huuuuge money maker for them via taxes) and they are infatuated with the growth philosophy, they heavily manipulate fuel prices- perhaps not on the commodities trading floors or at the retailer level, but in vast subsidies for oil companies in the forms of favorable leases, tax deals, and of course military acquisition and protection of territories. Our "price" is not "true". Why artificially decrease it?

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

High energy costs destroy the economy. Even the Saudis know that. Triple the energy costs in the US and watch a trillion dollars of our national net worth go overseas every year. That's close to 2% of the total net worth of every asset in the US, and we have already spent our national net worth in long term unfunded obligations.

Conversely inject the currently lost 350 billion, we send across out borders, into out economy every year and the banking system would multiply that into at least another trillion in new capital into the economy which would go a long way to solving our economic issues.

The key is greater efficiency. Waiting fro drivers to drive more economically is going to be a very long wait. If it wasn't we would see millions of hits on this site and hypermilers becoming the majority instead of the smallest minority.

Cars today could average 50-60 MPG with existing technology. Short term capacitive storage and release of energy is the secret that has yet to become the focus of designing for efficiency. It does not need to cost the driver in performance and it does not need to penalize the driver for less than the most stringent hypermiling techniques.

Hypermiling demonstrates the paltry state of vehicle design.

regards
Mech

"High energy costs destroy the economy" People arrange their lives around cheap energy (long commutes, guzzlers, 67 phantom electrical devices on 24/7, idling, stuff left on, etc.) and businesses do much the same. If they KNOW energy costs are going to be X, they can take steps to build that into their personal budgets and business models. But for the most part, it ain't gonna happen until it HAS TO, and not a second before.

"Cars today could average 50-60 MPG with existing technology" In the early '80s cars were well on their way to doing that. However thanks in large part to a booming economy, all that was forgotten and the next two decades were devoted to a largess pissing contest- who can build the biggest McMansion the farthest from town and use the most ridiculous Hummer-type thing to tear around in? Maybe booming economies- like too much Halloween candy- are bad for us?

[brucepick]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Because the government has a vested interest in petrol sales (huuuuge money maker for them via taxes) ...

I agree. I saw news items a few years ago on this, when gasoline sales dropped somewhat due to shockingly high gas prices (around $4/gallon in the US, same as we have now!). Some state governments were concerned that any REDUCTIONS in fuel sales would seriously impact the tax revenues, impacting not only highway and bridge maintenance but potentially the overall state budget.

Anyway, Frank Lee is not the only one saying or implying that higher gas prices would get consumers to find ways to cut back fuel use.

Personally, I don't have a problem with taxes, as long as we don't have "taxation without representation". In this country, we citizens "own" the government. We are responsible for it, and we fund it. I think a lot of us have to get over the idea that anything the govt does that we personally didn't ask for or benefit from is waste. That's just being selfish.

[Frank Lee]

Personally, I don't have a problem with taxes, as long as we don't have "taxation without representation". In this country, we citizens "own" the government. We are responsible for it, and we fund it. I think a lot of us have to get over the idea that anything the govt does that we personally didn't ask for or benefit from is waste. That's just being selfish.

Might be a bad time to bring up that I'm seething over last night's successful passing of TWO school levies Thanks for perpetuating breeder welfare, rock star superintendent compensation, taj mahal school facilities, and general dysfunctional school management, idiot voters.

[Kodak]

I can understand the argument in favor of protecting public health, and having a price per gallon that is not dependent on other citizens' tax dollars. It's a perfectly lucid argument that petrol is not the kind of product that is done at the purchasing phase.

Originally Posted by brucepick

Personally, I don't have a problem with taxes, as long as we don't have "taxation without representation". In this country, we citizens "own" the government. We are responsible for it, and we fund it. I think a lot of us have to get over the idea that anything the govt does that we personally didn't ask for or benefit from is waste. That's just being selfish.

I can see what you mean, this is one of the inconveniences associated with representative democracies. We pay for roads, bridges etc. even those who don't use them frequently or at all. I'm not saying it's fair, but it's true.

At the same time, I'm very weary of majority rule. Group-think can lead people to make decisions without thinking, and sometimes the majority is wrong.