Shell surveys driver attitudes towards fuel efficiency
 

Sure wish they'd have done the U.S....

http://www-static.shell.com/static/p...010_global.pdf

Everyone can agree that fuel costs are to way too high accept for the oil executives..
I do think the Europeans and Asians summed it up pretty nicely though.

I disagree- they are too low.

I agree. The price should be about $13/ga. to reduce externalized costs.

Slightly OT. As part of this campaign (FuelSave) Shell had been claiming their fuels improved FE - however those in charge of policing advertisement claims have stopped them saying it any more.

ASA Adjudication on Shell UK Ltd - Advertising Standards Authority

Who would collect the extra money and where would it go ?

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?

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.

Dang, I can only post one thanks at a time. This post deserves at least a dozen. :thumbup:

A government appointed but voter approved agency would be fine if all funding transactions were transparent and subject to watchdog groups. It works for such things as water quality violations. Someone does something wrong so they pay the price. The money is put into a fund that is eventually distributed to projects which improve or mitigate water quality. The same can be done with gas tax except it's a bit more tricky to allocate funds when appropriate projects would include health care for those who suffer from cancers and respiratory illness, environmental remediation from leaks and other super fund sites (usually inadequately funded), USDA for reduced crop yields, road improvements, research etc..

Kodak, the price should be set to mitigate, or attempt to mitigate the problems cause by burning fossil fuel. Fossil fuel should not like diamonds where the price is subject to the whims of a few. There are great externalized costs associated with it. By bringing the price up you can fund mitigation and deter people from buying gas guzzlers. Every time someone says "it's my right to burn as much fuel as I want" I want to punch them in the face for being ignorant or callous with the health of our community.

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