by Wildwell » Tue 05 Apr 2005, 09:44:29
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'I')n this extremely simplified thought experiment I will use my native country of Sweden as an example in trying to understand how high oil prices the economy can sustain. My numbers will be very fuzzy on the edges, and if you can do better calculations with better numbers I would be very happy about it. Also I would very much appreciate if you comment on any logical holes you find in my argument.
All right. Right now, with oil at almost $60 a barrel, gas at the pump cost $1.5 a litre in Sweden. Three quarters of this is tax. That means that if the tax is removed, oil prices must quadruple to stay $1.5 at the pump. That means something like $240 a barrel.
This of course means less tax revenue to the state, but the Swedish government is very wasteful and it would be very possible to raise other taxes, reduce government grants or remove structural inefficiences in the economy if necessary (though it would mean lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth).
Then we have the hybrid issue. Hybrids use approximately half as much gas as conventional cars do. That means that if you have a hybrid the oil price can double without it getting any more expensive (for you) at the pump. This put the oil price at $480 per barrel.
Of course buying everyone a hybrid in an instant will be impossible. But Swedes buy new cars every ten or fifteen years in any case. As the oil price increase more and more people will buy hybrids.
Though I in this text haven't managed to answer what oil price the economy can sustain, I have shown that an oil price of almost $500 a barrel will not have a very radical effect on Swedish society or economy.
Any thoughts on this? Any criticism?
edit: Maybe this is the wrong forum? If that is so, it would be nice of the mods to move this thread.

Well this is where the fun begins, because the very worst thing you can do is to reduce tax to mitigate the effects of oil use. Why? Take Britain, traffic is rising year-on-year, train and bus fares have risen 70% while the real cost of motoring hasn’t changed since the 1970s. Is there any wonder road use is rising? With that congestion increases = More energy use and more roads need to be provided = more energy use/oil for tarmac plus ongoing maintenance and above all you don’t reduce the overall demand for oil and the price keeps rising.
Eventually you would get the state where road users are not paying any of their costs and the entire system is funded from the general populace, which, as a proportion people on lower incomes will pay more and effectively be subsiding people wealthy enough to pay higher oil prices and can afford cars.
In Britain the amount raised from roads is £42 billion. Now, that figure sounds especially high and very often it is pointed out that much less is spent on roads. However, frequently the costs of capital borrowing, pollution, congestion, accidents, law enforcement and so on are omitted from these figures as well as spending from alternatives like buses and trains.
So on conclusion there is some potential for some reductions in those figures, but very little. Moreover, you would have to find the money for other services such as pensions and health funded by these taxes. Of course there is the potential for savings because of waste, but it must be remembered sacking civil servants is only cost effective when they can be absorbed into other areas of the economy. Having to pay them benefits would make the financial situation worse again.
Currently UK wise the chancellor has suspended fuel taxes rises two times for roads. Although bizarrely, the rises for fuel tax on rail still took place.
The IEA specifically advises against cuts in fuel tax to offset rises in oil prices.
http://www.iea.org/textbase/work/2005/o ... ground.pdf
Next we come to the thorny issue of prioritisation of fuel supplies. In an oil crisis everyone will be trying to buy fuel. What is more important? I’ve prepared a rough list:
1. Food and water production and supply/Military use/Emergency services
2. Medical supplies
3. Distribution of essential goods/movement of essential personnel
4. Manufacturing processes/Other public transport and goods movements
5. Private motoring
6. Non essential airlines
ATM the paradox is some of the biggest users of oil are at the bottom of that list. So you see the problem?