[Wildwell]

http://www.lesstaxonfuel.co.uk/cgi-bin/ ... pl?board=1

Quite a lot of people from here and power switch on there, one of the main sites for sympathisers with forthcoming blockades.

[backstop]

Wildwell -

I'm unable to follow the logic of your title -

First, a few members are posting on the site you link, which is scarcely full force in numbers or in tactics.

Second, the Fuel Lobby isn't being attacked by the road protests - after all, they're aiming to force the Govt. to give the oil corporations a larger share of retail fuel prices -

Perhaps the title should be ammended to

"Some Peak Oilers back the Road Haulage Industry" ?

regards,

Backstop

[EnergySpin]

Shouldn't we be increasing the taxes?
Or am I missing something that is going on, in the UK?

[backstop]

Energy Spin -

Raising consumer energy taxes looks appealing, under the polluter pays principle.

BUT, they can also be presented as a counter-productive Green Herring.

Given that most drivers feel entirely dependent on their cars, and that maasive media resources are active in slandering the very principle of taxation, any Govt that raised taxes sufficiently to make a significant difference to fuel consumption would be forced out of office.

The surgical use of taxation, specifically on the preferences of those who mandate oil-companies' investment plans, namely the corporations' shareholders, is another matter.

I think the latter approach might have strong popular support in countries around the world.

regards,

Backstop

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('backstop', 'E')nergy Spin -

Raising consumer energy taxes looks appealing, under the polluter pays principle.

BUT, they can also be presented as a counter-productive Green Herring.

Given that most drivers feel entirely dependent on their cars, and that maasive media resources are active in slandering the very principle of taxation, any Govt that raised taxes sufficiently to make a significant difference to fuel consumption would be forced out of office.

The surgical use of taxation, specifically on the preferences of those who mandate oil-companies' investment plans, namely the corporations' shareholders, is another matter.

I think the latter approach might have strong popular support in countries around the world.

regards,

Backstop

[Wildwell]

Well there seems a few people on there that seem to be mentioning 'Peak oil' and posting links to other sites, I was quite taken aback.

I also noticed a few ex-members of this site like Roger Savage (mind you I also noticed Barbara on a future predictions site once)...Small world eh? But I digress, by taxing the oil companies you must remember that they have less money to pay toward pension schemes and less money for alternatives.

Should we be supporting road haulage? Only where it's absolutely needed yes, otherwise no, heavy trucks are not a very efficient way to move stuff and they blight urban areas and villages.

Farmers deserve support as they grow our food, but that’s almost a separate matter because they’re on low tax diesel and some of them are on subsidies. Something in our wonderful system needs to give, who should use less oil?

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', ' ')Something in our wonderful system needs to give, who should use less oil?

[backstop]

Energy Spin -

These are somewhat immense questions, but will try them.

1/, UK populace increasingly trained to object to tax, but a good fraction are aware that cheaper fuel will dangerously raise GHG outputs.
Support for the Road Haulage Lobby's protests will depend on the media, who can see the global supply issue, but thrive on reporting conflict.
The protest's effectiveness will depend, just like last time, on oil-company complicity - they were handing out tea & coffee to the protesters at the refineries and promptly decalared it was not safe to send out fuel trucks even if the police cleared the road . . . This time they have all of the extant risk of recession to consider.

2/. I'd like to introduce an unmentioned player of central relevance prior to addressing a Carbon Tax, namely "Jevon's Mother"
Her role is to ensure that if any nation adopts policies to cut its fossil fuel consumption, other nations will enjoy marginally cheaper supplies until rising demand has mopped up the excess. This may marginally postpone the peak, but does not of itself put funds into sustainable energies' deployment, nor does it control the emssion of GHGs committing us to ruinous Climate Destabilization.

Until both Jevon & his mother are capped, in practice by a global agreement on fossil-fuel usage, they will continue to negate laudable efforts both for energy efficiency and for cuts in energy demand. I've put a half-decent outline of the progress of the requisite global agreement in the "Jevon's Paradox -Death by Conservation" thread for those interested.

3/. Our farmers already have 'Red Diesel' which has minimal tax, and have been conned into buying vast wasteful tractors on credit, and so, together with a partisan dislike of the present Govt, will to an extent support the fuel protest.

4/. Alas the UK's utilities have been largely privateered, to the great damage to their quality of service and costs imposed. In some cases this was done so badly that just keeping them going is taking more public funds than before. In the case of the rails under our trains, the Govt has had to take them back into public ownership despite being politically well to the right of Mrs Thatcher.

5/. I'd well agree that people need to be aware of the impacts of their actions - for instance, child abuse is rife in this country if you look at the hight of vehicles' exhaust-pipes in relation to push-chairs . . .

If we start from the premis that we need truly radical policy in govt, and then accept that an incoming govt has a limited political capital to invest, it seems plain that the outcome depends on the manner it's invested.
Yes, a hefty increase in Road-fuel tax could be imposed, cutting UK GHG output in favour of say India's, and raising a billion£ for investment in renewables, which increases the soil- & aquifer-depletion by agribusiness sugar-beet for biodiesel in Norfolk.
This cock-up is exposed, adding to anti-tax opposition, and the govt is unlikely to survive the next election. . . .

6/. A carbon tax would not of itself do any better, so I would only go as far as supporting a revenue neutral one, that is simply to collect the same overall revenue but charged according to carbon emissions, not the present muddle of different rates for particular fuels' lobbying strengths.
This would provide the info people need, without spending too much political capital.

Notably, The global agreement metioned above will, via "Contraction & Convergence" put a value on every tonne of carbon emitted, and will do so in a manner that is superior to a mere tax, both by setting an annual global emissions budget and by making the right to emit each tonne tradeable.

This is the requisite cap for both for the delinquent Jevon & his implacable Mother.

regards,

Backstop

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('backstop', 'E')nergy Spin -

These are somewhat immense questions, but will try them.

2/. I'd like to introduce an unmentioned player of central relevance prior to addressing a Carbon Tax, namely "Jevon's Mother"
Her role is to ensure that if any nation adopts policies to cut its fossil fuel consumption, other nations will enjoy marginally cheaper supplies until rising demand has mopped up the excess. This may marginally postpone the peak, but does not of itself put funds into sustainable energies' deployment, nor does it control the emssion of GHGs committing us to ruinous Climate Destabilization.

[richardmmm]

England used to have cheap petrol whilst other EU countries such as Italy were very expensive. The UK now has probably the most expensive petrol in the world, because the government has cranked up the taxes more and more. At prices of 1 GBP per litre this is 3.80 per gallon which is $6 per gallon US prices..........and this is not emergency fuel shortage prices, these are every day prices that people have to pay to fill up anywhere, anytime.

So compared to average US prices the UK government is pocketing $3USD a gallon more than what the US states and federal taxes amount to and these are quite considerable.

This is clearly outrageous socialism, a huge gouging by the government. The prices for gasoline on the futures exchange are around $2 at the moment so you can see the UK government is basically eating it's population alive.

Prices in other EU countries are around 1EU per liter, which is still alot more than the US, but it is supposed to be a common economic zone so the UK should bring the prices back so that are comparable.

[gt1370a]

In my state, the Democrats are calling for a moratorium on the gas tax, while Republicans are asking oil companies to sell at cost. Which just makes me think - when you have a supply problem, how the hell does bringing DOWN the cost to encourage consumption help anything? Maybe it would be better if the government just did nothing in response to peak oil...

So, uh, no I don't support fuel tax protests.

[Wildwell]

The prices across Europe are not a lot different these days and the tax is fairly similar. Don't forget Europe has more Toll roads too.

The hope from a lot of these people is that if the government drops the tax, fuel prices will drop anyway eventually and they can put the tax on (yeah right!). Of course the danger is, if oil keeps rising and demand doesn't fall we'll have physical shortages, and, in a few years we'll be in the same situation, with more shortages. Eventually the tax might not be able to cut anymore; there may be no alternatives in place, and then what?

Now this isn't funny any more, it's not a game, it’s a huge gamble. The trouble is you have the extreme motoring lobby out just to spread nonsense through the media, scaremongering about prices rises and eventually making the situation worse..it’s going to be interesting.
.

[backstop]

Energy Spin -

A tax on goods' embedded transport-energy would indeed be desirable, and will I guess be an early advance once the present farce of 'free' trade collapses. The nearest we've got to it here is a lobby to publish the 'food-miles' of produce on its packaging to give advantage to local produce. If this gets near reality no doubt the WTO will stamp on it on behalf of the food-corporations.

An airline fuels tax is another option, but is very hard to impose given their mobility and their standing in the establishment. One option I've heard discussed is giving the global air-transport industry the status of a country under C&C, meaning that its annual total oil allowance will decline apart from their buying extra entitlements, which would elevate its costs significantly year-on-year.

With regard to the "junky and the dealer," for choice I'd redirect the spending of taxes on the former from, say, road and airport building to public transport and retail delivery services. As regards the dealer, I'd start by progressively stripping the present tax-breaks & subsidies before any conflicts over raising their taxes. The BRED tax on shareholder profits (according to firms' comparative Budgets for Research, Exploration & Development in sus. energies) looks to me best in that it targets the dealers' bankers, namely the stockbroker.

I share your concern over the incumbency issue that Daly & others have highlighted.

However, first, the shift to the energy self-reliance of the sustainables is of itself a huge dilution of Energy corporations' power (which is why in part they support the highest tech options such as hydrogen and PV, where control can more easily be retained).

Second, the Convergence under C&C from disparate purchasing power to per capita parity transforms the market-place in which the corporations must try to operate.

Third, these organizations' very size makes them very unwieldy, and, with increasing destabilization of the global society due to PO, GW, and random threats, I personally doubt whether the mega corporation is going to survive the changes, let alone retain dominance.

Thus on the question of incumbency, I'd say the core as ever, is just how we raise constructive participation in the democratic process, both during and between elections, and how decision making is to be retrieved to an appropriately local level.

regards,

Backstop

[backstop]

Ricardmmm Wrote

"The UK now has probably the most expensive petrol in the world, because the government has cranked up the taxes more and more. At prices of 1 GBP per litre this is 3.80 per gallon which is $6 per gallon US prices..........and this is not emergency fuel shortage prices, these are every day prices that people have to pay to fill up anywhere, anytime.

So compared to average US prices the UK government is pocketing $3USD a gallon more than what the US states and federal taxes amount to and these are quite considerable.

This is clearly outrageous socialism, a huge gouging by the government. The prices for gasoline on the futures exchange are around $2 at the moment so you can see the UK government is basically eating it's population alive."



Not only is your maths even worse than usual today, your gross ignorance of countries other than your own is brazenly displayed.

First, there are 4.54 litres in the gallon, not 3.8 as you have guessed. The rest of your numbers are all thus correspondingly wrong.

Second, you clearly have no notion of the meaning of socialism - we happen to have the least socialist government this country has seen in generations - it is for a start well to the right of Mrs Thatcher.

Third, we really don't like, for example, leaving people to die in the street of treatable diseases just because they are poor -
we consider that immoral - so yes we accept the paying of various taxes that might seem bizarre in the US,
like the wealthier shareholders of New Orleans paying for sufficient levees for instance . . .

regards,

Backstop

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('backstop', 'E')nergy Spin -

An airline fuels tax is another option, but is very hard to impose given their mobility and their standing in the establishment. One option I've heard discussed is giving the global air-transport industry the status of a country under C&C, meaning that its annual total oil allowance will decline apart from their buying extra entitlements, which would elevate its costs significantly year-on-year.

[CARVER]

In the Netherlands we have the highest gasoline prices in the world, it's around €1.50 per ltr. Last weak over here the price peaked at US$ 7.37 per gallon. I think our taxes are not nearly high enough, because people are still not giving the mileage of their new cars a high priority, even though the hybrids are subsidised (and now the gas guzzlers are being taxed extra).

Everyone of them that did not buy a fuel efficient (small) car, or use their car when they easily could have walked or biked, should not complain. They will be the ones that will really start to complain when there won't be any gas for them to buy. When they ask: "Where is it?" the answer will be: "You wasted it all on all those nonessential trips! We tried to warn you, but you would not listen". It seems like most people really believe it's their right to have unlimited supplies of cheap gas. It's still your own responsibility to think about what you are doing. I think the effects of the fuel tax will benefit us in the long run.

They are now talking about lowering the speed limit over here (I'm all for that). I think that idea will get even more complaints.

[Xelat]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('backstop', '
')2/. I'd like to introduce an unmentioned player of central relevance prior to addressing a Carbon Tax, namely "Jevon's Mother"
Her role is to ensure that if any nation adopts policies to cut its fossil fuel consumption, other nations will enjoy marginally cheaper supplies until rising demand has mopped up the excess. This may marginally postpone the peak, but does not of itself put funds into sustainable energies' deployment, nor does it control the emssion of GHGs committing us to ruinous Climate Destabilization.

Until both Jevon & his mother are capped, in practice by a global agreement on fossil-fuel usage, they will continue to negate laudable efforts both for energy efficiency and for cuts in energy demand. I've put a half-decent outline of the progress of the requisite global agreement in the "Jevon's Paradox -Death by Conservation" thread for those interested.

[Liamj]

I'm with the adapt-now camp too, i.e. don't cut fuel taxes, not yet anyway. There may be a case to do so at some time in the future, but Western globalised economies have a whole heap of relocalising to do and high fuel prices are about the only currently effective driver for that.

If blockaders were arguing for lower taxes AND serious moves to adapt to oil peak, including windfall taxes on corp's (or Backstops BRED tax), the winding down of foss.fuel industry subsidies, and big investment in more durable transport infrastructure, then i'd be on their blockades too.

I find it curious that govt is carrying the can as the bad guy, whilst market speculation does the real gouging. The teflon coating on our Great Market God is proving resilient.

Think we HAVE to get the debate past taxation levels, as depletionists will else be marginalised as being pro-big-govt/taxation and alienated from the majority of ppl who have no idea whats really happening and who are being bombarded with "greedy govt" messages.
So i'm going easy on the "high prices? get used to it.." line and heavy on the "adapt/act up or be sucked dry" line. Prices are everybodies intro to the issues, but they're in no way the full tale or best steering mechanism we have.
So get out there and develop the debate, i tell myself.

[RobintheDruid]

I think that before too long, fuel supplies will have to be prioritised, and to me one of the most important destinations for fuel will be trucks capable of delivering food and other essential supplies.

This means that the truckers to a certain extent have a point (but only a thin one), whilst the Chancellor is being truthful in his statement that it is actually a global problem.

Whether the protests go ahead or not, this is just a precursor of what will happen in the very near future - wrangling over essential supplies.

As far as I can see the path we're following from here goes downward. Those who realise that will be better prepared than those who just think its the oil companies etc finding an excuse to make more money.

Robin the Druid, Glastonbury, Uk

[mermaid]

i do not support the way the government of Belgium uses the tax-money, they use it to make new highwayroads, there are new plans for that.

I would support the plan to use the taxes for developing new energy sources and innovate new kinds of tranportation.

These plans for new roads are in my opinion useless becaus we will ride a bike on those highways very soon!!!!