[Madpaddy]

That's a start Spec,

These measure cost money of course so don't expect your organisation to implement them until energy costs are outrageous. I am lucky in that

a. I work for the government
b. I control the budget where I work
c. My boss (Director of Engineer Corps) is enlightened
d. Kyoto treaty means Ireland has to reduce carbon emissions so reducing energy use is very sexy here at the moment.

[Specop_007]

That's a start Spec,

These measure cost money of course so don't expect your organisation to implement them until energy costs are outrageous. I am lucky in that

a. I work for the government
b. I control the budget where I work
c. My boss (Director of Engineer Corps) is enlightened
d. Kyoto treaty means Ireland has to reduce carbon emissions so reducing energy use is very sexy here at the moment.

Yeah, at home I also swapped in low wattage bulbs and turned off the heated dry on the dishwasher.

Yeah, i may be a narrow minded Republican, but I try to think of myself as an Enlightened Narrow Minded Republican and do my part for energy conservation.

[Madpaddy]

Better go and do some work. Quiet here today. Quiet on this board as well.

[Madpaddy]

Harray,

I just made senior poster.

God, I'm a sad bastard

[Permanently_Baffled]

LOL mad paddy!

[trespam]

Lets just sum it up then.
We're screwed either way.

Exactly. The piper must be paid in my opinion. America is living beyond its means. But there are sound arguments to shift the tax burden to consumption of non-renewable energy and shift it away from labor.

[khebab]

Just to remind you that here in EU we pay about $5 per gallon with heavy taxes, but people got accustomed. Economy is going as in the USA, people drive around alone like there's no tomorrow, there's a traffic like hell, every family has three or four cars.
Maybe the cars are smaller... but believe me: they buy smaller cars just because of those tiny city roads where they don't want to be glued in traffic, not for energy saving purposes.

When you speak of $5 per gallon as a disaster, you make me laugh: you don't know how people love their cars!

I disagree with this Barbara. The higher fuel has without a doubt reduced consumption. The UK for example only 10 barrels of oil are consumed per capita per person per year. In the US this is over 26!

There maybe still loads of cars in Europe, but like you say there are smaller, doesnt matter if you have three or four cars , you can only drive one at a time!

PB

Don't forget that distances Americans are used to travel are huge compared to the European scale. Geography is also a factor, not only economy.

[khebab]

We need to do things that will move our country in the right direction. I know the idea isn't popular. We need solutions!

A larger tax on fuel would do two things.
1. Raise money to be used in research for alternatives, money to be used for funding of public works projects for nuclear power plants, wind plants. Money for all the costly problems that are associated will Peak Oil and the moves that must be taken to get us out of this mess.
2. It will result in people driving less. The costs will be greater so individuals will be encouraged to do everything they can to save money. That money not spent for fuel will also mean less fuel used.

These to effects will have an positive overall effect on the situation.

So how much of a tax. Gradually increasing it over time would be best. A tax such as this would be a difficult thing for people and industries to deal with.

Very good post! I'm totally for it. If we don't increase gas prices PO will do it for us anyway. Gas prices don't reallly reflect the real cost of a private car (environmental cost, infrastructure cost, etc.). By increasing taxes proactively, gvt will have some cushion to play with when PO will strike hard.

[cador]

This is my first post here. I enjoy reading all of your debates and arguments. I've abstained from voting. I think that there is a huge disconnect between European and North American attitudes regarding peak oil.

If North Americans paid the same price as Europeans for gasoline, there would be an economic collapse in North America.

Taxes may be lower over here, but people pay more for their health care and post-secondary education.

If taxes aren't increased, it would mean that market forces will permit people to waste more gas. But if taxes are increased, you might mitigate the problem, but all you're really doing is shifting the deck chairs on the Titanic.

We are currently "riding the peak" so to speak as it concerns PO. PO will guarantee that gasoline prices are going to go through the roof in the next few years.

Imagine an American economy where the unemployment rate is 21% in five years from now. I think that is quite possible if Americans are forced to pay $2 per liter (or $7.70 per gallon) by then. Politicians try to raise the minimum wage to $10 per hour but most people are lucky enough to get a job on the black market that pays just $4 an hour and forced to do unpaid overtime. In such an economic situation, I can see civil unrest and a lot of violence in the streets.

Dennis Miller (the comedian) thinks that the solution to PO is for Americans to buy more SUVs so that we use up whatever oil is left and then "good old-fashioned American ingenuity" will come up with a solution to the problem. I'm sorry Dennis, you may be a funny guy but we can't invent our ways out of this mess.

The only solution to PO that I see is for people to become more self-reliant. And by that I don't mean to convert your politics from socialist to capitalist. I mean self-reliance from the government and the private sector. Find ways to produce some of your own energy away from the grid. Stockpile on weapons and food. Also, find ways to produce your own food. During the crisis, you'll find out quickly that the old adage "in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king" will ring true.

[Cool Hand Linc]

A stagged implimentation of the tax would lessen the blow to the economy. 50 cents for a year. Then a dollar for a year. Then...

I like the extra tax on big SUV's idea myself. They are really a luxury item. A luxury tax specific to them could be used. A luxury tax on big gas hogs of all kinds. Like sports cars that have extra big engines. I see so many individuals driving these big gas hogs. They are really a sign of wealth when you get down to it. Even with our current gas prices. It takes a few dollars to fill them tanks with gas and drive all over the place.

SUV's for farmers? No. Farmers like big trucks. Ranchers like them too. Most really need the big powerfull truck to pull heavy loads. These big trucks are really needed for farming and ranching or construction. They are not luxuries like the SUV's. Some people do drive them just because they can. Just about as if it were an SUV.

Ya, This is a taxation of the rich. But if they don't care about money. A luxury tax will just make it more clear who is really rich and who wants to just look rich. If you can pay a luxury tax to buy an SUV and then pay the extra cost of fuel. You got to have money.

Specop__007 I am a republican too! I don't see myself as narrow minded though. There is some things that I am 'fixed minded' I guess you could say. I mean that I have some issues that I have decided where I stand and may not change easily. When I became aware of Peak Oil I began to try to conserve energy a little at a time. I now keep lights off, turn my heat down more, drive less, am working to make my home more energy effiecent, etc. Honestly I have begun doing these things because of economics. I want to not spend unneccesarily. Save some here and save some there.

So why the gas tax? It would force a mind set into more people. The rich will complain but still buy what ever they want. The average person will pay closer attention and begin to change there thoughts. If only because of the tax.

For you who say you want another tax reduced. Not many can pay a higher percentage of tax than I. I am divorsed and well paid. From my pay check I have about 38% taken out directly. Then I pay taxes on evrything I purchase as well. Between Social Security, FICA, Federal Tax and state tax. I pay. I do consider Social Security a tax.

Taxes are a fact of life today and have been for many years!

This isn't to say the government could not do better as spending this money wisely.

I owe I owe so its of to work I go.

[Specop_007]

MissingLink,
Theres a very long and colored history to my "Republican" comment I made ealier. Trust me, just let it lie.

Trespam,
We agree!! See, when your not being arrogant, cocky, posting bad information and making poor generalizations we can get along. It helps you dont try to poke me in the eye with a patcholi stick too. (Thats a JOKE in case your sarcasm meter is broke)

Anyways, it doesnt make sense to tax based on engine size. It should be taxed based on MPG. Thats a true consumption based tax. A Corvette with the current engine (LS2 is it?) is a 5.7 liter engine. Its a BIG engine, and it makes a ehlluva lot of horsepower (400-ish). It can darn near follow a Honda around all day long if your not whippin the ponies on it.
Now, my Expedition is a 5.4L (Smaller engine. 302 vs 347) with less horsepower (280 HP I believe). If I baby it around I can do 16 MPG. The Vette with the bigger engine can do almost TWICE that. (I believe in the range of 28-30)

So, taxing only on engine size really isnt accurate since engine size alone isnt necessarily an indication of consumption.

[Specop_007]

Damnit, I meant 6 liter on the LS1. I believe the LS1's were the 5.7's
Either way, the Vette 6 liter does right around 30 whereas my Ford 5.4 is doing 15.

[Specop_007]

Damnit, I meant 6 liter on the LS1. I believe the LS1's were the 5.7's
Either way, the Vette 6 liter does right around 30 whereas my Ford 5.4 is doing 15.

That should be 6 liter on the LS2!!

This is getting ridiculous.....

[Madpaddy]

6 litre engines on a civilian vehicle.

We use these in the Irish Army.

6.6L engine. Poor on MPG though

http://www.army-technology.com/projects ... nha11.html

Tax on MPG certainly not engine size.

[Kingcoal]

In a different world, the war on terror would have included reduction in consumption of oil through gas taxes, spending on energy technology and government debt control (preserving the surplus handed over from the previous administration.) We'd be in much better shape and much stronger now. Instead, the dollar is approaching zero worth, we have more debt than ever before in the history of mankind and a broken Iraq that we are now responsible for.

The once almighty dollar is now a weapon that can be used against the US by countries like China to severely influence our economy and thus control the US. The US is more at the mercy of the rest of the world than ever before in my lifetime. At a time when we need good will from the rest of the world, we are behaving like an ignoramus. It's all moot now, too much damage has been done.

What I'm trying to figure out is how those dang tax and spend liberals managed to pull all this off under the nose of our wonderfully conservative President? (Sarcasm intentional)

[ForeignObserver]

Interesting thread

Events may run like this:-

Increased prices due to world price rises.

Attempts to limit consumption further with tax increases.

Eventually rationioning as supply will continue to decline and it will seen to be fairer for all if price is not used solely for containment. This is a European view!

The US view may be different but I imagine that rationing may be considered a better idea after a few hundred or thousand have been killed in gas stations fighting for supplies as happened on a limted scale in 1979(?) when I was visiting. That was just a blip in supply - when permanent shortages kick in it will be much uglier.

At least with rationing everyone knows where they stand. Of course consumers will try to fix it so they get more but the biometric identity card we'll probably all have to carry by then will be used to check our allocations at the pump and deny supply where appropriate.

[Specop_007]

What I'm trying to figure out is how those dang tax and spend liberals managed to pull all this off under the nose of our wonderfully conservative President? (Sarcasm intentional)

THEY TRICKSSS USSS!!
THEYSTEAL OUR PRECIOUSSS, YESSS!!!
KILL LIBERALSSSS, TRICKSSSS USSS THEY DID!!!

[Cool Hand Linc]

THEY TRICKSSS USSS!!
THEYSTEAL OUR PRECIOUSSS, YESSS!!!
KILL LIBERALSSSS, TRICKSSSS USSS THEY DID!!!

That's a good one! lol

[Insider]

I don't think it is fair to blame Americans for buying SUV's. As the obesity statistics show, one third of the population couldn't fit into a smaller car if they tried. But I think car companies should be forced to sell SUV's with either diesel or hybrid engines, so that they achieve a reasonable fuel economy.

[MrPC]

Don't forget that distances Americans are used to travel are huge compared to the European scale. Geography is also a factor, not only economy.

Geography of the continent is irrelevant really since most people would really only leave their little part of it a few times a year.

Urban layout and transport options are the real killer.

The car is the single highest energy consumer. Freight and holiday travel is insignificant in comparison.

Most US cities are designed to be navigated no other way. Most European cities pre-date the car, and while most people still choose to drive, the city is still capable of and probably still does offer other mobility options, including ones that use significantly less oil.

Now, the cities could be a few miles apart, they could be a thousand miles apart, but what really matters is can you both get people around the cities, get freight in, and get waste out, all in a scarce/expensive oil environment.

In Europe, the answer is probably yes. In the USA, the answer is almost certainly no. In places like Canada and Australia, we're somewhere in the middle.