Gas Prices.......grrr...

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Mark R

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
8,513
16
81
I believe that taxation of road vehicle fuel is fair to a point. While, from a purely selfish point of view, I would like to see the current level of fuel taxtaion in the UK fall, I think that it is just about fair. Having said that though, I don't think it would be reasonable to raise it significantly.

The UK government claim that they are thinking of the environment by reducing private vehicle usage - I think that this is simply a sham. I accept that it has spurred on the uptake of fuel efficient vehicles such as the Volkswagen Lupo Turbodiesel, offering 100 mpg (sadly not available in the UK), but I don't believe that the levels of taxation actually reduce road usage significantly, mainly because there isn't a realisticly priced alternative in many instances.

I live about 20 miles outside of London - if I want to visit central London, then I will take the underground - I have the option of taking the bus to a station 5 miles away, and taking the train to my final destination. Alternatively, I can drive 20 miles to a station on the outskirts of London, and take the train the rest of the way, cutting 45 minutes off the journey time and cutting costs by 30% (even more if I'm going with friends/family).

Here's a more dramatic example. As part of my studies I have to visit a number of towns around the region. For example, I may be required to attend at a town 40 miles away, at 9 am. I could take the bus, but they don't start running until 9:30 am. I could take the train, but they don't start running until 8:20 am, leaving insufficient time for me to get to work. There is no alternative to private car. It's even more interesting when cost is factored in: car costs about £6 in fuel. Bus costs about £8 return. Train costs £13 return (actually 2 singles because they don't offer returns on this route!).
Of course, this is to a town where there is a bus and train service. I've had to visit towns where there is no direct bus route, and if you want to go by train, then you have to first get the train to London (100 miles) and then back - a waste of time and effort when the town of interest is only 50 miles away.

I would dearly like to see better public transport available at a reasonable cost; I'm not particularly keen of driving through heavy traffic in rush hour


 

Mem

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
21,476
13
81
Nick Stone,They want the taxes on fuel reduce so the fuel is cheaper,the Government is saying it`s the oil companies that is causing the high prices,but everyone here agrees 80% tax here is way to high.
 

evolotion

Member
Oct 30, 1999
87
0
0
Yup the public transport over here(UK) is mince and too dear(I either take the car(well get a lift)/cycle or walk!), furthermore no-one I know has used there car less in the last few years..

Bib, im gonna check into that one allthough if there is a difference in average earnings I doubt it would be to the same extent as the fuel costs.
 

Nick Stone

Golden Member
Oct 14, 1999
1,033
0
0
Energy policy:
No one else took a crack at it so I'll throw something out there.

Short term, there's very little that a government can do to affect the price of a commodity. Especially when it has the universal, widespread use, and lack of easy storage capability that petrolium products have.

Price contolls don't work, they just create shortages and surplusses.
Release of reserves doesn't work; there isn't enough to make a difference.
Forced closings of energy consumers such an shopping centers or factories, doesn't help, unless destroying your economy is also desired.
Reducing the speed limit reduces efficiency and increases congestion and does nothing for safety.
Rationing is viewed suspicously and is throught with scandels. Some group is mistreated so that others may gain. It doesn't increase the quantity of oil to be used. It promotes inefficient hording.
All of these "control" methods have been tried and failed and the politcians know it.

Longer term methods include:
Increasing energy production: Such as opening public lands for drilling or allowing offshore drilling where it's currently prohibited, etc. Anyone heard the expression "not in my back yard"?

Other factors include improving the transport of energy from production to consummer. Visulize large supper tankers, tank cars on trains, oil barges, pipelines, refineries. There all needed -- all a part of life as we know it. However, we in America probably have the most efficient infrastructure in the world already when it comes to this. (Did I mention the Alaskan pipeline? Something about one for natural gas too? Why did I bring that up? What's being done with that natural gas right now?)

Make political alliances with those that have the oil, protect them. Go to war for them. Sad but true.

Create a "NASA" like agency to create the way of the future and replace our obsolete energy sources with "next century, space-age tehnology"
Well that's fine but who's going to pay for it and do we really trust the government to make giant strides here? Look at the past.

Forced conversions of users to alternate fuel types. Like forcing jet engines to burn coal. (sorry, that's an inside joke)
Most people have the attitude that the government should force others to change but just "leave me, my truck, and my wasteful habbits alone".

I'm sure I skipped something significant but this should be enough to give everyone something to chew on.

 

Nick Stone

Golden Member
Oct 14, 1999
1,033
0
0
More thoughts
Consevation: "We should save this resource for our children's use"
Well, someone was probably saying the same thing in the mid 1800's when we reduced the buffalo herds from 100 million to a few hundred. What a waste of resources. But it was for a good cause (to starve the Indians into submission) But do we really need 100 million buffalo now? I don't think so. Probably couldn't give it away with fries and a Disney toy.

Cars designed to get 100 MPG? or run on some alternative fuel?
I'm sorry but people are too vain to accept the stigma associated with driving a car that lacks ANY Feature associated with "performance". The "my 4WD truck can crush your little rice burner" is a typical attitude.

Safety is a real concern when marketing low energy consumption vehicles. You can move a 1000 lb. vehicle for 1/4th the cost of moving a 4000lb vehicle. Once you have it moving a different rule applies. A car with 1/2 the frontal area will take half as much energy to keep moving down the road at a constant 70 mph due to wind resistance.
But lightweight, low cars are, at least perceived, as unsafe. They also can't haul the grandparents to the church on Sunday without complaints if the roof line was about 30 in. off the ground.

Where I live, I don't know any of my friends or neighbors who are changing ANY of their driving habbits one bit. They aren't considering alternatives. They aren't postponing planned trips. They aren't selling the family car and using a bicycle instead. Therefore, I'd have to conclude that their decisions are unaffected by the cost of gasoline.

The truth is that the price of energy is more affected by the general state of the world economy than anything else. If our friends in other parts of the world are doing "well" then energy consumption will be high and we can expect the price to be high. It's unfortunate that we have to hope for "trouble for our world neighbors" to bring the price down temporarily.

Ultimately the cost of energy is the cost to produce it, regardless of what form it comes in.

 

Nick Stone

Golden Member
Oct 14, 1999
1,033
0
0
News headline:
"Oil prices soared Monday to a 10 year high as tensions between Iraq and Kuwait raised fears that oil production from the Persian Gulf would be disrupted."
Notice how much interest and news coverage this area of the world gets when prices are high. Compared this to "how much we don't care" if prices are low?

Also notice who's on strike in Los Angeles - the transit workers. Would they still go on strike if prices were low? Or are they maximizing the impact of there effort by timing the strike now? Apparently the Transit Authority predicts a $438 million operating deficit over the next 10 years unless it cuts costs.
Sounds like the tax payers will get to pay for this.