When it comes to energy and gas prices, writes Robert Bryce in this interesting piece in Slate, Americans are living in a fantasyland.
Even at $4 a gallon, our gas prices are dirt-cheap compared with most developed countries. In England, motorists pay more than $8 per gallon of gas. In Norway, it’s $8.73 — and they’re an oil exporter.
Supply trends suggest it’s not going to get any cheaper.
“The simple truth is that Americans are going to have to get used to more expensive gasoline,†Bryce concludes.
108 Comments
Well, I agree that higher prices are probably here to stay. But comparing prices with countries like Norway is irrelevant. They tax the crap out of gasoline, making up as much as 75% of the cost.
It’s OK..the higher gas goes, the more inclinded we are to find alternatives to fossel fuels..money talks.
My husband has an old ‘68 corvette stingray that he’s going to try to turn into an electric car…now how fun is that?
It’s painful, but transitions like these can be really good for us in a lot of different ways.
And countries like Norway have alternative modes of transportation available. I traveled all over Europe without a car – trains and subways.
That is true, Europeans tend to use mass transit far more than we do. This is not a supply/demand issue, it is a speculation issue, and the oil companies are driving it as high as they can artificially. I do agree we need to become more energy conscious. But look at the effect it is having on everything else too.
For once I agree with outlander.
Comparing our transportation needs with staid and settled communities in Europe with their small land areas and high population densities is absurd.
Kansas alone is bigger than some European countries.
Also, as I have noted before, if a soda cost you % bucks, you’d be getting a gal of gas for the equivalent cost of two sodas. While in good ol’ USA we pay for four sodas worth per gallon. I’d like to see other relative cost.
As gas is getting higher, I don’t see a 49er-like rush to make more fuel-efficient or alternative energy products.
I guess the U.S. is waiting on a complete stoppage of transportation before something happens.
I put our higher gas prices squarely on the politicians of the last 40 years plus the environmentalists.
“As gas is getting higher, I don’t see a 49er-like rush to make more fuel-efficient or alternative energy products.”
Interesting and correct observation there, Regular.
This is one of the flaws of assuming that “the unseen hand of the marketplace” will always meet people’s needs.
I wanted to buy compact flourescent light bulbs when they first came out about 20 years ago. Couldn’t find them anywhere and finally had to order then through the mail from Kansas Solar Power Co.
There’s no question in my mind that GM deliberately killed its EV1 (electric car) not because it was a flop but because it became too popular. Once corporations become big and monolithic, they are as difficult to change as government policy or your local school board.
I agree george. I would add in “Make a Quick Buck” traders as well.
George–
Good one. If the environmentalists had their way, we’d all have solar hot water tanks on our roofs and solar heat collectors thanks to gov’t tax incentives that offset the cost.
We’d be generating 20 percent of our electricity from wind and 10 percent from solar.
That coupled with super insulation and energy-efficient appliances would eliminate our need for new electricity.
We’d have mandatory recycling programs saving about 90 percent of the energy required to make a new aluminium can or a plastic or glass bottle.
We’d have mass transit, high speed trains and electric cars.
If the environmentalists had their way, oil would be down to $25 a barrel and the Saudi monarchy would be the ones crying . . .
George–
You remind me of someone I know who’s first name is George.
Your last name doesn’t start with “A,” does it?
CapnAmerica
Posted May 28, 2008 at 9:51 am | Permalink
George–
Good one. If the environmentalists had their way, we’d all have solar hot water tanks on our roofs and solar heat collectors thanks to gov’t tax incentives that offset the cost.
We’d be generating 20 percent of our electricity from wind and 10 percent from solar.
——-
That’s funny Capn’, I worked heavily on two of the wind farms in Kansas. Both were protested by environmental groups. They are never satisfied.
“As gas is getting higher, I don’t see a 49er-like rush to make more fuel-efficient or alternative energy products.”
One thing we ‘learned’ from previous energy shocks is that the Saudis etc will flood the market and undercut the markets. We have to realize that this is anything but a free market – it is an oligopoly bordering on monopoly.
Bill is due. We kicked it down the road 30 years from when we knew we had a problem. Now, it’s due.
The current administration is SO incompetent, they don’t even know how to kite a check and buy us some time.
We have 150,000 troops and tens of thousands of corporate goons in Iraq.
They are parked on the second richest oil reserves on the planet. MY math says gas should be about 50 cents a gallon. We should at least have the benefits of empire since we have all the liabilities. Americans would go for the occupation of Iraq forever if it would get them cheap gas. I’m not advocating that. Just pointing it out.
Life is about to change in fundamental and far reaching ways for this country. It’s gonna hurt. But in the end, we will be better off.
Sure gas prices are $8 a gallon in Norway but with that you get health insurance, public transportation and your college paid for. In America you only pay $4 a gallon and with that you get a CEO with a $400 million salary.
We are headed in the wrong direction, and things will not get “better” this way, but they can and will get worse, unless we force a peace on the ME.
I think the Saudis have learned from the oil companies the benefits of restraint. I don’t expect them to be the OPEC cartel buster anymore.
Anti writes that “Both [wind farms] were protested by environmental groups. They are never satisfied.”
Hmmm . . . I’m surprised to hear that. The rank-and-file should work to change the positions on wind energy.
Petroleum costs go up, wind and solar costs never will because wind and sun are free.
(Although one could argue that as demand for electricity goes up, the cost of the electricity will go up nonetheless.)
Good point, MagPunk. Well said.
They spread the wealth around to benefit all, and we concentrate it in the hands of the already rich and powerful.
Capn’, it is frustrating when a company tries to promote “Green” energy for benifit and to sufice the enviros, then is protested. I have seen the same protest from enviros in CA about solar. It is rediculous to me.
spelling, I know.
Maggotpunk
Posted May 28, 2008 at 10:33 am | Permalink
Sure gas prices are $8 a gallon in Norway but with that you get health insurance, public transportation and your college paid for. In America you only pay $4 a gallon and with that you get a CEO with a $400 million salary.
—————————
Why not mention that Norway is just slightly bigger than New Mexico and has less than 5 million people?
Comparing European countries to the U.S. is apples and oranges. If you wish to compare the European Union to the U.S., that might be a better comparison.
“Why not mention that Norway is just slightly bigger than New Mexico and has less than 5 million people?”
For one the Blog header mentioned Norway.
Regular
Posted May 28, 2008 at 11:02 am | Permalink
Why not mention that Norway is just slightly bigger than New Mexico and has less than 5 million people?
——-
Because that would be honest?
Anti, yep…
sidetrack: My favorite personal Norwegian story. While in High School, a foreign exchange student named Martin Gjelsivik (spelling?) was giving his goodbye at a bbq given by his sponsor family.
Although Martin had pretty much mastered the English language, he still had some confusion on some words. He wanted to thank everyone for their hospitality.
Instead, and in a classic mangling of words, with a classic Norwegian accent, Martin spoke to the crowd without blinking, “I want to thank everyone for a wonderful year and their hostilities.”
heh
Finally, America will catch-up to the sophisticated and advanced Europeans that you Socialists so admire!
Now we can FORCE the Conservation that you Liberal Global Warming Alarmists have been crying about for years! Led by your fearless leader – Al Gore, you’ve called for higher gas taxes to discourage consumption of oil.
Finally, we ALL can rejoice in participating in Conservation! We will reduce oil imports! We will reduce pollution! We will reduce Global Warming! We will save the planet!
We’ve known this was coming for at least 3 decades, since the gas “crisis” of the 70’s. We’ve known that oil was a limited resource, and that we were increasingly subject to world markets and supplies who were less than hospitable to our interests.
Yet we continued to do nothing. We did worse than nothing, we continued to drive big guzzlers, use like supplies were unlimited, and refused to develop our own oil resources.
We made our own bed.
should be ” . . . suppliERS who were less than hospitable . . .”
Edit, edit, edit . . .
High Prices and Conservation are a good thing.
As long as Somebody ELSE pays the price and NOT ME!
That’s why I complain all the time about high gas prices and global warming at the same time.
But, let’s not drill for more oil to increase the supply. Heck, that might drive the price down too far and speed up global warming even more.
I just want to complain either way, all the time, constantly, backwards and forwards, upside right and upside down.
I’m now a Global Warming Liberal too!!!!!!
Some of you will remember the early Seventies when the first “energy crisis” hit as a result of OPEC. Suddenly, the big American cars were just sitting on the dealer’s lots and the smaller, more fuel efficient Japanese and European products were in high demand.
The Big Three were very slow to react to the changing market, and then mostly turned out junk like the Chevy Vega and the Ford Pinto.
(Just a quick aside – has there ever been a more ill-conceived car than the Pinto based Ford Mustang II?)
The Big Three still doesn’t get it. True, they have improved quite a bit, but the foreign manufacturers are still way ahead of them, in terms of fuel mileage, quality and innovation.
Perhaps with this “crisis” the Big Three will make the changes needed for both their survival and for our country.
Perhaps, but not likely.
Regular does have a good point. How can small countries with much smaller economies and much smaller populations provide things like health care and free higher education for its people, while the much larger, richer America cannot?
After WW2 America planned on following a lot of other countries by providing free health care to its people. Conservatives said Americans didn’t deserve it. Recently Congress voted on a GI Bill to provide increased educational benefits to veterans because the current standards weren’t sufficient to pay for higher costs. Again, conservatives said Americans weren’t worth it and people like Tiahrt voted against it.
Then there are other countries like Norway that decided that the people who live in the country, defend the country, and develop the nation’s infrastructure do deserve something for their labor. Despite these countries not being as rich as America they still put their money together to bring dignity and respect to all people in their land.
The end result is a longer life span, higher quality of life, less poverty, less crime, higher per capita income, and lower unemployment than America. If this is the result of $8 a gallon gasoline then it’s a worthwhile sacrifice.
Maggot, alot of your ‘end results’ are because they actually produce as a nation something other than money on paper and lawsuits.
MP-”If this is the result of $8 a gallon gasoline then it’s a worthwhile sacrifice.”
$8 gas in THIS country means a lot of people will starve. Is that what you want Maggot? Our food travels great distances to feed our large(area) country. That high cost of fuel will transfer to food prices as it has already.
“$8 gas in THIS country means a lot of people will starve”
Ju8st think how much one would save on health insurance. I’d think that’d OVER-compensate.
Ha! That is one way to look at it, less people= cheaper insurance.
GMC70 – well said. We also stopped alternative energy research during the 80s which had begun in the 70s.
“$8 gas in THIS country means a lot of people will starve. Is that what you want Maggot? Our food travels great distances to feed our large(area) country. That high cost of fuel will transfer to food prices as it has already”
Then you’ll just have to do without your morning kiwi fruit.
Anti, you obviously have no concept how it works. Less people means HIGHER insurance. They’re still going to want their bottom line no matter how many people are paying in. Republican mentality–shoddy service @ exorbitant price causes loss of customer base you just raise the rates and bitch because enough people aren’t paying in.
If America had a big brother to provide Free National Defense, we could afford more of your favorite social welfare programs.
2.7% of Government Spending in Norway is for National Defense.
http://www.statsbudsjettet.dep.no/upload/Statsbudsjett_2008/dokumenter/pdf/Budget_2008.pdf
Oh, and 29% of their Federal Revenue is from the taxes on the aggressive exploration production of oil in their own country.
ghotiphaze- sorry, should have been a ? at then end of “Ha! That is one way to look at it, less people= cheaper insurance.”, not a “.”
I dunno, in the 1980s, we had that giant of corporate leaders, Lee Iococca and the Chrysler “K” cars. Wasn’t that a wonderful experience? :)
The Japs are still putting out good econ. cars and they look great. Have you seen some of the goofy crap Detroit has put out. Boo Hisss! I don’t know why they can’t at least design something attractive in the econ. car models.
Detroit Halfass-ery!
The Japs are still putting out good econ. cars
And why shouldn’t they? In the 70’s we sold out our steel industry to them. In the 80s they got our machine tooling industry. The 90s we sold out our IC and microprocessor industries to them. They have everything they need and we no longer do. Now we’re selling out our money industries to China. But we’d be hard put to get rid of our lawyer industry–there just isn’t enough world for all our lawyers.
BTW, what’s the deal with all these retro designs? The last decade or so I’ve thought I was back in the 40s. When Dodge RAM first came out with the rounded fenders and I commented how I hated them (I own a RAM now *shame*) people told me that what people like. I couldn’t help thinking how so many people like soap opera, Jerry Springer, and golf.
If US Defense spending was the same percentage as Norway’s, then the US Defense budget would be roughly $81 Billion.
Instead, it’s over $500 Billion.
If Norway spent the equivalent percentage as the US, then Norway would have to spend 6 Times what they spend today for National Defense.
Instead, Norway and much of the Free World, including Europe, rely on the good ole American taxpayer and US Soldier to take care of their National Defense.
What perfect little Socialists they are in Europe – allowing America to pay for their National Defense.
Military expenditures – percent of GDP:
4.06% (2005 est.) USA
Military expenditures – percent of GDP:
1.9% (2005 est.) Norway
Republican math again.
cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/no.html
cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
According to the CIA Factbook Norway spends 1.9% of it’s GDP on the military, America spends 4.06% (2005 figures).
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html
Using more up to date figures Norway spends about $6 billion on their military.
http://www.norway-nato.org/news/061006.htm
Really, I was kinda hoping to find figures from 2003. Didn’t think it was fair to make a present-day comparison just because Bush/Cheney found a need to pad the pockets of their buddies. That isn’t defense, that’s welfare.
My numbers for Norway were from 2008.
http://www.statsbudsjettet.dep.no/upload/Statsbudsjett_2008/dokumenter/pdf/Budget_2008.pdf
For the US, 2007:
http://origin.www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.pdf
And my numbers were Percentages of Federal Spending.
Maggotmath wants to go with Defense Spending as a Percent of GDP.
In Maggotmath, how many US Dollars are spent on National Defense? How many US Dollars (equivalent) does Norway spend on its National Defense?
Gee, in Maggotmath, 4% of US GDP for National Defense makes the War in Iraq sound like Pennies.
I do believe that much of Europe, and Asia, has gotten a free or reduced ride on their national security at the cost of the American Taxpayer. Far too long have they not had to bear the full cost of their own security, as America has stationed troops and equipment all over the world, and they felt secure in the knowledge of the American Military and nuclear umbrella. Time to close the bases, and bring the troops home. Time also to abandon the automatic response pledge of military assistance. Le them take care of their own country, or union (as in European Union). Of course, there would be a hue and cry from our “friends and brothers” in the military compacts.
LJ, that’s the price WE have to pay in order they allow our corporations to do business in their countries.
“I do believe that much of Europe, and Asia, has gotten a free or reduced ride on their national security at the cost of the American Taxpayer.”
The American military is on foreign soil because America wants to be there. After America invaded the Philippines and overthrew the Democratic government and slaughtered 200,000 Filipinos it took a long time for that country to force America out.
America maintains a presence in many other countries to limit Democratic self-rule (Pinochet, Shah of Iran, etc) and to protect American corporate interests (like the United Fruit Company). America is providing free defense for these countries just like Great Britain was providing free defense for India and England’s colonies in Africa.
ghotiphaze–
I don;t agree, it started way too long ago for that. But in any case, too bad, so sad. Start closing bases now. Let them defend themselves.
While I agree wholeheartedly with LJ’s post, and realize the facts of Maggot’s post, I can’t help remembering what happened to China in the 15th century when it got tired of throwing all it’s assets around the world to show how big and bad they were.
bases and military campaigns in other countries for business interests started in 19th century, LJ
“The American military is on foreign soil because America wants to be there. After America invaded the Philippines and overthrew the Democratic government and slaughtered 200,000 Filipinos it took a long time for that country to force America out.
America maintains a presence in many other countries to limit Democratic self-rule (Pinochet, Shah of Iran, etc) and to protect American corporate interests (like the United Fruit Company). America is providing free defense for these countries just like Great Britain was providing free defense for India and England’s colonies in Africa.”
Whether or not I agree with your statement, it’s till never too late too change. Start closeing bases now. And make it official US policy:
We don;t care what you do to each other. But attack us, you will cease to exist.
No more making nice nice. No more American imperialism (sarcasm noted), no more protection for others. Take care of your own, because we are.
And I agree–let them fend for themselves. Other countries and our businesses. It isn’t like our corporations are over there for our (common, every-day little American) benefit.
The United States has over 700 foreign military bases, 395 of which are major facilities. The US has bases in at least 130 foreign countries.
Guess who pays for all of that?
Guess who pays for all of that?
Saudi Arabia?
“Whether or not I agree with your statement, it’s till never too late too change. Start closeing bases now. And make it official US policy:”
I agree with you. America has 800 foreign military bases. Only a few are actually paid for by the local governments (Japan and Germany as a result of agreements after WW2).
Foreign bases are more expensive and only serve as a subsidy for the local economy while costing the taxpayers money. Only a few should actually remain open as we have military agreements with our territories like Guam to provide for their defense. But really, who will invade Guam?
The U.S. military is also the largest consumer of petrol. I suppose by shutting down a lot of these foreign bases we can reduce oil demand and lower prices.
“But really, who will invade Guam?”
My opinion, nobody. Historically? Spain, US, Japan.
LOL LJ. but did they really “invade”, or just use it for a stepping stone? I think the whole reason it’s a territory (or is it a commonwealth???? Never was real sure how our possession works there) is so no one else can have it. Isn’t the only reason we keep Puerto Rico is as one more avenue of attack against Cuba?
OR….
We could drill for more oil!
“We could drill for more oil!”
Where?
And ANWR only has about six months of oil at current consumption rates.
So, where else?
It’s amazing to me that no one has even mentioned reducing the speed limits to 55 on all NON interstate highways. This alone would save 10-20% on fuel consumption.
WS Clark,
We could drill all over the place, off the coast, ANWR, wherever.
They are drilling for oil all over the world every day.
Lets drill for more oil here and then have cheaper prices!
So what if ANWR only lasts for 6 months, 1 year, or 5 years.
Drill!
Gimme a fix! I gotta have my fix!
Why haven’t we drilled off the Gulf Coast of Florida?
As for the other locales, we are drilling in most and have been for a long time. The only exception is ANWR and it just isn’t worth the environmental risk for such a small amount of oil.
But, why not off the Gulf Coast of Florida?
usaproud4567 is that you Mr. Graves?
“55 on all NON interstate highways. This alone would save 10-20% on fuel consumption.”
Not in all cars. For some of us this would negate overdrive and have the opposite effect.
At the very least we could quit cutting off our nose, and limit military contracts to countries that don’t pay their fair share for protection. And, if they don’t contribute significantly, close the bases.
Does kind of sound like a Mafia protection ring, though.
The Death Knoll for cheap gas started ringing when you all voted in the oil men.
Nathan during the Congressional inquiry, one Dem. noted that oil companies hold right to explore on 30 mil. acres, both on land and off shore that aren’t being explored.
Someone’s just being lazy and wants a sure thing.
The death knoll started ringing with the election of the last (democrat) congress.
Perhaps Abu Dhabi has a good idea:
http://greenwombat.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/05/28/abu-dhabi-to-invest-2-billion-in-solar/
Abu Dhabi to invest $2 billion in solar venture
“The prospect of another surge of Alaskan oil has revived the export debate, though this time backers of drilling aren’t talking about exporting oil.
If the refuge is opened to drilling, it could raise Alaskan oil production from roughly 908,000 barrels of oil a day in 2004 to between 1.1 million and 2.1 million barrels per day in 2025, according to Energy Information Administration estimates.
A glut of Alaskan oil could be more than West Coast refineries can use, said Verleger, a senior fellow for the Institute for International Economics in Washington, D.C.
At their 1991 peak, West Coast refineries used 1.44 million barrels of Alaskan oil a day. While refineries have increased overall production since then, at this point it’s not enough to process the potential increase in Alaskan crude if ANWR is opened.
“It is possible if they were to find a lot of oil in ANWR — and once they start drilling there they may move outside that little area — that the oil couldn’t go to any place in the United States,” Verleger said.
“
While we’re stuck in the oil bog, other countries will assume the technological/manufacturing lead.
“The Death Knoll for cheap gas started ringing when you all voted in the oil men.”
Phantom you are in complete denial of everything else posted here today. The high price of oil has been a long time coming. We’ve had plenty of time to conserve and change our ways.
This problem predates many presidents. Congress men and women have come and gone too.
Nathaniel
Posted May 28, 2008 at 3:01 pm | Permalink
“WS Clark, We could drill all over the place, off the coast, ANWR, wherever.They are drilling for oil all over the world every day.Lets drill for more oil here and then have cheaper prices!So what if ANWR only lasts for 6 months, 1 year, or 5 years. Drill!”
Nathan, I believe we will be drilling ANWR and many other places. It will happen sooner than later.
Afterall, the thirst for oil crosses all political boundaries. Mark my words.
When it cost more to fill up their SUV’s and pickups, than people can afford, oil wells will be booming.
XOM stock is available via a DRIP. Why pay the middleman when you know it’s a BUY.
Why Bluejay? I’m surprised at you. Suggesting we go to war for oil?
Yep, libs and cons thirst for oil just the same.
If Libs get their way in America:
“One big reason for the difference is that European governments put a much higher tax burden on fuel than the U.S. does. State and federal taxes currently make up just 11% of the pump price in the U.S., according to the Energy Information Administration; in France and the U.K., taxes account for an average of around 70%.”
“The high price of oil has been a long time coming. We’ve had plenty of time to conserve and change our ways.
This problem predates many presidents. Congress men and women have come and gone too.”
VERY TRUE! Politicians of BOTH parties have neglected the needed actions to deal with this addiction – preferring to try to find another fix. This goes back AT LEAST to Carter – who at least tried to do something.
I’d like to agree with something McCain said today (or yesterday) – we need to increase the decommissioning of nuclear warheads. I’d like to go a step further – use that material back-mixed with DU to fuel nuclear power plants.
I’m thinking this will go over almost as well as bush begging to turn up the spigots in S.A.
“Paulson to push for oil investment in Mideast By David Lawder
24 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson will emphasize during a trip to the Middle East the need to allow private sector investment in the oil industry, a senior Treasury official said on Wednesday.
ADVERTISEMENT
David McCormick, the Treasury’s undersecretary for international affairs, told a news briefing that Paulson would emphasize on a trip to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates this week the need to allow private sector investment to ease oil supply constraints.
“I think there’d be a broad-based recognition that there’s not enough supply in the global markets,” McCormick said. “We want to encourage additional investment in that global capacity.”
Government policies that ensure that capital can flow to markets that can develop additional oil production capacity are “a worthwhile pursuit,” McCormick said.
He added that Paulson would emphasize the need for energy around the world to be driven by market forces, and that fuel subsidies and price controls should be avoided.
McCormick said Paulson would tread lightly on the sensitive issue of foreign exchange policy, including the dollar pegs that govern many Gulf state currencies.
Some Gulf oil producers have studied Kuwait’s lead in shifting currency pegs away from the dollar to a basket of currencies to help fight double-digit inflation.
Asked how the Treasury would view such a move, McCormick said, “Currency decisions are sovereign decisions. We’ve consistently said that.”
“It appears that the peg in the Gulf states has served those countries well, but certainly it’s ultimately a sovereign decision,” he added.
The United Arab Emirates last month reaffirmed its commitment to the dollar peg, while pledging that it was still aiming for regional monetary union by 2010. The peg has forced the states to match Federal Reserve interest rate cuts even as their economies surge on rising oil prices, spiking inflation.
Paulson’s visit, which will put him in Saudi Arabia on May 30 and 31, Qatar on June 1 and Abu Dhabi and Dubai on June 2, is his first to the region. It also is the first by a treasury secretary since the controversial collapse of a deal by Dubai Ports World to buy several U.S. port operations over national security concerns in the U.S. Congress.
He will emphasize changes to the U.S. security review process since then and will “make the case that foreign investment is of enormous importance to the United States,” McCormick said
So fleetie, you’re saying if Kerry had his way we could have gotten to the same place on U.S. demand by taxing, and keeping the money here to fund American expenditures, instead of insane growth in the Mid-East. Gotcha.
Americans in particular continue to buy the products of the companies that supply energy no matter what the price. Wind, Solar, Coal and Oil are all getting more expensive due to supply/demand dynamics and therefore the companies supplying these products and services are doing quite well in this “recession”.
Let’s hope that Congress decides to install a windfall profits tax further squeezing the supply of energy. Ha!
It’s just too easy to make money once you understand public sentiment.
The American Public demands energy while demanding limited energy producing infrastucture (at least in oil and coal). Make this trend your friend by investing in the right companies and you will be rich.
“So fleetie, you’re saying if Kerry had his way…”
Kerry? He is a Lib and a taxer, so yes.
I’ll just throw this out there for you all. “How can the world be at Peak Oil, when the second largest reserve is largely untapped?
Rank Country Price/dollar
Percent gallon US Avg
1 Eritrea $9.58 278%
2 Norway $8.73 253%
3 United Kingdom
$8.38 243%
4 Netherlands
$8.37 243%
5 Monaco
$8.31 240%
6 Iceland $8.28 240%
7 Belgium $8.22 238%
8 France $8.07 234%
9 Germany
$7.86 227%
10 Portugal $7.84 227%
108th United States
$3.45 100%
Fuel taxes vary between 50 percent and 75 percent across Europe.
Fuel taxes vary in the US, but together Federal and State excise taxes on fuel account for an average cost of approximately 62 cents per gallon. Fuel tax nationally averages aprox 18 percent.
(Kansas fuel tax .43 cents. Combines State .25 cents plus federal .18 cents. So the fuel tax in Kansas is approximately 12%.) Using the 3.45 per gallon.
Revenues from Europe’s high gas taxes are used to fund a variety of things. One thing they have built is better public transportation. The people living in Europe and much of Asia drive smaller more fuel efficient vehicles and use public transportation extensively. Consumption throughout Europe is down. Productivity and GDP is growing in Europe and many of these countries have more social programs and strong economies.
Lesson learned: We need to RAISE the federal fuel tax. (yep, a conservative posting this is Blasphemy!)
The revenue generated could be used for a variety of national programs.
On the green side:
- Fund energy research
- Fund mass transportation (rail and bus)
- Fund cleanup/EPA projects
- Build a national refinery
- Provide tax incentives for high MPG cars
- Repair/build Road, bridges, commuter rail, rail
- Endless list
On the social side:
- Provide health insurance for 15 million
- Pay down the national debt
- Provide low income mass trans discounts
- Again endless, but strict limited control
The US should raise the the federal tax one dollar. $1.62 per gallon. This would put the percentage just under 50%.
Hurt? Yes initially.
But look at the good long term solutions:
1. Consumption would drop
2. More fuel efficient vehicle sales
3. Less gas guzzling vehicle sales
4. In place mass transportation systems
5. Less national debt
6. Health insurance for those without
7. Cleaner environment & less CO2 emmissions
Should have raised it when those damn dems. were proposing it.
I have a feeling one day we’ll be saying we should have controlled pollution, back when those greenies were proposing it.
Hindsight’s a bitch.
We don’t dare raise the tax. It’s MUCH better to send our money to the Saudis (and Osama bin Ladin) than let the government get it!
/sarcasm off
We wouldn’t of been able to pay oil execs. 400 mil. retirements if the money had been going to the coffers. And, think of all the monarchies is the mid-east that are grateful.
Might be too late to raise the tax now with the economy hoovering at the edge of the economic abyss.
I should have said for Repubs. Hindsight’s a bitch, and foresight for Dems. a curse.
And while we are blaming political parties, and politicians, please join me in condemning the entire US Congress and their Clean Energy Act of 2007 – an act which gives the big three automakers until the year 2022 to achieve the stellar CAFE of only 35 MPG (fleet average). Who also cut the federal tax break on the purchase of high efficiently alternatively powered vehicles built overseas.
Yes, it was so nice of congress to allow US automakers 14 more years to achieve a level of fuel efficiency which was met by vehicles produced by Honda and Toyota five years ago (44 MPG on Honda Civic Hybrid).
Another hand of applause to congress for stopping the purchase of fuel for the Strategic Oil Reserve. This action will prove to have reduced energy needs to such a point – that the average gallon of gasoline will sell for point .01 less per gallon.
(how do you spell relief?)
Another hand of applause to all our presidential candidates and many members of congress who proposed an equally stupid, “Gas holiday” for consumers. An action which would have reduced the price of fuel by the federal fuel tax – but only increased America’s demand for more fuel.
Sometimes it is better for government to have not acted at all.
In truth, “American_Way” –
Barack Obama criticized both Hillary’s and McBush’s call for a “gas tax holiday.”
He saw it for the cheap political ploy it is.
Obama is great.
His energy solution for America is miraculous.
I hope oil prices go down.
Senator Clinton wants to tax the oil companies to force them to be part of the solution.
Obama does not appear to care.
Drill….
Drill for more oil. When we need more, we drill for more. Period.
Technology and the need for change will come naturally. We do not need to force the issue.
Newt’s on that kick too.
Reminds me of that commercial
Gotta drill gotta drill gotta drill right now!
Gotta drill! Gotta drill Gotta drill!!
We gotta drill NOW!
There is no more oil to productively and profigably drill.
The oil companies themselves are not INTERESTED in drilling anyway. And even if they DID want to drill and even if they HAD anything to drill for, refineries are at capacity now. And they are not interested in increasing that either.
Nope. We kicked,,,,strike that. Reagan kicked this problem down the road. But while it was bouncing down the road it got bigger.
Now we gotta kick something else. Our addiction to the internal combustion engine and the fuel that powers it.
Or. we COULD start enjoying some of the benefits of empire and just take the Iraqi oil.
That will kick the problem down the road and make it even bigger though.
Why drill, it’s extremely profitalbe just being processors and distributors.
Well, we could remind the Saudi’s that we have 140,000 well armed troops in their back yard, and can turn their sandbox over to cats.
Who wants that sandbox? I say we give up our dependancy on oil…it would free our country in so many ways.
Alternatives to fossil fuels are on the way, the government just has to figure out how to tax them…just think of the lost tax revenue if we no longer needed to gas up our cars.
http://www.factcheck.org/gas_price_fixes_that_wont.html
“Problem: If, as we outlined above, the price of a gallon of gas stays roughly the same despite the “holiday,” then what used to be 18.4 cents that would go to the federal government for every gallon sold instead goes into the coffers of the oil companies as profit.
That would be the profit that Clinton is proposing to tax to recover the cost of the gas tax holiday.”
Seems like the only people helped are all the new people hired to handle all the changes, shuffling of tax funding, etc.
What is the profit to increase the taxes on oil companies? Is it to punish them for supposed greed?
Is it to collect more revenue for the government?
I’m trying to understand what we gain by increasing the taxes on the oil corporations.
They have little incentive now to drill or find more efficiencies in the existing fields.
They earn more when supply is less than demand. They earn more by not building new refineries.
So what incentive is taxing them going to provide?
You must realize: we ALL will pay this new tax.
The corporations will just increase prices to make up for the lost revenue. It’s not the CEO’s who demand it – it’s the over 100 million Americans who own equities who demand profits.
Increasing taxes on the oil industry appears to be just a “feel good” thing for politicians to do. Like halting deliveries to the Strategic Reserve, or a “Summer Time Tax break” at the pump.
Makes you feel good. But doesn’t do a darn thing to increase supply of oil, nor to cut demand.
We will all just pay even more at the pumps.
Attention oils companies, I have bought my Bicycle so take your gas and shove it..
4 Trackbacks
[...] compared with most developed countries. In England, motorists pay more than 8 per gallon of gas. …http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/05/age-of-cheap-gas-is-over/Cheap Gas Nowadays, we know that our economy is slowing down. Lack of food supply because of the [...]
tila tequila nude…
« » — Let’s Overthrow Israel xexon 12 December, 2007 01:…
Cheapest Golf Equipment…
This is similar to comment spam but avoids some of the safeguards designed to stop the latter practice.) Some individuals or companies…
Jack…
Have enjoyed your site very much and benefited from the information. Thank You….