The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Higher petrol and electricity prices, and no nuclear > Comments

Higher petrol and electricity prices, and no nuclear : Comments

By Dennis Jensen, published 13/6/2008

The reality of a Labor Government, as delivered by the budget, is a lack of vision and a lack of strategic planning.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All
Apparently many people think that if we "left it to the market" oil prices would rise. Actually, the opposite would happen.
Posted by ed_online, Monday, 16 June 2008 11:43:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The moment someone prefixes a comment with "I read in the paper today..." I know further comment is futile. Nevertheless, can I please implore fellow readers to look elsewhere for your information. If you did you would be aware that both the Bundestag and US Congress have been told bluntly by leaders of Big Oils that 70% of the current oil price is based on futures speculation. There is currently supply in excess of demand, and when the new Saudi facilities come on line shortly, the imbalance will magnify.

Secondly, Australia is not irrevocably bound to the Oil Price Parity Agreement, wherein we pay international prices for our own oil. No international agreement can override the electoral democratic majority of any sovereign nation. This is pivotal for all international law and Geneva Conventions. And, with this removed, and with the current compound taxes also expunged, our price at the bowser would be approximately 12 cents per liter, which is, nevertheless, double what Venezuelans pay.

My third observation is that the legally correct response to scientific opinion regarding global warming or cooling in a democracy, is to put the possible range of resolutions to the electorate. This is what referenda are for, and why the Constitution wisely requires this.

If this is not done, widespread anger and reaction will cause such anti-democratic measures to collapse, if for no other reason than the poorest simply cannot comply. If the lofty Bronwyn were to do a little research door to door, she would discover that more than half of all Australians are suffering from malnutrition and cannot afford adequate medical care, and no dental care whatsoever. In medical terms, it is axiomatic that they are therefore, dying in slow motion; well before their time.

If SBS's INSIGHT host, the legendary insular Jenny Brockie, can confront this shocking reality, I would expect any reader on this site to at least be aware of the same. But I guess a greater reality overtakes us... people believe what they want to believe.
Posted by Tony Ryan oziz4oz, Friday, 20 June 2008 1:38:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1) Speculators
My understanding is that it is actually very difficult to prove they are responsible for price increases. In any case, economists argue that speculators tend to smooth price volatility. Further, (1) speculators have been buying and selling commodities for decades, if not centuries, it wasn't a problem in the past, so why should it be now? (2) while some speculators may be hoarding oil to push up prices now, eventually they will have to sell and this will push prices down (3) a bigger problem is that developing countries are spending $100bn on fuel subsidies.

2) 12 cents a litre?
Unlikely, if not impossible. Crude oil is ~$US135 per barrel which is ~$US0.85 per litre or (based on $US1.00=$A0.95) $A0.89 per litre. That is before refining, transportation costs, profit margin, taxes, etc.
Its true that Venezuelans pay only 5c per litre, but that is because of heavy (and unsustainable!) government subsidies.

3) AGW referendum
Such a referendum would hinge on the wording of the question. How would people react to the following:
Would you be prepared to pay an extra $0.20 per litre for petrol and $500 per annum for electricity in order to reduce world greenhouse gases by <1%?

4) "more than half of all Australians are suffering from malnutrition..."
Eh? I thought Australia had the fattest population in the world.

5) "people believe what they want to believe."
Ain't that the truth (according to those who believe it).
Posted by ed_online, Friday, 20 June 2008 9:17:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bronwyn “Trust you, Col, to latch on to a loaded term like that.”

When it smells like a rotting corpse I figure, someone is peddling a dead idea Bronwyn.

“Col? We leave it to the markets. We've had two decades in Australia of leaving it to the markets and we're more dependent on greenhouse-producing energy than we ever were.”

It always comes back to "the markets".

The main point being, AGW is an excuse to increase service prices. And Price will always determine everything, it always has. I know you like to think that some socialist leveling will prevail and we will all be issued our ration cards to live on a tin of beans in third world squalor.
But 'Real Life' always ends up those with the “skill” prevailing over the hopeless, every time.

You see, “Preservation” starts with self preservation always has, always will.

“We need and most of us expect our government to step in and make the hard decisions.”

Ha, Krudd will never do that.

Joe Stalin ran the sort of government which took the “hard decisions”, not “me-too” Kevin. Otherwise, the gulag awaits you

“It will also in my view require some big stick legislation”

Bringing about big recessions, mass unemployment, you cannot have it both ways Bronwyn.

“you won't escape the rising temperatures, the rising sea levels and the increasing volatility in our weather. We're all in it together, Col.”

Well rest assured I can afford the house on the hill, if it comes to a need to make sacrifices for socialism and in the name of “the common good”, I will be happy to nominate you first.

Tony Ryan “70% of the current oil price is based on futures speculation.”

I do not understand how 70% of the oil price is because of futures trading.

I could understand if the statement were 70% of oil was contracted for on the futures market (and 30% on spot) but that would not, in itself, cause 70% of the price to be predicated on futures trading. Insatiable Chinese and Indian demand is a more likely cause.
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 21 June 2008 12:50:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wish the ideologues, basing their thinking on 1970’s student activist emotionally driven rhetoric, would take the trouble to open their minds to the new technologies that are being developed in the area of nuclear power.

A good start for more balanced thinking would be to read the following:

http://www.magma.ca/~jalrober/Decide.htm
Posted by Froggie, Sunday, 29 June 2008 7:04:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy