The Forum > Article Comments > Is FuelWatch the best we can do? > Comments
Is FuelWatch the best we can do? : Comments
By Bernie Masters, published 19/6/2008Effective solutions to high fuel costs exist but they require strong governments willing to make difficult decisions.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
-
- All
These suggestions are just tinkering that will be overwhelmed by oil's relentless supply decline. What is needed is revolutionary change away from oil. These include reducing the need for so much commuter travel, for non-oil based transport such as electric, higher mileage vehicles and public transport. Such is the pace of change that the PM's subsidy for the Camry hybrid will be too little too late. One interim measure that could make rapid inroads is a switch to compressed natural gas (CNG) initially for trucks and buses that fuel at a depot then perhaps for cars. This assumes of course that vulnerable infrastructure can be improved such as we now see in Perth and that governments will offer suitable incentives. Since oil based petrol and diesel will be reduced to a minor role in the next 20 years we may be doing ourselves a favour letting the price escalate.
Posted by Taswegian, Thursday, 19 June 2008 9:59:20 AM
| |
Tinkering indeed! The governments in Australia are pandering to the hip pocket nerve and ignoring the inevitable rise in oil prices. The Howard government even gave GMH $50 million to make a new V8 engine. Look at what's on the road, and you get the message, fuel is still too cheap when one tonne of steel, glass and rubber is being used to move one person. Look at all those gleaming 4WDs on the bitumen.
A case could be made for increasing the excise, not lowering it. While there would obviously be outcries before the short term hurt is absorbed (like the GST) the economic cost would be small if at all. Our moribund vehicle industry (and lets be clear on that, it is) could be encouraged to become smart and Rudd's support for hydrid engines could yield fruit. Leave the market and refining industry alone - manipulations fail time and time again. Focus instead on a vision of efficient engines and public transport when $3 per litre will be seen as cheap. Posted by Remco, Thursday, 19 June 2008 10:56:36 AM
| |
Absolutely right, Taswegian.
Nothing should be done to prevent natural increase in fuel prices. Attention needs to be devoted to allaying taxes for in lower income brackets and marginal business who are affected by increasing energy costs, but trying to stop energy costs rising is like trying to stop over-ripe fruit from falling off trees. The best medicine for all of us is to let energy prices soar to a level where we start innovating in every direction - to reduce fuel use, to use it more efficiently, to change our behavioural patterns, to invest in new, elegant technology, to learn to live comfortably with less. We'' be the richer for it. At $1.70 litre petrol is not expensive, and it is subsidised. Include all the hidden costs and petrol should be $4 per litre. Posted by gecko, Thursday, 19 June 2008 10:58:29 AM
| |
Bernie, You're as out of touch as the government you criticise in terms of the real measures that must be taken to handle the developing fuel crisis. You simply don't understand the depth and seriousness of the situation.
Posted by michael_in_adelaide, Thursday, 19 June 2008 11:54:32 AM
| |
The pollution tax, rather than carbon tax, seems to be the only reasonable long term measure. The revenue can be as credits distributed to pollution reducing businesses. This may also lead towards dramatic improvements in our public transportation. Our farmers could also benefit since their farms do absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide more than their machinery releases.
Initially small, the pollution tax can be increased annually over twenty years. This would offer incentives to businesses and individuals to switch towards less polluting practices. I must note, however, that we are still imprisoned within the box. We actually do have solutions ready to be put in place. Only one acre of barren land can provide enough algal oils to run a small farm. I have outlined this here: http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20083004-17248.html Kind regards, Posted by Damir, Thursday, 19 June 2008 12:07:08 PM
| |
No Michael, Bernie is NOT out of touch, I suggest he is part of the hip pocket nerved voters. As long as the community remains tied to expediency, Australia will continue to under perform tied to its removalist (resource) industries.
Australia could become a world leader in environmental management and as Europe shows, live with $3 fuel with perhaps no overall cost to the economy (again, like the GST that was absorbed). Lay out a vision for what Australia could be like in 2020, sell it to the community (and Bernie) and we may even have a motor vehicle industry not dependent on our subsidies (tariffs) and a clean, efficient transport system. But I am whistling in the wind again - aren't I? Posted by Remco, Thursday, 19 June 2008 12:39:51 PM
|