From: Glenn Morton (glennmorton@entouch.net)
Date: Mon Nov 10 2003 - 13:53:37 EST
MessageOthers have captured the essence of the issues in trying to replace
oil with plant matter oil. The amount of land required to do this is so
great as to be prohibitive. I did want to address something Don said,
Don Winterstein
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 11:21 AM
I've often thought it would be good for the US to levy heftier taxes on
petroleum products to stimulate a change in behavior and to fund the
research on energy that the oil companies are no longer doing; but
apparently the required tax levels are politically out of the question.
Besides that, at least one study has found that gasoline usage is fairly
inelastic: consumption doesn't drop much as prices rise. Whenever a local
shortage develops so that prices surge, the public invariably maligns the
oil companies and demands that politicians investigate.
GRM: having lived in a country where the petrol taxes are quite high
($4.50/gallon, 80% of which are taxes) I observed the following. It didn't
stop the rich from driving. I drove and lots of other rich Scots drove as
well. But it did stop the poor from driving, which forced them to
1. walk to work in 80 mph blizzards in the winter
2. ride a bike to work in 80 mph blizzards on icy streets
3. spend 3-4 hours per day on busses trying to get to work (In London some
people living out of London because of housing prices, would leave home at
4:30 am and get back home at 9:30 pm)
4. call in sick on such days and lose the income.
To me, such taxes are extremely cruel to the poor who need their cars to
stay economically afloat. I find that it is really easy for the rich to
want to have taxes raised for noble purposes.
That being said, you are correct that there is simply no R&D being done in
the oil companies anymore. The contractors do a wee bit of it, but not all
that much. The world will pay for the last 15 years of low R&D.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Nov 10 2003 - 18:45:12 EST