More Fuel Protests Threatened - Would they be justified?

[the B]

Totally agree.


From what i had heard just before Katrina. They were saying that it was looking like what happened in the 70's and that this was not a permant state. And that what would happen would be that people will switch away from carbon fuels. I'd also heard that demand would now decrease as the US holiday period is now over. However I dunno how long the US holiday period is but this has been going on longer than this summer.

US holiday period ends in late August - pretty much Labor Day.

Anyway, the end of US holiday season isn't that big a thing... demand is lower - yes. But for a long time now, oil producing countries would just stockpile in quiet periods to let loose in the busy ones. Seasonal rational expectations. Unfortunately, this season has been extra bad!

My guess on where oil price relief will come from is a slowdown of Economics growth in China - caused by the simple fact that commodity prices have soared - I mean soared - for years now... eventually it'll kick in - even if it is via inflation eroding growth...

 

[magneze]

shameless bump

 

[parallelepipete]

Working at home is likely to become more and more common IMO.

But studies so far which look beyond the simple reduction in commuting journeys due to teleworking suggest that much latent demand for car travel is released (due to reduced congestion at peak hours, making driving more pleasant, and other trips made during the day due to the time saved not commuting). For instance, studies in both the Netherlands and Dublin showed that teleworking mostly replaced cycling and public transport journeys.

See this page for full article and links to studies (under heading Latent Demand).

 

[Sorry.]

I think the target of the protests should be wider. Fuel tax is regressive so I've no problem attacking that but the high prices are pure profiteering on that part of the oil companies and the stock market speculators.

The protesters should push for the immediate nationalisation of BP-Amoco and Shell

 

[the B]

But studies so far which look beyond the simple reduction in commuting journeys due to teleworking suggest that much latent demand for car travel is released (due to reduced congestion at peak hours, making driving more pleasant, and other trips made during the day due to the time saved not commuting). For instance, studies in both the Netherlands and Dublin showed that teleworking mostly replaced cycling and public transport journeys.

See this page for full article and links to studies (under heading Latent Demand).

Straight up, from an economics perspective, pants study.

The causes of why people telework are going to matter to me far too much to make that study worthwhile.

 

[parallelepipete]

shameless bump

No, it's the traditional skill of 'thread husbandry', and all perfectly legal.

 

[parallelepipete]

Straight up, from an economics perspective, pants study.

The causes of why people telework are going to matter to me far too much to make that study worthwhile.

Sorry, I don't follow you...

 

[magneze]

Fuel tax is regressive so I've no problem attacking that

What's the alternative though?

 

[the B]

Sorry, I don't follow you...

Is the cause of working at home:

a) a fall in the cost of working at home (costs = price of telecommunication equipment, supporting reliable infrastructure, changes in work practice, acceptability etc.)

b) an increase in the cost of commuting to work


Most teleworking we have seen (in fact, almost all of it - the extreme example being outsourcing to other countries) has been the result of the fall in the cost of teleworking.

The total average cost of motoring (real) has fallen in recent years.

 

[the B]

What's the alternative though?

Stupidly complicated!

 

[Sorry.]

What's the alternative though?

Stop trying to punish people for being bad consumers, and start trying to reward them for being better ones?

(or overthrow capitalism, obviously)

 

[the B]

Stop trying to punish people for being bad consumers, and start trying to reward them for being better ones?

(or overthrow capitalism, obviously)

That doesn't really relate to what you said though - does it.

But fair enough as a point to make.

 

[magneze]

Stop trying to punish people for being bad consumers, and start trying to reward them for being better ones?

I can certainly see that working in some cases. For example: tax breaks for home workers, cheaper public transport. However, I think the "big stick" will still be required to significantly reduce car usage.

 

[the B]

I can certainly see that working in some cases. For example: tax breaks for home workers, cheaper public transport. However, I think the "big stick" will still be required to significantly reduce car usage.

What if all public transport cost 10p a journey

 

[Sorry.]

That doesn't really relate to what you said though - does it.

But fair enough as a point to make.

well, I was answering what the alternative to regressive fuel taxation was.

In the here and now? I don't think massive, sustained price rises over a short period of time is a fair way to go about reducing oil usage. It disproportionately (and I think unacceptably) hurts the poor and some attempt needs to be made to mitigate it's effect.

If we're going to reduce oil usage we need a sustainable plan, not just a hope that petrol gets too expensive for anyone to use.

 

[magneze]

What if all public transport cost 10p a journey

It'd be too crowded and people would probably use cars.

 

[parallelepipete]

Is the cause of working at home:

a) a fall in the cost of working at home (costs = price of telecommunication equipment, supporting reliable infrastructure, changes in work practice, acceptability etc.)

b) an increase in the cost of commuting to work


Most teleworking we have seen (in fact, almost all of it - the extreme example being outsourcing to other countries) has been the result of the fall in the cost of teleworking.

The total average cost of motoring (real) has fallen in recent years.

Indeed, teleworking isn't being driven by fuel price or environmental concerns on the part of commuters, but mainly by employers who see cost savings in being able to export jobs abroad.

But there are UK teleworkers too, and I thought Magneze's point was simply suggesting that teleworking was a possible way of avoiding high fuel prices, to which my response was that people would probably still drive as much anyway.

 

[the B]

It'd be too crowded and people would probably use cars.

Well, you'd public transport utilisation to over 100% (probably). So it'll help somewhat...

In a market economy (and I suppose, any economic system you come up with), something like oil IS a scarce good. There is only so much (and not many of us are going to wait hundreds of millions of years for more to appear!)

The tricky bit is where oil is seen as a necessity but seemingly, only the rich could really afford it.

You could work against the regressive tax system by providing discount cards/tokens to the less well off for purchasing oil etc.

 

[parallelepipete]

It'd be too crowded and people would probably use cars.

It's only too crowded because there aren't enough buses/long enough trains (with the exception of the Tube). Less crowded than the roads full of cars...

 

[the B]

But there are UK teleworkers too, and I thought Magneze's point was simply suggesting that teleworking was a possible way of avoiding high fuel prices, to which my response was that people would probably still drive as much anyway.

Totally depends on the cause of teleworking though - hence why I didn't like the study you had linked to.

 

[the B]

It's only too crowded because there aren't enough buses/long enough trains (with the exception of the Tube). Less crowded than the roads full of cars...

Woah, no exception to the tube! Rush hour is chaos! There's even a plan to introduce user charging for the tube so that using it during rush hour costs even more...

(presumably involving a change in the seasonal travelcard policy to create seasonal peak and seasonabl off-peak travelcards)

 

[magneze]

If we're going to reduce oil usage we need a sustainable plan, not just a hope that petrol gets too expensive for anyone to use.

Any ideas for that sustainable plan then?

Fuel becoming too expensive should, in theory, put car manufacturers into a panic and we should see more fuel efficient, LPG & electric cars. That'd be a good thing.

 

[parallelepipete]

Well, you'd public transport utilisation to over 100% (probably). So it'll help somewhat...

In a market economy (and I suppose, any economic system you come up with), something like oil IS a scarce good. There is only so much (and not many of us are going to wait hundreds of millions of years for more to appear!)

The tricky bit is where oil is seen as a necessity but seemingly, only the rich could really afford it.

You could work against the regressive tax system by providing discount cards/tokens to the less well off for purchasing oil etc.

Or, of course, if you subscribe to the Citizen's Income idea, your income would be adjusted (increased) if you were judged to be a priority user (e.g. agricultural).

 

[parallelepipete]

Woah, no exception to the tube! Rush hour is chaos! There's even a plan to introduce user charging for the tube so that using it during rush hour costs even more...

(presumably involving a change in the seasonal travelcard policy to create seasonal peak and seasonabl off-peak travelcards)

Sorry, it was my pipe dream of coming back to London and finding tram lines on every major road in inner London. Or in the short term, those nasssty bendybuses, one every couple of minutes.

Sorry, getting a bit OT.

 

[the B]

Or, of course, if you subscribe to the Citizen's Income idea, your income would be adjusted (increased) if you were judged to be a priority user (e.g. agricultural).

I could - but I'm not that stupid

 

[Final]

What's the alternative though?

Just tweak it so that fuel tax is a set amount per litre instead of the current % on top of what the base price is.

 

[the B]

Just tweak it so that fuel tax is a set amount per litre instead of the current % on top of what the base price is.

That's still a regressive system

To qualify what I said earlier about Citizens Income being dumb. Income controls without price controls is a waste of time.

 

[djbombscare]

My theory about the teleworking was that it would sort out congestion and stop people having to commute to work. No other reason that that. 3000 people who now work form home would firstly help rectify some of the CAR culture that we live in, get vehicles off the road, and lower the demand for fossil fuels. People wouldnt be travellimng about as they are at work albeit from home.

Its easilly sorted so that they can check that your logged in and working.

Congestion problems go hand in hand with the Fuel prices as they are both related to the same demand.

Even if we did come up with alternative fuels the congestion would still be there. So why not atckle two birds at the same time.

 

[Sorry.]

Any ideas for that sustainable plan then?

*shrugs*

Fuel becoming too expensive should, in theory, put car manufacturers into a panic and we should see more fuel efficient, LPG & electric cars. That'd be a good thing.

But in the medium term a rising oil price will cause inflation. So fuel as a proportion of real income returns to roughly the same place, and won't actually affect car use (except that post-inflation we'll all probably be a bit poorer and our consumption of everything will be less, in which case it's more important for car manufacturers to make cheaper cars)

 

[parallelepipete]

That's still a regressive system

To qualify what I said earlier about Citizens Income being dumb. Income controls without price controls is a waste of time.

But price controls will (a) mean the Government loses the tax revenue, and (b) increase demand so we end up even more in hock to petroleum producers.