If the Governement is so worried about global warming why is tax on diesel so high?

Question

On top of this goods are mainly transported by diesel so a lower tax on diesel and more on petrol would both reduce global warming and reduce goods and food inflation?

Answer 1

because pres bush is a total idiot and like all idiots seems to recognize that global warming is a conspiracy made up by scientists. "down with bush"

Answer 2

We all would like cheaper fuel.  But the problem is that the tax that is being charged is nothing compared with the price of gasoline if you add in all the hidden costs of using gasoline and diesel for fuel.

If all those costs were added in the price of gasoline would be at least  $8 more per gallon .

Here is what oil really costs.

From a 1996 article by Jenny B. Wahl

"Based on the studies reviewed, our best-guess estimate of the subsidies received by petroleum each year is $84 billion per year."

"US Defense

Department spending allocated to safeguard the

worlds petroleum resources total some $55 to $96.3 billion per year

"Other program subsidies include funding of research and development ($200 to $220 million), export financing subsidies

($308.5 to $311.9 million), support from the Army

Corps of Engineers ($253.2 to $270 million), the

Department of Interior's Oil Resources Management Programs ($97 to $227 million), and government expenditures on regulatory oversight, pollution cleanup, and liability costs ($1.1 to $1.6 billion."

"Approximately $39 billion per year in health care costs is the lowest minimum estimate reckoned by researchers in the field of transportation cost analysis, although the actual total is surely much higher and may exceed $600 billion."

"The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a federal government entity designed to supplement

regular oil supplies in the event of disruptions due to military conflict or natural disaster, costs taxpayers an additional $5.7 billion per year.

Other costs associated with localized air pollution

attributable to gasoline-powered automobiles include decreased agricultural yields ($2.1 to $4.2 billion), and damage to buildings and materials ($1.2 to $9.6 billion). Global warming ($3 to $27.5 billion), water pollution ($8.4 to $36.8 billion), noise pollution ($6 to $12 billion)"

And that was a 1996 study. Since then the Iraq war has cost over a trillon$$, cost the lives of 4,000 U.S. soldiers, maybe 200,000 Iraqi's, damaged our image in the world and probably has created more terrorists.

Yeah, I know, 9/11 happened, partially based on religous fanatacism, but if we weren't in the mideast to protect our oil interests it never would have happened.

Also, oil accounts for $300 billion of our trade imbalance.  

I've seen one estimate of over $800 billion per year in hidden costs from oil in the U.S. alone.

Don't ya just love oil?

I understand that it has facilitated our industrialization and made our modern world possible, but at a huge price to our earth's health.

And that has gotten expensive.

We have far better alternatives.

Answer 3

Consider if GW is true or not true.

If GW is true, sale of ALL oil fuels must stop! No coal either.

A transition step is to increase the tax on diesel fuel gradually, until the tax rate reaches $10 Dlls per gallon.

Let the public decide what they want to buy.

In time, it will be obvious that electric trolley sytems and electric Rapid Transit systems will be the only ones that will be the viable ways to deliver cargo -nobody plans for that.

If you must transport a piano using Diesel oil, that's OK, you are not likely to do that often.

But, some want GW to go away and are willing to risk the lives of their own children to avoid reality. This is a form of insainty or irrational thinking. When you willingly risk lives, anybody's, to avoid growing up and understanding and accepting the Global Warming process, you are mad -or on your way.

Wishful thinking may help a survivor in the middle of the ocean survive for a while and delay the onset of madness, but only for a while. We are not in the middle ocean, yet,

we do have choices, now, but some papers have been published that hint, or indicate, that Global Warming is accelerating. For example, they just found out that the ice melting rate in Greenland DOUBLED between 2003 and 2006 and, they just learnt that the South Pole is melting at the same rate as the ice in Greenland, 196 Gigatons, or 56 cubic miles of water per year.

Since the ice floes that cover the North Pole sharnk in size by one Million Square Miles, only those unfamiliar with solar radiation could hope and wish for a cooling trend.

When will the mid-day temperature in Las Vegas reach 150 Deg. Fahrenheit? I dunno, in 2007, it reached 129 Deg Fahrenheit. Water scarcity is increasing and food produced by the soil is decreasing in Nevada, the cost of everything there is increasing faster than elsewhere, but the price of electricity is going down, a little.

Prediction: The Survival of Las Vegas is in doubt, they can delay it if they switch to windmill electric power (cheaper than solar cells), but all food will be increasingly expensive to transport and there is no hope of an electric railroad to Las Vegas, too many voters do not believe in Global Warming -yet. It might be an early casualty.

Production of electricity from windmills will continue to grow at an increasing rate. Texas became the largest producer of windmill electricity in 2006. They rather sell the oil at $100 a barrel to others, than burn it to produce electricity -obviously?

Answer 4

Diesel causes global warming too. It isn't any better than gasoline.

Maybe you are thinking of bio diesel. I might agree with a plan to reduce the tax on ethanol and bio diesel. How much tax IS charged on ethanol and bio diesel? I don't know. It could be the same as petroleum based fuels or it could be zero. I have no idea actually.

Answer 5

Diesel is just as bad, if not worse.  Here is the link to the article.

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0233...

Answer 6

Taxes decrease use and make alternatives more attractive.  That is one of the excuses that politicians use to raise taxes on energy or the so called BTU tax.  I am not sure why you think diesel should be above taxing.  It may be generally more efficient but it still produces CO2.

Answer 7

Good question. Diesel vehicles get better mileage than Hybrids and can burn Bio diesel. It takes less energy to produce diesel fuel as well. Diesel cars are less complicated and cheaper than Hybrids.

Seems to me diesel wood be much better for Global Warming. Maybe that's why Europe seems to be going that course.  While we wait to spend big bucks to get 45MPG, they are already driving many that get 50 MPG.

I guess our "Environmentalists" are still heading in the wrong direction. Just like they killed our Nuclear Power Program that would have made sure we were not in the mess we are in now. But, no problem, we can just blame the oil companies, the car companies, corporations, and Bush. Everything will be just hunky dory.

Answer 8

Unfortunately, diesel has as much carbon per kWh delivered as does gasoline. Diesel could be formulated using natural gas to have higher hydrogen, less carbon, and would then justify your comment.

Merely having more km per litre without considering the carbon content of the fuel does not work.

Next, diesel does have a lot more NOx emissions. This can be taken care of with catalytic converters, but only if a bit of unburned fuel is reaching the converter.

If anything all fuels should be taxed based on the carbon content they carry, to give us a sound measure of effect on global warming. This would make use of more natural gas in diesel formulation a priority to cut taxes, and cut emissions.

Answer 9

you think the government acually cares? they dont care that the enviroment is being destroyed, all they care about is money...well this is my opinion...i dont know about other people

Answer 10

If  i get what yoou are saying,  the idea is this: the diesal used for transporting goods is going to be used anyway--since we have to have the goods moved around. But a lot of non-commercial (mostly using gas/petrol) is discretionary. So cutting the tax on diesal and making up for it with a higher gas tax would help consumers--and tend to reduce discretionary driving.

That actuallly makes sense--probably toomuch for a bureaucrat to actually do it. But its a good idea.

It's definately a good example that "going green" doesn't have to hurt business or consumers--in fact, if policy is done right, it can help both.  Why don't you contact your MP (I gather you're in the UK) or whoever is appropriate and suggest it? I know tha t in the US, some of our best policy ideas often come from ordinary citizens who see a better way and push for it.