rail needed to help reduce global warming .

I would believe that a tax of .20/US gal (~.5cents/litre) could be applied in the US without too much arguement IF it was dedicated to transporation funding. Actually, such a tax slowly applied over a few years could get up to .80c/gal (1.00/gal would be a resistance point).

Last year (well, 2005) people in the US freaked out because fuel costs shot up over 3.50/gal after Katrina, and the psychological impact of that was rather huge (edit - significance of that price is gas averages 2.50/gal currently, and additional 1.00 tax/gal = 3.50/gal, so keep it below 3.50). I believe it hit over $4/gal (roughly $1/l), a price which had not been seen in the Contential US, and nobody was sure where it was going to go from there.

Anyway, such a tax dedicated again to transportation purposes would be acceptable to most people in the US, and a portion of it would applied to real alternate fuel research - currently the Dems have voted on bills which would remove a subsidy to offshore oil drilling (which oil companies would do anyway - the program was basically used as a giveaway to Georgie's CEO friends) and use that 18 Billion for alternate fuel research, which I support as mentioned in my above posts. There is no question that private vehicle ownership will continue at a high level not just the US & Canada, but Europe and increasingly Asia (the developing sections)/Africa/South America as well - just not with cheap $30/bbl gas IC engines anymore. I just hope the millions of new Chinese-built private vehicles coming are fuel-efficent and convertible to renewable fuels.

Hmm, 1.50 NZD/l, NZD/USD ~ .700, 1l = .26g
(1.50 * .70) / .26g/l = 4.04 USD/gal, which is roughly the highest average price level seen after Katrina...
Also, does NZ Billion = 10^9 like the US, or Billion = 10^12 like the UK?

i pretty sure our billion is 10 ^9 , i.e 1000 , 000, 000 . or a thousand million .but im always getting them mixed up , so normally talk in millions .

some good maths there , is htere 3.5 litres in a USA Gallon ?

Americans use the smaller Gallon, which is ~3.8l - I think Imperial Gallons are 4.55l (checking table - yep...and the table calls them 'Canadian' Gallons ).

And I tried to find out if NZ Billion = 10^9, and got lots of hesitant, confused, stammering webpages (and a throwaway on Wiki, just stating 10^9 is becoming more common, and 10^12 less) - no wonder you're unsure.
Well, in the US billion is 10^9, and we use it quite often - guess that's what happens when your country has a 8.7Trillion deficit (that's our 10^12, BTW).
Hey, you know that - you've been on the Amtrak forum, where the yearly budget of 1.5Billion is considered pocket change...

David Benton wrote:A quick answer to Sir Rays question , i believe the proportion of petrol (gas) cost in some european countires is up to 75% . Hence the railways there can charge higher fares there , and still be competitivie .
Here in New Zealand , i think around 50 cents of the roughly $ 1.50 a litre we pay (NZD) , is taxes of various kinds . Some of that goes into the general fund . The govt put on another 5 cents tax jusdt before the last election , there wasnt so much oppostion , and the govt survived . It is believed that despite the tax , road transport does not cover the cost to socirety as a whole . There has been quite alot of studies carried out here .
Also , it is suggested that the wind farms built here recently , wouldnt have gone ahead if it wernt for carbon tax ( not yet introduced , politics),and carbon trading . so i think a relatively small tax , not enough to cripple peoples movemnt , is enough to start a change . Its all avbout changing the mindset , somethin i think we have witnessed to high degree ,in the recent changes in the USA midterm elections .

I think New Zealand couldemulate Iceland which has a long term policy of replacing oil imports with locally produced hydrogen. Hydro power is one source of energy for making hydrogen; geothermal is the other. Both are abundant in NZ. I am not sure exactly how carbon usage should be discouraged. Probably by all available means. People will grumble less when there are easily available alternatives, and there needs to be investment in these. The investment can be partly funded by taxes on carbon emissions.

But I do not believe the new energy system will allow wasteful use of energy, such as the amount of flying and driving that goes on now. Everyone who lives on solar energy is fanatical about using the most efficient devices. So, I hope people in NZ will fight to retain and extend the electrification on the railway.

This climate emergency is likely to last at least 200 years, and probably longer. At the end of this period who knows what kind of energy system we shall have. Probably the population will be a lot smaller. By then oil will be scarce anyway, and reserved only for special use. The sooner we start the shorter the time of disturbance will be.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/sto ... d=10421129

The idea that reducing greenhouse emissions will reduce economic well being is perhaps a red herring .

In case it passed without notice, Americans are driving less:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... ing26.html

Perhaps the first step on a long journey has been taken.

Thanks for the link , Vincent . Encouraging to see . I have always though that the idea that people will drive anyway , regardless of the cost of gas is faulty . That article supports this . i also think people are thinking , oil is getting scarce , i should use less . maybe 10 % of the population , but enough to make some difference .
I cannot talk myself , i still ride my Motorbike , purely for pleasure , 3 or 4 times a week . its economical , but i ts still using oil for no real reason .

David Benton wrote:Thanks for the link , Vincent . Encouraging to see . I have always though that the idea that people will drive anyway , regardless of the cost of gas is faulty . That article supports this . i also think people are thinking , oil is getting scarce , i should use less . maybe 10 % of the population , but enough to make some difference .
I cannot talk myself , i still ride my Motorbike , purely for pleasure , 3 or 4 times a week . its economical , but i ts still using oil for no real reason .

Economists argue about whether people will respond to price rises. They say "demand is inelastic". But economics is not a science, however much they pretend it is. It is based on human behaviour which is very difficult to predict. I think prices rises will have an effect.

The same arguments are now being used for taxing aviation fuel. The British government talks about climate change but is actively planning more airports and refuses to tax aviation fuel. A small tax on departures is the most they have done.

I think there are more costs that ought to be paid by the aviation industry. For example there is Global Dimming. Users of solar energy suffer from the 10% dimming caused by vapour trails. This was revealed when flying was forbidden after the events in New York in 2001.

A couple of years ago I spent a night in West London. From about 5 o'clock the aeroplanes coming int Heathrow woke me up every few minutes. I would find life there intolerable. The psychological damage suffered by people from lack of sleep must be huge.

British Airways is to have a strike soon. I hope Eurostar will do well from that.

you've got to wonder how some airports were ever built . my mate recently stayed near Sydney airport . no planes , 11 pm to 6am , but he still reckons it was hell . mind you , he lives out in the country , with no roads or anything nearby .

Climate challenge tipped to heat up the global economy
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/3/sto ... d=10422999

David Benton wrote:Climate challenge tipped to heat up the global economy
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/3/sto ... d=10422999

I have no doubt that climate is going to be an increasingly important factor in policy making, probably for the next 200 years, as there is enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere already to produce huge changes whatever we do now. I am sure some people will make money out of new policies, while others will lose everything.
Kiribati and Tuvalu will go under the sea. I gather NZ has an agreement to take them. They are a small group of people. The Maldive people are a much larger group. Who will take them?
It would be silly to de-electrify the mainline railway in NZ, and there ought to be plans to electrify more in preparation for more expensive road traffic.

David Benton wrote: and represents a mindset change in the biggest player in the world energy market .

You meaan China??

george matthews wrote:I have no doubt that climate is going to be an increasingly important factor in policy making,

I have plenty of dount. There is no short term benefit to do anything about global warming. There is plenty of reason to doubt the pessimistic predictions of Al Gore See for example, Russ Roberts piece: http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2007 ... cal_e.html

RussNelson wrote:

george matthews wrote:I have no doubt that climate is going to be an increasingly important factor in policy making,

I have plenty of doubt. There is no short term benefit to do anything about global warming. There is plenty of reason to doubt the pessimistic predictions of Al Gore See for example, Russ Roberts piece: http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2007 ... cal_e.html

Yes, I am aware there is a sort of cult of denial in the US, but the thing is, the US is also part of the planet and will be affected along with everyone else. When Bush is gone there will be some changes, I am sure.

One thing to remember: the US has 5% of the world's population but emits 24% of the warming gases. Everyone else knows this.

RussNelson wrote:

David Benton wrote: and represents a mindset change in the biggest player in the world energy market .

You meaan China??

Still the USA .
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chinaenv.html