Question for Europeans

>> Because the prices are mostly tax, and this is largely set in absolute
>> terms, rather than a percentage,
>
> Part of it is absolute, part of it is a percentage (VAT).

Hence the word "largely" above. Only VAT on the non-duty part is variable.
VAT on the duty itself is fixed, unless the rate of VAT or duty changes.

Christian.

On Mon, 09 May 2005 14:45:54 +0000, 223rem wrote:

> gazzafield wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Sorry to get political, but it's great the return you get when you invade
>> a country for it's oil innit? No, sorry, not the oil. For the freedom of
>> the people, obviously. Ahem.
>>
>
> No, it wasnt for oil, and not for the 'freedom' of the Iraqis.
> You may want to familiarize yourself with the US Neoconservative
> agenda.
>
> This is a good overview:
>
> http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pa...?itemNo=280279



Yawn. So that was last updated on 5th April 2003 was it? Wonder if the
25 still think it's all peachy. And it was nothing but for America to
keep control of it's empire. They can tell you what ever propaganda they
like.

In article > , Christian McArdle wrote:


> People grumble about the price, but deep down know that petroleum use is bad
> due to climate change, so the grumbling is not as loud as it might be.

I am having problems believing the measured warming is due to CO2.
Because other planets and satelites (moons) in the solor system are
warming. I think the scale of the issue of climate change is much bigger.

In article >, Scott en
Aztlán says...
> Here in the US the top story recently has been the large upward spike
> in gasoline prices. Some have predicted that gasoline will top
> $5/gallon by next year, up from $2.50/gallon today. Since you folks in
> Europe have had $5/gallon gas for years (thanks to high taxes), what's
> happening to gas prices over there in Europe? Are they going to hit
> $10/gallon soon? Is the price of gas the top story on your local TV
> news?
>
Not really. Trouble is merkins have had gas at such a ridiculously low
price, pump prices are far more sensitive to rises in oil prices. Ours
tends to fluctuate around a $0.40 USD range. The average price goes up
when the Govt increases taxes on it.

Your price has doubled in 2 years as I recall which is a big increase
to swallow. Ours has taken around 15 years to do that.

--
Conor

"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.

In article >, 223rem wrote:
> gazzafield wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Sorry to get political, but it's great the return you get when you invade
>> a country for it's oil innit? No, sorry, not the oil. For the freedom of
>> the people, obviously. Ahem.
>>
>
> No, it wasnt for oil, and not for the 'freedom' of the Iraqis.

I believe it to be neither. The only reason that makes even a bit of
sense is an attempt to bring about a regional stability for the oil
supply in general. not taking the oil, not wmd, not freedom.

If it was freedom, shrub could start by promoting it in the USA instead
of hindering it even more.

In article >, Brent P wrote:
> In article > , Christian McArdle wrote:
>
>
>> People grumble about the price, but deep down know that petroleum use is bad
>> due to climate change, so the grumbling is not as loud as it might be.
>
> I am having problems believing the measured warming is due to CO2.
> Because other planets and satelites (moons) in the solor system are

arg... solar....

> warming. I think the scale of the issue of climate change is much bigger.
>

In article > , Conor wrote:

> Your price has doubled in 2 years as I recall which is a big increase
> to swallow. Ours has taken around 15 years to do that.

Then fell back down then went up again, the whole process has been about
6 years. Gasoline, by itself, without taxes isn't really expensive when
adjusted for inflation from decades ago. The distribution system in the
USA is the big reason why gasoline stays cheap.

Brent P wrote:

> In article > , Christian McArdle wrote:
>
>>People grumble about the price, but deep down know that petroleum use is bad
>>due to climate change, so the grumbling is not as loud as it might be.
>
> I am having problems believing the measured warming is due to CO2.

Over the past century about half of the Earth's warming has been due to
changes in the solar flux and the other half due to CO2 (and other)
greenhouse gasses. The main influence of the greenhouse gasses really
only becoming impossible to ignore from 1970 onwards.

So in the past 30 years the anthropogenic component has contributed
about as much to global warming as a whole century of natural changes in
the sun. The big problem is that we are continually adding to the CO2
and the rate of warming continues to increase. We can't do much about
the sun, but we can buy time by becoming more energy efficient.

> Because other planets and satelites (moons) in the solor system are
> warming. I think the scale of the issue of climate change is much bigger.

Although it is true that the sun's output has increased very slightly
the amount is *not* sufficient to explain all the observed global
warming. Satellite monitoring of solar flux since the 1970's is an
important constraint.

Good to see GM and Ford are now both junk bonds. Market forces may yet
sort things out for us if the US gas price goes through the roof.

Regards,
Martin Brown

In article >, Martin Brown wrote:
> Brent P wrote:

>> In article > , Christian McArdle wrote:
>>
>>>People grumble about the price, but deep down know that petroleum use is bad
>>>due to climate change, so the grumbling is not as loud as it might be.
>>
>> I am having problems believing the measured warming is due to CO2.

> Over the past century about half of the Earth's warming has been due to
> changes in the solar flux and the other half due to CO2 (and other)
> greenhouse gasses. The main influence of the greenhouse gasses really
> only becoming impossible to ignore from 1970 onwards.

Correlation != causation. Every model, everything in global warming is
based on the assumption that the correlation seen is a cause and effect
relationship and that it works with CO2 causing the warming. All while
ignoring the other more powerful greenhouse gas from combustion, water.
As if the water we are pumping into the environment has no effect what so
ever.

From the CO2 theory, it used towards political ends. Things like the kyoto
treaty. Treaties that would have us believe making widgets in China is
better for the environment than making them in Ohio.

>> Because other planets and satelites (moons) in the solor system are
>> warming. I think the scale of the issue of climate change is much bigger.

> Although it is true that the sun's output has increased very slightly
> the amount is *not* sufficient to explain all the observed global
> warming. Satellite monitoring of solar flux since the 1970's is an
> important constraint.

It's not enough to explain the the observed warming of mars either.

I wonder how the European economy stayed afloat with all the taxes on
petrol and diesel that they levy over there.

Petroleum is vital to the economy in the US, not only because almost all
the goods are shipped via diesel engines, but also because high oil prices
impact consumer confidence. In the US there are far, far more cars than
driving age adults. Consumers/workers are so dependent on a car to get
around, if you suddenly start raising the costs to operate it, you are going
to hurt the economy much more.

In Europe, somebody who is too poor to afford the fuel for a car often has
alternatives, this is not the case in the US except for the major cities.
And alot of the US population does not live in these cities.