THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Hi Peter,
The idea expressed in your post on diverting carbon tax funds to fighting poverty is not a new one. Many a UN bureaucrat from an underdeveloped country is already “licking his chops” in anticipation of doing exactly this, on a very personal level.
But I believe that voluntary private donations to fight poverty are far more effective that UN programs, and “mixing” carbon taxes with funding for fighting poverty is inherently silly, since the two have nothing to do with one another.
But our recent exchange on “mitigation” strategies gave me an idea how we can handle the AGW part of this, fairly and equitably on a voluntary basis.
Enthusiasts, like you, can pay a “carbon tax” of $110 per ton emitted. Your bill might not be very high but Al Gore’s or Richard Branson’s, for example, would be enormous. In this way, those who feel the greatest remorse for their evil carbon-producing ways, can cleanse their souls and feel good about themselves again, knowing that they have done something to fight AGW. The money could go toward reducing their income tax bill, as you have suggested, so that it is a net “win-win” situation.
Ordinary citizens can (on a voluntary, democratic basis) inflate their tires a bit more, buy energy-saving light bulbs, bike to work when the weather is pleasant, etc. and also feel good about it. BTW these actions would also be available to the “enthusiast” group above, for double “feel good” value.
Those who wish to turn a fast dollar on the scam (like T. Boone Pickens) can buy up land and natural gas reserves in West Texas hoping to make a killing when wind farms are put in and natural gas is switched to motor fuel use in the USA (as it already is in many countries, including Australia, as I’m told).
Large corporations like Exxon-Mobil as well as small, private startup companies, can continue research on biofuels, lithium batteries for cars, etc. in the hopes of cashing in some day in the future. This will provide the most effective and efficient R+D work, since non-profitable “dead ducks” will be filtered out and abandoned.
Skeptics, like myself, could continue to try to conserve energy where possible (in order to save money, without deluding myself that I am also “saving the planet”).
After a brief retraining period, climate scientists could get a real job doing weather forecasts on TV.
Politicians would need to look for a new “scare” from which to protect the masses, but, what the hell, we’ve had all kinds of scares in the past and I’m sure (with the help of the media) we can come up with a new one very quickly as this one dies a natural death.
Everyone wins!
What do you think?
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You wrote: “If young Bristol had stepped in front of a moving truck, that would be tragic. Falling pregnant, for a woman, is just a part of life.”
How true.
While a few pro-Obama members of the media were still trying to “milk” this story (as a sign of Governor Palin’s “poor judgment”), Obama gave exactly the right answer to reporters who questioned him about it when he said that his mother was also only 17 years old when she got pregnant with him (and 18 when he was born).
You may not like the guy or agree with his politics, but he was spot on there.
The media does not need to spread that kind of junk involving the children of the candidates.
Regards,
Max
The USA gives far more to “fix world poverty” than any other country.
The amount of US foreign aid has gone UP since 2000.
We’re really getting tired of bailing everyone out, you “save the world” for a while, OK? Every time I turn around someone is standing in front of me asking for a handout. Help this one, help that one. I’ve been giving dollar bills to the same “needy” woman on the streetcorner for 5 years. Every time the story is the same; “I’m going to have a baby”. She’s been pregnant with the same child for 5 years.
My checkbook is empty, you write some checks for a while. I’m all for helping out the truly needy but after a while it really gets old and it has become obvious that people will not get up off of their ass if people keep giving them stuff. For thousands of years there have been efforts to “feed the poor” and “eradicating poverty” and it still exists. Somehow or another “giving” people free stuff doesn’t seem to be helping the problem; wouldn’t you agree?
And, your last post showed some insight into your psyche in that your ultimate goal is to impose some goofy thing called a “carbon tax” and then use it to do something other than reduce carbon. Maybe you should re-read Max’s post # 1444. The “tax” will be used for everything but reducing “carbon” and will all disappear into the bottomless pit of bureaucratic nit-wittery.
Remember Al Gore’s Social Security “Lock Box”? Probably not. Gore “promised” that all monies paid into Social Security would be earmarked for that purpose and nothing else. When we looked into the “Lock Box” we found an IOU from Al Gore and the US Congress. They took it. It’s EMPTY. You are foolish. Yes, I wrote FOOLISH.
RE: # 1449
For God’s sake Peter, what do you care? I’m certain that the very same thing could have, (or did), happen to everyone reading this thread. She got knocked up and she and the father are getting married…..it’s been going on since the beginning of time. Leave the girl alone.
Global Warming is coming, (Hurricane Hannah). Gotta take down my American flag so it doesn’t get tattered.
But you know what? Sunday, “Global Warming” will have stopped and “the climate” will have yet changed again……
Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/
Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/
Brute,
You ask “For God’s sake Peter, what do you care?”
The point isn’t so much about one individual female, but the way that a political party gets itself tied up in knots over the issue. From what I can make out, this was a hot topic among the delegates themselves, at St Paul this week too. So, its hardly fair to blame the media on this occasion.
As a committed Republican, you will know that your party does not support the idea of “leaving the girl alone” as you put it. It wants your government, and US law, to tell her what she can and cannot do. And that, of course, is why the story is newsworthy in a way that it would not be, had it occurred at a different party’s election conference.
Max, Brute, and JZ,
In reply to your question of what I think, I have to say that shedding crocodile tears over the plight of the world’s poor, and trying to use them in arguments to prevent GHG reductions is disingenuous.
There are no trade-offs to be made over the two issues. Helping one can help the other.
I didn’t expect any of you, to like my idea of $1 on gasoline, and of course I wasn’t expecting the US to shoulder all the cost. I’m sure that we could think of something for Australia, Japan, Europe and others too. However, your flat rejection of the idea just confirms the fraudulence of your arguments.
It is not the plight of the world’s poor that bothers you. It is the idea that you might have to drive around town in something that looks less like a tank and more like a vehicle that has been designed for human transport.
Pete,
“Bad” things happen to children from “good” families. Three children in my family, same “Mum” and Dad….two “good” one “bad”, (he’s doing better lately). I cannot think of ANY family that has not had to face one of these issues, (maybe Mrs. Brute’s family).
The point is that my parents had no control over what I did in the back seat of my 70 Chevy. Drugs abuse, Alcohol abuse, Premarital sex and pregnancy happen to children from “good” and “bad” families. I don’t think that even a lunatic like yourself would argue that.
I don’t care what a woman does with “her” body. I do care what a woman does with a child. The child has no “choice” in the matter.
How does raising the price of gasoline help a poor person? They have to buy gasoline also. You’re back to “giving” people stuff and redistribution of wealth…..punishing those who are responsible and accountable for their actions. How does taking money that you’ve worked hard for and giving it to someone else “help” either of you? You’ll just have to work harder to support your family and the other guy and his family also. Howis that “fair” to you?
I’ll drive whatever the hell I want to drive; you drive whatever it is you drive.
If you want to cut a check to the poor, go ahead. I choose to let a person EARN a job and EARN their pay.
I am so sick and tired of these mealy mouth excuses and this panty waist nonsense and whining about how “unfair” the world is. Be a man and go to work….support YOURSELF. All of these Liberal know it alls, making excuses for THEIR OWN failed policies…..THEY DON”T WORK. THEY HAVEN”T WORKED. Nut-up and go to work….APPLY YOURSELF and quite making excuses.
You and others like you are encouraging these parasites to continue to be indolent.
Sheez!
And you can forget about this also. I’ll FIND a way to drive a rocket ship to the corner market if I put my mind to it.
Aw, Peter, you’re waffling again.
The “crocodile tears” are a crock.
I’m just saying (as Lomborg has written and Bob_FJ, Brute and others have posted here): there are many much more important things in this old world than “AGW mitigation”.
Let’s go after these first (as US president Bush has done with AIDS in Africa, as many wealthy philanthropists have with poverty in Africa and elsewhere and with the fight against disease in poorer countries) and forget all this silly “hoopla” about AGW, where “government” imposed taxes are supposedly going to save us from ourselves.
Forget the dire predictions of Hansen and the other kooks or fear-mongers out there. AGW is really irrelevant in the overall scheme of things, Peter.
It is truly a non-issue.
Regards,
Max
Max,
You say “Let’s go after these first”
OK but what are you , or we, going to go after and how are you, or we, doing to do it?
Brute,
You ask how raising the price of gasoline would help poor people in the USA.
That would be have been a good question for the US politicians to have asked themselves immediately after the end of WW2 when the automobile era started. Its a bit harder now that most of the easily accessible oil has been used up.
If the USA had followed the practice of the rest of the world and imposed a reasonable amount of tax on gasoline there would have been many benefits to the poor of the USA. The raised revenue would have allowed the funding of public hospitals and other health services. There could have been free or low cost high quality education, to tertiary level, as there used to be in Europe.
In addition, the motor industry in the USA would have produced models that were in line to those being produced in the rest of the world and would now be in better shape for it. There would be less unemployment in Detroit.
Oil would have been used more sensibly, it wouldn’t have peaked so early and you wouldn’t now be so dependent on foreign oil. Even now the USA could just about be self sufficient in oil if the highest efficiency cars were used. There would have been less need to send off the sons of the poor to get themselves shot at in oil wars.
I hope that answers your question. And, remember you did ask, so no telling me now to mind my own business!
tragic [trájjik]or tragical [trájjik’l]
adj
1. deeply sad: provoking deep sadness, distress, or grief a tragic accident
2. of tragedy: relating to tragedies as a dramatic genre a tragic hero
(Per MS dictionary)
I would suggest:
Such as an unwanted teenage pregnancy, where one or more of the parties involved does not want it, or it is not clear who the father may be, or a harmonious future for the child is uncertain, and what with the potential lifelong emotional consequences, of what is commonly an accident.
Bob_FJ,
I don’t disagree with your point about the consequences of unwanted pregnancies, which is why I do disagree with Brute on the abortion issue. In some circumstances it is to be the best of three options.
But, if you have ever been to the funeral of a young person, and listened to the sobs of the parents, you’ll know the real meaning of the word tragedy. An unwanted teenage pregnancy, unless it is the result of some criminal assault, is nothing by comparison. And often, fast forward a few years, and given favorable circumstances with the right parental support, it isn’t even considered a misfortune.
Let’s not devalue the word from when we really need it, and it particularly irks me when it is used in a sporting context. There’s no need for tears if the worst that’s happened is losing a football match.
Peter, 1463, wrote in part:
A short period of intense grief often gives some near term-closure, but I have known three longer events close to me which really show the meaning of the word tragic.
For instance, my first wife had an unwanted teenage pregnancy and the French father did not want to know. She gave the child a French name and had him adopted in England. (That’s all I know) Some years after, we were married and we had our own son, she then started on alcohol and also stolen morphine (etc?) from the hospital where she worked, and would call-out the first child’s name in frequent moments of distress. Her happiest times seem to be when she was medicated and cared for in hospital. She eventually died on my son’s fifteenth birthday. (That is cutting out some torrid details)
Then there was my teenage stepdaughter in my second marriage. They married, but it was tragic, and he committed suicide a few years later. (Cutting out some torrid details)
My son, now in his early forties, is faced with an unwanted pregnancy, that neither of them wanted, but she “could not commit murder“, as she defined it. There is absolutely no way these two could LIVE together, and they always understood and didn‘t do that. They used to enjoy a vigorous night life together, and as a CB. (casual bonk). Because he has an investment property which is highly geared, he now has to sell it at a bad time, because child support calculations only consider the fathers gross income. The fact that he makes a loss on interest payments is not considered, and he is not only in emotional gruesomes, but also in financial gruesomes. I am shortly treating him to a holiday in Europe, (which he has never seen), hopefully as a break from the stress he suffers.
The only motive I have in saying this is that I feel some of you appear to regard unwanted pregnancy as a trivial affair. I think you are VERY wrong to paint a broad brush on this.
You assume far too much
Unless you happen to be the baby……
Both my wife and her brother are adopted. No one knows the circumstances regarding the biological mothers, (except the biological mothers); however, chances are it was the result of a “mistake”. That being said, these two people have enriched the lives of countless others. Neither one discovered a cure for cancer or a perpetual motion machine; but the world is a much richer place because these two people exist and were allowed to live as opposed to being discarded as medical waste. There are literally millions of willing, loving childless couples on lists to adopt.
Bureaucracy, pressure groups and “convenience” unfortunately prevent these children the right to exist.
Pete,
RE: Post # 1461
I could write a book refuting your assertions in this one post. You mention to the United States three times. Talk about being “Amero Centric”! Isn’t the United Kingdom, Australia, China, Russia and every other country on the face of the planet teaming with intelligent, resourceful, insightful human beings that are capable of making decisions? I could very easily write that if other countries had taken up the baton and decided to pursue other energy options after World War Two than there would be no need to burn fossil fuels any longer. Isn’t Australia exporting coal faster than it can shovel it out of the ground? You drive a car and utilize jet powered aviation……you should stop. Conduct your business using “alternative” sources of energy…….(bicycles and signal mirror)if you’re so concerned about people’s “carbon footprints” and global warming. Start being part of the solution Pete, not contributing to the problem….
Also, the fact is that environmental extremists have pressured politicians to prevent utilization of fuel resources. The United States alone has trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and billions of barrels of oil that are “easily accessible” but are off limits due to obstructionist, ideological, extremist, environmentalists, (Marxists).
You’re wrong describing recent military intervention as “oil wars”. If that were the case than the coalition military would have simply invaded and stolen the oil there; gasoline would be $1.00 a gallon in the US, Australia and Great Britain. There are various reasons that the US and NATO decided to intervene, (specifically in Iraq). Iraq’s former leader was a threat to the security of the entire region and brutalized minority groups within his own country, (to name one). As a comparison, Nazi Germany did not directly threaten the United States 70 years ago, (Japan attacked, but could not realistically invade); war was necessary to establish and maintain the freedom of US allied citizens/governments, (Australia, France and Great Britain to name three). Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordon and Israel are the UK, France and Australia of today. Hussein was a brutal, maniacal, murderous, dictator…(the Bath Party was modeled after Nazism), the people of Iraq and the people of the world are better off now that he has been eliminated.
Why are you so cynical? Anbar Province was a “lost cause” just a year ago, according to the defeatists of the world. Anbar province was recently handed over to the control of the newly formed Iraqi military/authority last week. Growing pains……Imagine, the first democratically elected Arab nation in history…..unheard of and one would have thought impossible 10 years ago, (maybe Egypt? I’ll have to look that one up). 15 of 18 of the political benchmarks were achieved in Iraq as of July 2008……despite your cynicism, Iraq has been a success story; but, there is still work to do……… the Iraqi people now have a “choice”.
CO2 emission standards for cars: ETUC regrets the retreat by the European Parliament Industry Committee
http://www.etuc.org/a/5314
Pete,
Education is “free” in the United States, always has been. “Free” is a misapplied description…. someone has to pay for it, (taxpayers).
The US automobile industry has been marginalized by Unions. Corrupt Union officials and people who want something for nothing have caused the industry to stagnate in recent years. Unions operate much the same way as government, (or the Mafia)….big mouth agitators and extortion…exploiting average everyday employees and holding legitimate businesses hostage to further a few union bosses special interests. It’s called a protection racket and is the epitome of a pyramid scheme.
Universities are making money hand over fist. Tuition rates have risen exponentially. Why don’t the “do good” Leftists picket the Universities and demand that they lower their tuition fees? The answer is because the majority are controlled by Leftists and rely heavily on government, (taxpayer provided), subsidies.
In an attempt to get this back on topic, I’ll answer Peter’s post 1421. He criticised my phrasing – so, Peter, here’s an amended version:
The IPCC’s WG1 Chapter 9 and the UK met office’s statement you quoted confirm that the causes of the earlier warming haven’t been identified. Dr Akasofu says it’s important to identify those causes and remove them from the recent warming “in order to accurately identify the contribution of the manmade greenhouse effect”.
You say you don’t agree with Dr Akasofu. Please explain why not.
(No rush for your reply – I’m away from my computer for two weeks.)
As I’m away for two weeks, here’s a rather more reflective note:
Despite Peter’s suspicions, I’m undecided about the validity of the hypothesis that AGW is a grave problem that will lead to catastrophe if human GHG emissions are not curtailed – although, to the extent possible for a non-scientist, I increasingly suspect it’s invalid. No doubt it will be resolved in time. Unfortunately, as we’re told we cannot establish the veracity of climate models for decades, none of us may be around to find out. I suppose, if we had a run of really cold weather for, say, ten years, most people – even the media – might conclude it was a false hypothesis. Even so, I don’t suppose the true believers would concede defeat after “only” ten years. The trouble is that, at my age, a ten-year run of really cold weather would probably see me off: warm weather is vastly preferable.
What seems certain is that, whatever the truth about the hypothesis, global GHG emissions are not going to be reduced to anywhere near the levels environmentalists insist are necessary: most of the world’s emerging economies, economies that will be dominant within a few years, have made growth their overriding priority and they’re achieving that by extensive use of fossil fuels. (Incidentally, a consequence of this has been widespread alleviation of poverty.) So, if the hypothesis is valid, mankind is in trouble. Let’s hope, therefore, that it’s not.
There is, however, a more immediate threat. By establishing an assumption about an overriding and urgent need for CO2 reduction (pointless anyway in view of the actions of the emerging economies), the alarmists in alliance with the unquestioning mainstream media have caused a serious slowdown in the development of new, particularly coal-fired, power stations in the UK; yet action is urgently needed to replace ageing facilities. This is exacerbated by the threat to oil and gas supplies posed by Russia’s move into Georgia. The outcome could be the breakdown, within only a few years, of our electricity supply. Were this to happen, the resulting chaos could be widespread and hugely damaging – not least by creating the unstable society that would be especially vulnerable to terrorist attack.
Happy days.
Hi Peter,
You wrote to Brute, “if the USA had followed the [fuel tax] practice of the rest of the world and imposed a reasonable amount of tax on gasoline [to be used at the discretion of the government] there would have been many benefits to the poor of the USA. The raised revenue would have allowed the funding of public hospitals and other health services. There could have been free or low cost high quality education, to tertiary level, as there used to be in Europe.”
If you refer to the “poor of the USA” as those few homeless drifters or unemployed single mothers, you may be technically correct.
If you mean (as some define this) those households with an accumulated income less than 50% of the median income or those working families that earn less than the officially established “poverty threshold”, you are absolutely wrong. These people need to drive to work. Since this income is defined as $10,800 or less for a single person or $21,000 for a family of four, a major increase in fuel cost would be a major disadvantage.
But the basic problem with your proposition is that the US fuel tax receipts are dedicated to transportation projects (i.e. road construction and repairs), so the fuel tax is in principal a user fee. This is apparently the case in New Zealand since July 2008, and is partially true for Australia as well. Switzerland has one of the lowest fuel tax rates in Europe; it also dedicates a large portion of the fuel tax revenue to road projects by law.
In many European countries the fuel tax is considered a source of general revenue, to be spent at the government’s discretion.
I think the US (Swiss or NZ) system makes more sense. Those that use the road system have to help pay for it; those that do not, do not.
Makes sense to me. How about you?
It would be like a modest carbon tax of $10/ton maximum that was 100% dedicated by law to helping to fund projects for finding and developing new petroleum and natural gas resources (oil shale, deep offshore), syn-fuels from coal and bio-fuels, helping to fund alternative energy R+D, but not becoming part of an overall “slush fund” for fighting global poverty, lining corrupt politicians’ pockets or funding special political projects outside the energy sector, which is being artificially justified on the doubtful basis that it will “force” people to move away from fossil fuels and thereby help “save the planet from global warming”.
But even this restricted carbon tax makes less sense than the US fuel tax (which is helping to finance government expenditures on federal and state roads, etc.).
It would put the government in the role of providing the main financing for energy R+D based on the criteria of which projects are more politically expedient, rather that the energy companies or others who hope to eventually benefit from this R+D and have to invest wisely into those projects that have the greatest chance of becoming successful.
The more natural (and economically sound) solution would be to let the energy companies (and automotive companies plus others) factor in the R+D costs for this in their product pricing and finance it directly in that way, without “big brother”as the middle-man. R+D work justified to achieve commercial success will always be more effective than R+D work justified for political expediency. Don’t you agree?
Regards,
Max
Message to Brute and Peter
For an interesting study on the oil shale potential in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming see:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG414.pdf
The report came out in 2005, so the oil price comparisons need to be adjusted, but the conclusions are all valid.
The report states that the USA has around three-fourths of the worldwide oil shale potential, said to be equivalent to around 2.5 trillion barrels of crude oil.
The Green River basin alone (CO, UT, WY) represents a deposit of over 1.2 trillion barrels of crude oil, of which 0.8 trillion are economically recoverable.
This is more recoverable oil than in the entire Middle East (around 0.7 trillion barrels).
This resource alone could supply the entire current US oil demand of 20 million barrels/day for 100+ years. Alternatively it could enable the USA to become a net exporter of oil (as long as prices are so high). For example, the USA could easily offset its trade imbalance with China by becoming a key crude supplier to this oil-hungry country.
Current small-scale production involves the mining and then surface retorting of the shale. This is an expensive and environmentally messy process, requiring a crude oil price between $75 and $90 per bbl to be profitable. The mining operation requires subsequent reintroduction of topsoil and vegetation, which is one reason for the high cost.
Shell has developed a more economical (and more environmentally sound) in situ process, where electrical (or gas) heaters heat the oil to 500-600°C, at which temperature it can be extracted directly without mining the shale. A “freeze wall” is put around the extraction zone to keep groundwater out and to prevent hydrocarbon leakage into ground water zones.
This process is projected to be economically viable at crude oil prices of $25 to 35 per barrel.
Looks to me like this is the future for US oil independence, with ANWR and extended offshore drilling plus natural gas driven vehicles as stopgap measures to help out until this vast natural resource can be exploited on a full scale basis and future bio-fuels or syn-fuels from coal as longer-term solutions.
At any rate it looks like (a) the hypothesis of a “peak oil” crisis is a bit premature and (b) that the USA has the resources to regain energy independence.
Regards,
Max
Max,
What can I say, (write)? Of course I agree that these resources should be utilized to their full potential beginning today. Even if guys such as Peter win the day and push for “alternative” fuel sources and exclude oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear; the price of electricity and automobile fuel will be astronomical and it will be decades in the future until this “magical” source of fuel is discovered……if ever.
The most illogical argument, (which the Eco-Zealots use daily), is that oil from ANWR and offshore will not fill our gasoline tanks for ten years, (which is false). Even if it was true, doing something now to guarantee our fuel supply in the future is much more palatable than doing nothing……hoping that there will be some “breakthrough” that will resolve our energy needs. We should be building nuclear power plants and drilling for oil everywhere feasible/profitable. At the same time, we can let young “Edison” produce his “super energy” product, (with his own money).
I also take issue with T. Boone’s statement which has been resonating lately regarding “the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind”. While I agree that it would be preferable to have American consumers purchase oil from American companies, purchasing oil from other countries is simply free trade and capitalism. They provide a product that we choose to purchase and we pay for it. Nothing wrong with that, (in abstract), what they do with the money is a different subject. Foreign countries purchase grain from the US and they pay us; foreign nations purchase automobiles, software, etc from us and they pay us for it. I don’t consider that I am “transferring” my money to General Electric if I purchase a (pick a product). They produce something that I want and I pay them for it.
Do you see what I mean?
Max,
Those that use the road system have to help pay for it; those that do not, do not. Makes sense to me. How about you?
Yes of course, I think that must happen in all countries. The question is, should the taxes raised on fuel, vehicle registration etc be used for other purposes too? I suspect that you would say not. That is the classic neo-liberal position. (Note this is not using the word ‘liberal’ in its US sense)
Unfortunately the world doesn’t usually work in the way that neo-liberals would like it to. In very sparsely populated areas such as outback Australia, the volume of traffic on many roads is so low that if you applied the same principles as are applied to railway lines the roads would be closed down. And on the other hand, in densely populated cities, natural economic laws would dictate bulldozing whole suburbs to make way for new roads and car parks. In the end there would little else left.
If you actually do a case study of the best and the worst of city transportation systems, around the world, giving points out of ten, you would find an inverse relationship between the application of free market principles and the awarded points.
There is no point having cheap fuel and low vehicle taxes if the roads are so congested that cars can’t move anywhere. If I had to nominate the world’s worst, I would have to say Mexico City but maybe there are other candidates too. Manilla would run it a close second.
Asian cities, are usually an absolute a nightmare in terms of traffic congestion. Its impossible to plan visits or even to know how long it might take to travel to the airport. I usually end up booking a taxi 5 or 6 hours before a flight to make sure I don’t miss the plane. There are two notable exceptions. Hong Kong and Singapore. Both have excellent public transportation systems, with quite cheap taxis, and in both the cost of owing a vehicle is defined more by government taxation than the free market.
The Singapore government calculate how much traffic their road system can accommodate. They then set the vehicle registration fee or tax, I think by a process of auction, to limit the car population accordingly. In addition, each owner needs to be able to show where the vehicle will be parked overnight. Street parking is very limited. It can cost over $200k to put a car on the road there. Neo-liberals wouldn’t approve but its quite easy to get around there and I’d say that should be the bottom line. Wouldn’t you agree?
So the question would be who has the right approach? I would say Hong Kong and Singapore. Would you say Mexico City?
Brute,
Its not necessary to drive to get to work. I haven’t done any statistical research but I would say that, worldwide, more people get to work by other means than driving their own car.