Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/10/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]It has been quite amusing and not too unsurprising to read many of the postings from my fellow US LUG'ers under the above heading. A significant number of messages have revealed that some US LUG'ers seems unaware of the cost structure of the gasoline and diesel that they are paying for at the pump. Thus I should like to share with all LUG'ers the information that is available from the US Energy Information Administration, EIA: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp Hence as of Sept 2008, the average US retail gasoline price was US$ 3.70 a gallon with taxes making up 11%, distribution and marketing 8%, refining 14% and the crude oil alone 67%. Some time ago, I came across information about the US retail gasoline prices during 2001-07. In those days it was on average 1.91 dollars with taxes making up 24%, crude oil 48%, refining 16% and distribution plus marketing 12%. In most European countries we have quite a different cost structure. I cannot offer fresh data from 2008 but in Denmark only 40 percent of the pump price ended up in the pockets of the oil companies in 2006. Another 40 percent was made up by various energy and environmental taxes including a CO2 levy and 20 percent VAT. Thus it is obvious that the US consumers do not have as much cushion as most Europeans against the fluctuations in the pump price that originates from the crude oil price fluctuations but then again you can't have it both ways... Please allow me to use this opportunity to spike a few more facts into this debate by posting the 3 clippings below. They are from the latest review of US energy policies that was published in Feb 2008 by the Paris-based energy watch dog, the International Energy Agency (IEA): 1. Two key issues are affecting all debates on the future energy supply of the United States. One is how to increase energy security by reducing the currently growing dependence on imported supplies. The other is how to address growing emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), notably whether and how to introduce a consistent value on CO2 emissions. These two challenges are closely connected. The United States is the only major IEA member country where the share of fossil fuel consumption in total energy supply is expected to increase and one of the few without a policy designed to internalise the external cost of CO2 emissions. 2. The US transport sector will be a key to a sustainable success. In the short to medium term, reduced fuel demand through higher vehicle efficiency will increase security and reduce CO2 emissions. Bringing fuel efficiency standards to levels more in line with other countries would significantly reduce growth in oil demand and thereby help energy security, and relieve the tightness in international oil markets. Yet the policy for the revision of CAF? (the corporate average fuel economy) standards will leave US consumers with vehicles that fall short of the technological possibilities. And they will provide the US consumers with vehicles that are far below the fuel efficiency standards in other IEA member countries and even in important non-IEA member countries such as China and India. 3. A source of uncertainty is the lack of close co-operation on this question between the government institutions in Washington, most importantly the Administration and the Congress, and between the federal government and the states. In Washington, the different policy agendas and the approval procedures for energy R&D funding are hampering the smooth long-term development of solutions to the energy challenges in the United States. ...Some very interesting observations, if you ask me. On a final note, I should like to ask if someone can please explain why most Americans ? as far as I have noticed during the very long run up to next Tuesday - seems to be more in favour of opening up for oil exploration in the whole Arctic area including your own ANWR than in opening up new areas of the outer continental shelf (OCS) of the lower 49s for exploration and production, and in developing new unconventional resources of oil and gas in the Rocky Mountain states. And please also explain why, on the other hand, most Americans seem more in favour of protecting Detroit than their own local environment? Mads -- Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger geh?rt? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger