MSE News: 'Oi, David Cameron, sort out petrol prices!'

Bill_Raymond

This is a pretty nonsensical demand.
MSE should instead be campaigning for better public transport and fuel subsidies in rural areas (as a transitional strategy). For the rest of us we simply have to stop driving, or make an enormous step change. As you might have seen we've now missed the opportunity to avert a 2 degree rise in global temperatures this century with the most likely scenario being runaway warming. So what are you doing, asking for help so we burn yet more hydrocarbons?!? You can do better than this (elsewhere you give some sound advice on reducing heating costs through improving insulation).

Pandora_26

The retail prices for fuel in Kuwait are, Petrol € 0,179, Diesel € 0,151, why is no one importing it directly from Kuwait?

If they are why are they charging so much?

In the past, when the government decided not to levy the proposedduty level increase on fuel, the oil companies of increased fuel prices by the same amount shortly afterwards.

Before the banking fiasco the oil companies claimed thatdiesel was more expensive than petrol because of a shortage in refiningcapacity.

The recession has reduced consumption; consequently thereshould be sufficient capacity. At the same time their profits have increased.

It would appear the government is not asking the rightquestions on behalf of the consumer.

Joe_Horner

Bill_Raymond wrote: »

This is a pretty nonsensical demand.
MSE should instead be campaigning for better public transport and fuel subsidies in rural areas (as a transitional strategy). For the rest of us we simply have to stop driving, or make an enormous step change. As you might have seen we've now missed the opportunity to avert a 2 degree rise in global temperatures this century with the most likely scenario being runaway warming. So what are you doing, asking for help so we burn yet more hydrocarbons?!? You can do better than this (elsewhere you give some sound advice on reducing heating costs through improving insulation).

Heard of it, looked at it, considered it, pretty much rejected it. Especially runaway warming - if that was possible, why has it never happened in the past 4.5 billion years? Our (max) 100 years of semi-reliable temperature records aren't even a blip on the graph in that context

I assume, with your "the rest of us simply have to stop driving" comment that you don't live somewhere like North Wales, South Devon, or any of the other rural places in between where lack of a car (and reasonably priced fuel) means your minimum-wage-if-you're-lucky job that you have to travel 40 or 50 miles a day for won't acutally pay for you to heat your home as winter comes (still fierce enough most years for people to die of cold in this country in case you haven't noticed)?

I assume you're also in favour of the £100+ per year extra that everyone, including people in those area, are going to have to find on their fuel bills to pay for wind turbines etc which don't actually work as a national power source?

pennywise63

gilbert_and_sullivan wrote: »

Politicians like the current unelected PM don't actually care a jot what we the plebs want, if cast iron dave was a man of his word he'd have authorised a in/out referendum on the EU and we would now be working our notice out.

If you want change you first have to remove those who want what you don't want, seeing as the three cheeks of the same backside party otherwise known as the LibLabCon party all want continued susbservience to the EUSSR, then that means voting for someone else who doesn't, and the electorate don't have the gumption to do that for a variety of reasons.

Seeing as the electorate lack the courage to do whats needed, you are therefore committed to the EU and to all the climate change rubbish that the present regime are signed up to (and their mates and relatives coining it in from the subsidies) namely windmills and other idiotic ideas that don't work, and those net taxpayers who fund the system will pay for it all.

The exhorbitant taxes levied on taxes on fuel will continue until the electorate revolt or the country eventually goes bankrupt, probably about the same time.

Welcome to the world you allowed to happen.

The electorate get the government and the system they deserve.

Yes that just about sums up the situation.Until people think and vote differently , things will never change.

pennywise63

KTF wrote: »

Imagine, someone surveyed a load of people and asked them if they would pay less for the stuff they buy if they could. Cant imagine what the reply would be...

Also, what price would they consider an 'OK' price to pay. 50p a litre, £1, etc?

A good start would be to remove the tax on a tax . .V.A.T. on the tax that is calculated in the price of fuel .Nothing including fuel should be taxed higher that what it costs to produce and supply . 40% cost 60%tax . robin theivin bastkets.

Bill_Raymond

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Heard of it, looked at it, considered it, pretty much rejected it. Especially runaway warming - if that was possible, why has it never happened in the past 4.5 billion years? Our (max) 100 years of semi-reliable temperature records aren't even a blip on the graph in that context

Ha ha, I like the way you go against all the scientific experts on this.

I assume, with your "the rest of us simply have to stop driving" comment that you don't live somewhere like North Wales, South Devon, or any of the other rural places in between where lack of a car (and reasonably priced fuel) means your minimum-wage-if-you're-lucky job that you have to travel 40 or 50 miles a day for won't acutally pay for you to heat your home as winter comes (still fierce enough most years for people to die of cold in this country in case you haven't noticed)?

If you'd read what I said you'd see I made an exception for people in this situation. We in the cities need to take a hit so they can make a living.

I assume you're also in favour of the £100+ per year extra that everyone, including people in those area, are going to have to find on their fuel bills to pay for wind turbines etc which don't actually work as a national power source?

Yes of course. And wind power works - see the CAT report ZeroCarbonBritain2030 - (google it)

Joe_Horner

Bill_Raymond wrote: »

Yes of course. And wind power works - see the CAT report ZeroCarbonBritain2030 - (google it)

No need to google it.

All I had to do was look out of my window for the past two weeks at the windfarm that's been alternately feathered for safety because the winds were too strong, then failing to turn because there was no wind. That's two weeks on a "prime" North Wales site, where they're supposed to be reliable, that no power was generated.

If Granny's relying on that to heat her home (no mains gas around here) she's either dead or in hospital by now.

thor

Joe_Horner wrote: »

No need to google it.

All I had to do was look out of my window for the past two weeks at the windfarm that's been alternately feathered for safety because the winds were too strong, then failing to turn because there was no wind. That's two weeks on a "prime" North Wales site, where they're supposed to be reliable, that no power was generated.

If Granny's relying on that to heat her home (no mains gas around here) she's either dead or in hospital by now.

You don't get it do you?
Wind power was never designed to replace coal and gas but to supplement them as it obviously does not generate constantly. We are heading for a future where fossil fuels are withering away and despite reports of huge amounts of shale gas, it will get depleted as the world's population continues to grow.
Renewables will be needed for the low energy future that is coming and the problem of storing it may be on the verge of being solved if research into liquid air energy storage continues to gain momentum.
Carbon and nuclear fuels will not last forever.

Joe_Horner

I get it completely. Alternative energy systems will obviously be needed in the future - possibly the fairly near future - to meet humankind's needs. But it's unimagineably foolish to move to rely on immature technology for something as vital as energy.

The days when we could all burn a tree to stay warm are long gone (too many of us and too few trees, not to mention air quality problems) so replacing reliable generation with technology which isn't reliable now is reckless.

It would be as if we'd shot all the horses when Mr Benz demonstrated his first car then wondered why no-one could travel. Except that having unreliable energy is immeasurably more harmful than having to walk everywhere!

Incidentally, before anyone starts applying stereotypes to me, I'm a left-wing atheist who loves technology and dislikes huge corporations. I even quite likes having a wind farm in view. I honestly believes that many of these technologies should be developed, and developed as fast as possible, to make sure our future energy needs are met, but they should not be relied on before they're ready because of some dubious claims about armageddon that, when you examine them closely, are supported by political hype far more than scientific observation - note that computer model results are not scientific observation, especially when reality consistently refuses to do what they predict!



eta: in point of fact, you're quite right that nuclear won't last forever, but carbon fuels will - what do you think happens to all that CO2 in the long term? Mother Nature's clever like that