On the other hand, the PM has mentioned that with the current rise in oil prices, there might be no need to at this juncture raise the CO2 tax (instituted in 1990). On the other hand, the high oil price has increased government tax revenue, so he said there might be more income tax cuts for low and medium income earnes.

It seems someone still knows Keynesian economics... ;)

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

They're seagull managers (fly around, shit on everything, fly off) rather than people who ever have to live with the consequences of activities (beyond the inconvenience of electoral defeat).

keep to the Fen Causeway

The taxing of cars proportionally to CO2 emissions is wonderful if it would mean taxation proportional to CO2 emissions, but that is of course not what he really means. Fuel taxes are proportional to CO2 emission. Car taxes are never. A gas guzzler driven 25 km a week emits much much less CO2 than a more reasonable car driven 500 km a week. Unfortunately this rubbish is the only thing which Tiefensee really can do.

But the real issue are not gas taxes. The real issue is the lack of taxes on oil consumption outside the traffic sector. Just recently I read, that a representative of the German real estate business said, oil prices are not yet high enough that it would be a good investment to reinsulate older houses. But here clearly the 'ecological movement' has a strong bias against cars. Other waste is doesn't matter.

I presume you meant car, not gas taxes. I think the opposite: as Tiefensee himself suggests, the idiots won't move on kerosene tax if there is no global move; an EU-wide car tax harmonisation is then more likely.

A gas guzzler driven 25 km a week emits much much less CO2 than a more reasonable car driven 500 km a week.

So what? If you only want to drive 25 km a week, driving a Smart still means less CO2 emissions than driving a H2. These are separate issues. Both fuel taxes targeting absolute emissions and car taxes targeting specific emissions will work towards reduced consumption, and thus I support both.

Just recently I read, that a representative of the German real estate business said, oil prices are not yet high enough that it would be a good investment to reinsulate older houses.

Nice anecdote. However, I recall Germany is a leading country in building insulation, and there were a number of programmes. (I'm now off to watch something on telly, but will look up some sources later tonight.)

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

Although OPEC's excess capacity has rebounded from its 2005 low, the gains are largely in heavy crude oils that can only be processed in specialized refineries. Those facilities are running full bore, so the added supplies aren't relieving a tight market. The latest evidence also suggests OPEC is now restraining its output.

While some warn that oil production has peaked--or will soon--most industry experts contend that oil resources are plentiful; it just takes time and money to get them out of the ground and into the market.

So far, new supplies haven't materialized quickly enough to keep up with growth in world demand, largely because various hurdles have slowed their development. Oil resources, for example, are concentrated in countries with state-run oil companies or little economic freedom. Where market signals aren't allowed to work, incentives to boost production may be muted.

The article reads very well, and it discusses both futures and spot markets and the IEA's projections, with a numebr of nice charts that Jerome will like.

Thanks for the pointer.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes