Energy subsidies that make sense right now:
- free public transport in cities;
- remote VAT on bikes and e-bikes;
- buying back petrol cars if someone switches it for an EV;
- installing EV charging points in gas stations.
Energy subsidies that don’t make sense:
- lowering taxes on petrol and diesel to ease the shock.
@juliette so if people - like me - live in a small village where most jobs are 20-30 kilometers away and they don't own an EV, they can basically go duck themselves because they chose to be poor and unable to afford to live in a large city with public transport that runs more than every two hours?
And I'm sure that is really not what you meant, but that is very much the real life result of what you are suggesting. People can't just somehow magically afford an EV, just because energy prices go through the roof, and buses doesn't magically start running every 20 minutes in all directions from everywhere.
And yes, I am one of the lucky ones who actually owns an EV, but given that housing is cheap in my village, there are a lot of people who are way less fortunate, and if they want to keep their job, they have no choice but to fire up the old bucket every morning and get going.
Telling them to suck it up and stop whining because they have to cut down on food to be able to afford fuel seems somewhat harsh in my opinion.
@madsenandersc that’s an extraordinary interpretation of what I wrote.
Oil supply is going to dry up very soon, no matter how much or how little money people have. All incentives should be aimed at extending the supply we have left. That includes giving incentives to people who DO have the option not to drive to do so. It also includes VERY QUICKLY scaling up the availability of public transport.
But I guess it’s a lot easier to read “fuck the poor” in what I wrote than finding nuance.
@juliette it's in no way an interpretation - it's a comment on the real world consequences of what is happening right now.
I don't know where you live, but I am ready to bet that you live in a city, where public transport works well and if you need to go somewhere, a bus will go by every 20 minutes within a 10 minute walk, and will take you to a central hub. From here, you can take a train or another bus and be on your way in another 10 minutes, probably less. You can go from home to your work in 45 minutes or less.
Where I live, you can double those numbers, and we ARE the local hub. In other small villages around us, you can triple them. School kids are doing almost an hour to get to school in some areas, and another hour back at the end of the day.
So just add more public transport, you say. Sure. A huge number of electrical buses just magically appeared when the energy crisis hit, and the local municipality magically was given funding to run them, while the car owners magically saw their car loan and other fixed costs magically dissappear, freeing up funds for public transport.
Look, I don't think we fundamentally disagree, there is a reason why we drive an EV, have solar and are about to install a battery system. You just can't dismiss the very real impact this has one someone's life, and they need help.
@juliette granted, my guess was wrong then.
However, then you have to know first hand that public transport isn't a usable option for the vast majority of people in a case like yours.
One child goes to the daycare, one to the kindergarten and the oldest to the school - and mum and dad works 20 kilometers away. There is no way that will ever be possible with public transport in small villages.
@madsenandersc @juliette Yes only 20% but some oil usage cannot be reduced, such as ambulances, or trucks going to supermarkets or rural workers commuting (as you said). So if those users are going to continue at 100% usage then other people are going to have to make much much bigger cuts than 20%.
Meanwhile everyone (and every country) wants to be one of those using 100% so there will be hoarding and export restrictions and so on which make it worse and unevenly distributed.
That is not how economy works, to be frank. When supply is lower than demand, prices will go up and make some kinds of transport (and other use of fossil fuel) expemsive enough that it is either not worth it or alternative ways of solving the same problem will be used.
This basically means that things that are not necessary will be reduced or cut away. That could be anything from going on vacation to buying products that are energy intensive to produce and reasonably easy to do without.
All that said, we are moving towards summer in the nothern hemisphere, and that is both reducing the need for fossil fuel and increasing the production of green energy. It can't make up for the 20%, but it will help to keep the sticher shock lower than without the help from green energy.
All in all I stand by my two original statements: Not considering some kind of tax relief to those that have no alternative to using fossil fuel and are without means to go the green route is elitist, and we are not running out of fuel since supply and demand will be governed by pricing - some things will be deemed unnecessary and be put on hold until prices reach a level where their percieved value will be higher than the asking price.
juliette
Anders Cornelius Madsen
Rimu