Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to re: That's the problem...

re: That's the problem...
gbaikie — (archived)

"But can you agree to this: the petroleum/coal/natural gas industries and all their support industries don't really want consumers to cut down on the use of their products, whether by more efficient cars or conservation or getting their electricity from nuclear power plants."

I can't agree that this is a significant factor- at least in terms of petroleum.

But since gasoline is taxed, that would make quite a dent in some govt budgets- if 50% of cars using roads were electric and you don't pay taxes on the electricity how do pay for roads [or use these road funds for other things]? If we objectively used your standard- Canada and European govt wouldn't support electric cars. And since America imports about half it's oil- and unless you talking about reducing it by more 50% in the near term it wouldn't affect American producers of oil. But exporters of oil like Canada and Norway by your reasoning would provide most of the opposition. US Domestic coal is a different matter- you have unions for one thing- and these guys can effect politics- unlike the oil execs who congress seems to find much joy in kicking around and blaming things on.

Now, gas station owners might have some influence, but they could sell other things other things than gasoline- they generally most of their money not on gasoline sales, and there is no reason why electric cars couldn't get something like a quick charged, or have car washed, or provide a number of other services.
Bottom line, I don't think oil companies would lose stock value if US consumers used less gasoline- though you did say petroleum- and don't what affect less exports of crude oil would affect the other products made from oil.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (60 posts)