For All Our Sakes
With Climate Change pressure, auto fuel around the world will go up.
Fortunately the American public at least will take a 3X price increase without bitching.
Iran has been offline for three days after the government responded to widespread protests by killing the internet. Anti-government protests started on Friday when the authorities announced a sudden 50 per cent increase in fuel prices. The protests quickly spread to over 100 cities and towns, reflecting deeper hostility to the …
(This post has been edited to remove words and phrases that cause panick among the President's appointed snow flakes.)
CO2 lets sunlight through but blocks infra-red (what sunlight becomes after hitting Earth) this is the source of heat for Modal Warning. Burning fossil fuels creates CO2. Transport is a major use of fossil fuels. Increasing the price of fuel gives people a financial incentive to reduce distance travelled or to travel in a more efficient vehicle.
"Increasing the price of fuel gives people a financial incentive to reduce distance travelled or to travel in a more efficient vehicle."
Spoken/written like a politician. Ignoring the fact a lot of people are stuck in dead end jobs that just about pay minimum wage. Because of this they are still forced to drive the £250 shit box that was all they could afford, for the job that requires a car. They'd love an electric vehicle (while they can still charge them without massive queues at stations due to how long they take to charge) but couldn't possibly afford one. Not only that, when living in a council estate there are two issues. The fact you can't dangle a power lead out of your top floor flat all the way down to charge the car and the fact there are, to put it bluntly, knuckle headed cunts that live in said block who'll either try to nick the electric car or smash it up just because its not theirs & because they can. And you have the politicians or reg readers saying "Just put the price of petrol up. It will force the poor to abandon their car they can't afford to abandon or force them into getting an electric vehicle" when in fact it will just force them into more poverty because they'll be forced to pay the higher price in petrol due to having no other way out. The only people that can afford that electrical car switch are the ones already with money and now they'll have even more money to wave in our face.
Well, yes, fossil fuels account for most of our wealth. And so we've been living above our means for decades - the people that can afford to drive a car every day are certainly NOT "poor" by worldwide standards. (But I'm not going to discount their feeling of being "trapped" either - by definition, it takes a very weird type of person to go against social norms !)
Increasing the price of fuel gives people a financial incentive to reduce distance travelled or to travel in a more efficient vehicle
Of course it does! After all, here in ArseTrailer, when cigarettes went up in the space of a few years from $3.00 a pack to $40.00+, everyone simply stopped smoking.
I know one couple who emigrated from Oz to California, mostly because of the (and I'm quoting here) "inbred mouth-breathing cunts in Canberra" ... but it was the tax on cigs that pushed 'em over the edge.
She was born in Perth, he's a Native Californian, but was raised mostly in Melbourne (Mom from CA, dad from Australia).
Oddly enough, after two years in CA they have now both quit smoking entirely ...
It was a simple question. Why would climate change increase fuel prices? Prices are normally determined by supply and demand, and, of course, taxes/fees also have an impact.
The climate certainly has no effect on supply, and a movement to sustainable energy supplies would seem to decrease demand. That would usually tend to lower fuel costs, absent other factors.
Mainly because of decades of climate emergencies turning out to be nonsense.
Ask yourself why we're all worried about climate change and not global warming, and indeed whether it's because all of the global warming climate models used to foment such fear and calls for action turned out to be entirely fucking wrong.
At this stage a degree of scepticism is very appropriate. Reduce plastics use, seek more efficient everything, minimise resource use but don't go using discredited models based on faked data to try and scare me into shit.
"If you think the current models are based on faked data, you are part of the problem."
If you don't believe climate science is heavily politicized, YOU are part of the problem.
As far as "scientific consensus" goes, I can supply a long list of "approved hypotheses" that were disproved later. Science is REQUIRED to include doubt and demands attempts to disprove hypotheses.
Any attempt to shut down scientific debate is a sure sign of Ideology rearing its ugly head. Only political types try to silence dissent. True scientists WELCOME it.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
@BigSLitleP - All the current models are based on "adjusted data" - why are they afraid of using "raw" data?
Who wrote the computer modeling programs? Those who trumpet climate change did. Adjust a few lines of code here and there, and you'll get a completely different conclusion, maybe one that discredits climate change.
If you think current models are completely accurate, you are part of the problem.
"Climate Emergencies" are invented by press and politicians when they want to stir up public opinion or sell something (newspapers, advertising, unpopular policies, whatever). Science simply ploughs on, building up a body of evidence that nobody wants to read about because it's not melodramatic or divisive enough.
We talk about Climate Change because, since the 19th century, that's what it's been referred to in scientific papers. Are you confusing newspaper headlines with actual science?
Discredited models and fake data? Are you sure? You have citations (that don't come from sensationalist Op Ed pieces, I mean)?
We are currently, according to very well researched evidence, at, or possibly a little way past, the point where changes in human behaviour might have helped to reduce the impact of CO2 on our climate. Scientists regard this as an emergency, not simply because the opportunity to do something is rapidly slipping away (if it hasn't already) but also because no bugger seems to be interested in doing anything in case it interferes with profits. No, the world is not going to end in fire in 20 years, but neither is it going to "sort things out on its own"
if the people will rise against 13 CENTS a litre, what would happen if they ever have to charge $2 a litre
the govt will crack down, 00's possibly 000's will die, yet the people WILL prevail, they are already aware of a world outside Iran, the older generation will still recall when they had basic freedoms, and WOMEN were granted full access to education / work etc, even with the Shah's use of Savak - secret police - to hold onto power, the people will also be aware of how that turned out too
the world is watching, it is a toothless beast on most occasions, but Iran DOES have OIL
and it is, therefore, a good candidate for 'liberation' ......................
we shall have to wait and see, and, sadly, the people there will, again, suffer
sometimes this world we live makes me feckin weep
Do you not think the fact they have oil in some way influences the media reporting like it possibly does with Venezuela? The 1st and 2nd countries in oil reserves. In honesty we can't know for sure, I may wrong however when I look at how these things are reported and consider the other countries rioting like Chile and Ecuador against social injustice from installed dictators and how they are not reported I think somethings not quite right. Hong Kong gets reported not because of oil or that they care, it's to perpetuate a world view, not one that I disagree with in this regard. I should give Iraq an honourable mention seeing as though nobody else really is, it's funny how once you have secured the oil fields the people don't matter anymore.
You have that the wrong way up, because you haven't understood the technical meaning of reserves. Venezuela and Iran have the world's largest reserves because they're failed states: reserves are what has been proven to the 'ready to pump profitably right now' standard, and because it's quite expensive to prove that, only mad countries do so for more than the next few years. Venezuela has 350 years of production lined up...
The got used to cheap fuel. About 6-7 years ago when I had my last trip to Venezuela we filled up a big 4x4 which had a 70 litre tank and we paid with loose change in our pockets, when I did the math it came around to about 1 US dollar... puts perspective on the fuel taxes we pay in Europe, which is about half the price of the actual fuel if I'm not mistaken (too lazy to google, sorry).
which is about half the price of the actual fuel if I'm not mistaken
Fuel duty plus VAT in the UK equals approximately three times the cost of the actual fuel.
I think I'm right in saying Norway has some of the cheapest fuel in Europe. As of right now Diesel here is about 10p cheaper per litre than my old home town, outside Portsmouth. Add in the difference in salaries and it becomes cheaper still.
Well, technically I got out of Portsmouth every Saturday afternoon when I went home from shopping. I guess Havant's not much better in the grand scheme of things though. :)
I left the area proper in the mid 90s though. Haven't looked back. (Have rarely been back to be honest.)
The actual cost figure alone like that doesn't give a lot of information: it's cheap, compared to US or EU prices, but it doesn't tell the whole story. It doesn't tell if the fuel makes up a big part of household budgets, which is more important to evaluate the impact of a 50% price increase. And fuel price increase will also impact food production and good deliveries, so it would raise prices across the board.
Even with the price increase Iran’s 13 cents a liter gas prices
If the Iranians riot over 13 cents per litre what would they do if they have a price rises we have here. In the last couple of days prices here have jumped up by 40+ cents per litre (33% increase). Lately this is standard for the regular price hike cycle.
Jump price 25% during the day, drop steadily over the next couple of weeks to the starting price (or close to it), rinse, repeat.
Oil companies here really rip us off.
I get it sanctions are hurting, cash reserves are dwindling and a large part of your budget is spent on fuel subsidies. You want to reduce that so you have more money to spend on, I dont know, equipping your thugs, sorry military. But EVERYTIME a dictorial regime ups its fuel or food prices massively by slashing subsidies, it gets massive riots. Often those riots escelate and the subsidies get reintroduced anyway, but the riots continue, and down falls the regime or at least it gets significantly weakened. EVERYTIME.
Cant you play the long game for once? You've been managing your dictatorship for years now, show some patience. Drop the subsidies by a couple of cents a year until they're gone. People might grumble but an extra 2c per litre is not enough to bring people out on to the streets. But add 50c per litre and boom instant protests.
Really how is this not in the basic Dictatorship for Beginners 101 course?
It is always difficult to judge. The plan could be to identify the trouble makers and shoot them but I have such confidence in politicians that I believe the real answer is that back when they could afford to slowly increase prices they decided to delay because fairies riding unicorns would save them real soon now.
Was it Churchill who described it as riding tigers and they couldn't get off?
When misery reaches a certain level, things are just waiting for a spark. It doesn't matter whether it's something big or little, it just happens to be the wrong thing at the wrong time, and things blow up.
Looking at the death count from this latest round of protests, this might be the time where the Mullahs lose control of the situation.
They've been monkeying with their subsidies and local-use quotas for the last several years. They used to subsidise all sorts of random products (the standard big-organisation accumulation of decades of whatever seemed like a good idea at the time, applied to subsidies), then scrapped them all for a household-based UBI scheme, then scrapped that and started with the random subsidies again. They've managed to get away with most of them, and probably assumed they would again.
I read that to mean they have subdued or detained 80% of the protesters.
And to those who are surprised about riots over 13 cents per liter gas prices, you forget that they don't have the same quality of life that you enjoy. This article from the World Bank paints a picture that is not all rosy. Unemployment is up, reaching an average of over 12% (more than 28% for the young). Poverty levels are rising up again, even though the bottom 40% of the population has seen an improvement due to international aid. With the sanctions, this is once again getting worse. Inflation is set to reach 30% in the coming years. Thirty percent.
Look at your salary and image it being worth only two-thirds of that next year and tell me that you'd feel perfectly fine with a 50% price hike for fuel.
I don't think so.
I'd be delighted. Long overdue. Of course it should be offset against a reduction in some more evil tax: for example, the employment tax they call "national insurance" that falls heavily on both hardworking people and productive business.
Wasn't it 1973 we had a price hike of more than 100%?
Look at your salary and image it being worth only two-thirds of that next year and tell me that you'd feel perfectly fine with a 50% price hike for fuel.
After Dad died, we were doing a clear-out and found his salary book from the 70s. Around 74 maybe?
He was getting a 2% pay rise, every month. This was because inflation was over 20% - and the company would go bust if it started paying its staff 24% more at the beginning of the year. But if they waited until the end of the year - he'd only be on 3/4 of his original salary, in cash terms, and he wouldn't be able to afford it.
On the plus side, their mortgage was "only" at about 18% interest - and the face value of it was dropping rapidly in real terms.
It being the 70s, he needed all that money to keep me in brown trousers and purple t-shirts. Often with orange stripes.
I was there. Wonderful Labour. Had to take my passport to a bank and get it stamped to have foreign country for overseas work. Wife and I used to use credit cards to buy ahead for household items we could not afford. With the constant pay rises buy now pay later saved a lot of cash even with the high interest. The 18% was only for a few weeks until the banks got hold of the politicians and made it clear they were going to screw their heads off. That is not an exaggeration, it was that serious. I didn't vote for Corbyn et al and this memory was why. I won't rant on.
But ... but ... it wasn't called BP when they mounted that coup against the democratic government back in 1953 and installed a western-puppet despot.
That could be consigned to history and mostly-forgotten, if it wasn't for the West's much more recent oppression of them. Like sponsoring our (then-) regional henchman Saddam Hussain to attack them in his most brutal war, and like the US rejecting all attempts by Iranian governments (starting with Khatemi in the 1990s) to build bridges and normalise relations.
If you have cheap fuel to compensate for expensive food and everything else then any rise is going to hurt big time.
For this rise they can directly blame the government and focus their anger.
So perhaps not surprising that there are mass protests.
Comparing fuel tax with the affluent First World economies is misleading at best.
Affordability should be the test.
while I have a fairly mainstream view of the regime, I would say that it would be terribly naive to think that "foreign elements" were NOT behind it - or at least that they play some role. After all, "regime change" in Iran is still a policy actively supported by a few, nameless, leading western democracies, is it not?
The current dismal state of their economy is the direct result of the US unilaterally leaving the agreement and bullying all companies that use dollars into stopping their (legal) investments there. The other signatories are either unwilling or unable to help, which doesn't make them look like trustful partners.
That can only push their government to become even more authoritarian to keep order, with a good enough claim of the moral high ground that it can last for a good while still.
Things will probably get worse :/
Ah - an onmitsu*. I was wondering how long you guys would take to turn up.
A word of advice: using the (false) phrase "the middle east's only democracy" is always a giveaway. Do try to be a bit more subtle in future.
* Government agent, to save you the trouble of looking it up.
they sponsor terrorists, we support freedom fighters. They murder in secret, we neutralise in covert operations. They plot to overthrow democratically elected governments, we support regime change. I heard all that before, first time, some 40 years ago, on a black-and-white telly, channel 1 (out of 2 available and ch. 2 running only from 4 p.m. on week-days, oh the indignity!). Now I hear the same story on a 40-inch UHD flat screen, in full colour. Fortunately, I'm on the good side again, who would have thought...
Removing subsidies is generally a good thing. Most oil producing countries subsidise energy as a sop to the population. This seems great as long as they can afford to do it but gets harder to do when the economy sours, or the oil price moves in the wrong way. Things can then get worse badly with a black market exporting the subsidised fuel, often at a massive profit to neighbouring countries, leading to shortages.
Things in Iran are complicated by America's decision to renege on the argeement. At the same time, other parts of incontinent US foreign policy have encouraged Iran to expand its influence in the region: Iran, Syria and Yemen.
Go Donald, go!
It wasn't the US that encouraged Iran to expand into Yemen. They did that on their own. It was their work in Yemen and Syria that encouraged Trump to break the nuclear deal - although as it was one of Obama's successes, he was bound to not like it anyway.
It is pretty pathetic that the Europeans have failed to even get their "special purpose vehicle" to protect investment into Iran up and running by now. When did Trump pull out of the agreement? 2 years ago?
I suspect their heart isn't really in it, because the Iranians aren't exactly easy to work with. But it's a pretty massive failure of diplomacy - that's going to make future deals harder to agree.
It was their work in Yemen and Syria that encouraged Trump to break the nuclear deal
Like I said: incontinent foreigen policy, which has lead to both Iran and Russia expanding their influence in the region. But, hey, at least the US got to sell loads of weapons to the Saudis.
The SPV isn't really the issue as long as the US threatens to punish any companies involved in trading with Iran and not just freeze them out of SWIFT, which forces multinationals to choose. Cooperating with China on the SPV is complicated by the stalled US-China trade talks. In the meantime, most oil producers are suffering by the slump in demand.
More incontience: Trump wants South Korea to pay more for the US troops stationed there. As a result, South Korea has started to talk with China about military cooperation.
I was quite impressed by many of the comments and facts given in the comments so far. There are many 'facts' quoted in the media which are inaccurate or misleading. I live in the UK but have Iranian friends and have read quite a lot about Iran's history and these recent events.
Firstly, the price increase is more than just the 50% quoted by some. I believe the price was 1000 toman ( a toman is 10 rial) per litre before for 120 litres per month (I am unsure of the price after that). Now the subsidised amount has been reduced by 50% to 60 litres per month and the price for that raised to 1500 toman. After that the price increases to 3000 toman. That is a 300% rise for the 60 litres that used to be at the lower subsidised rate and no doubt still a big increase over the previous higher rate.
Whilst the media state this is only a few cents per litre and state it is very cheap they are quoting against the free or black market rate for currency exchange which is 3 times lower/higher depending on whether you are buying or selling than the official rate. The official rate the government quote is not available to the general population. As some have stated the costs of fuel is all relative to their income and available funds. Whilst some in Iran are very rich and there are loads of expensive thirsty cars, most people are poor and paid maybe just 10 dollars a day and are struggling to afford to live and feed their families. I went to Argentina in 2002 when their financial crash happened and the Peso plunged against the Dollar etc. We ate at a 'All you can eat Restaurant' for about £1.25 per adult which was less than 2 Dollars and incredibly cheap to us. However, I spoke to an Englishman in there who lived and worked there and he said it was expensive to them.
When I went to the US and petrol/gas there was half the price of the UK (we currently pay about $6.20 per US Gallon/3.8 Litres) people we spoke to said they wouldn't pay our prices. The answer is they would if they had to but they would start to think more about fuel efficiency like most here have to.
Yes, the situation in Iran is bad due to an oppressive regime (more asylum seekers have come to the UK from Iran than from any other country in recent years) but this is not helped by the mistreatment and exploitation that has happened by the West, especially the UK and USA. Donald Trump and his cronies are the worst in a long time and bringing shame on the USA and are causing the greatest danger to the world at present I believe. Unfortunately we have mini- Trump in UK. As they say, we get the Government we deserve!
Yes, you are right to a large extent. I suppose my comment is partly inaccurate as due to the unfairness of electoral systems, the winner may get less than 50% of the votes and not everyone is entitled to vote or bothers to vote so they can be elected by a minority. Also in Iran, the people were fooled into voting in the Islamic regime (partly due to religious indoctrination) and now have no means to change that even if the majority would like to.
I personally am against Brexit and believe that people were largely fooled by misleading information and lack of information about what it really is. Despite ever poll saying that a small majority are now in favour of remain, the Government and majority of politicians are not willing to have a second referendum. I think the statement that we get the government we deserve is unfair on the good people who would like a better more caring system.
I'm not sure whether he'll be able to resist the call of the allotment for much longer. But certainly members of his coterie like Seamus Milne and Len McLuskey will be thinking along those lines. And on the other side we've got people like Dominic Cummings frothing at the mouth with their desire to rollback democracy.
It's the late 1970s all over again and wasn't that fun? Oh, and I seem to remember Iran played a role then as well.
Iran kills the internet for its people's own good as riots grip the Middle Eastern nation. Country offline for third day in response to protests
Thus conclusively proving internets work and provide alternate reality programs/projects/presentations/opportunities ... rather than creating any unnecessary problem?
And they are vital to command and control to survive and thrive with energy in power.
Some would tell you that is important, and may even be realised and/or imagined almighty.
What tests are there for IT to perform Such Spiel?
When the answer is none, you are in a position to lead with all of the aforementioned to follow. ....... which in some circles would be akin to a sort of insider trading.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021