World 'can handle' oil at $60 (Libya)

[bemildred]

Isfahan, Iran - The world economy can handle oil prices of $60 a barrel and Opec ministers are likely to leave their quotas unchanged for the time being, Libya's energy secretary said on Tuesday.

"A barrel at $60 will not affect the world economy," Fathi Hamed ben Shatwan told reporters ahead of Opec meeting here on Wednesday.

"But that does not mean we want oil to be $60. We would like oil prices to be not less than $35, that's all," he added.

News24

[cthrumatrix]

1. most countries could....but the US would be most effected as prices rise

Would people like $2.50 - $3 gallon for gas?

[ProgressiveConn]

2. I would!

Heck I'd like to see a plan to increase gas prices at least five fold over the next decade and dedicating that extra tax revenue to finding a better solution.

[ashmanonar]

3. we've had this argument.

the problem with this is that not everybody has access to public transit, or carpooling: so the people in rural areas get fucked in the ass over gas prices. (in the other discussion, it was advocated to raise prices over 6 or 7 bucks. up to 3 would probably be beneficial, europe and asia already pay more than 2 bucks a liter...)

plus there's the question of "can you really trust the government to spend the tax money on research, and not more military equipment that we don't need and the soldiers don't want?" (and not on supporting the actual troops, as should be done with what we have)

[ProgressiveConn]

4. I don't trust this regime at all. But that musta been obvious. =)

I'd want to announce a gradual rise over a decade so that those who live in rural areas will best be able to plan for the changes. I'd also offer significant incentives partially funded from the increased gas tax for the purchases of means of reducing fossil fuel use. Buy a hybrid get a significant tax deduction. We should be making it economically painful to continue to use fossil fuels if we ever want to get out of this situation.

[ktowntennesseedem]

5. Agreed. I'm all for more research into alternatives,

and personally wouldn't mind the extra financial burden, but I wouldn't trust this bunch to use that money as intended.

[Inland]

6. But the higher oil prices are coming, whether we like it or not

until the day comes that demand is lessened.

Therefore the concept of taxing oil use should only be only the lines of, do you want to pay more for oil and have the money go to the US now, or pay more for oil and have the money go overseas later?

The issue of how the government spends the revenue raised from a tax on oil is incidental. Higher prices will lead to change, whether the prices rise gradually now or in a steeper curve later.

My preference would be a per barrel oil tax that increases every year automatically for, say, twenty years.

[ashmanonar]

7. the money won't go to the US now, is my point.

it's going to multinational corps who are only HQed in the US, but don't pay the taxes here that they should. the money wouldn't be paid to the people of the US, but those few oil tycoons (and the governmental figures who protect them).

yes, the price will go up sooner or later. if we can get alternative energies into maturity before that point, we'll be better off. we don't need to be using oil for all those years into the future anyways, the planet is screwed up enough by us already.

[w4rma]

8. They're the ones who voted Republican and therefore let this happen.

They're the ones who should pay.

[cthrumatrix]

9. lack of planning goes back many administrations....coprs. own both

parties...we were sold out