On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 20:46:06 +0100, "JNugent"
Probably.
It's denser.
Without a lot of effort, each barrel of crude produces a certain amount of fuel oil (diesel) and a certain amount of napthas (petrol). You could crack diesel into petrol, or reform petrol into diesel. But the volumes would not be identical as the fuels are of quite different densities. There would be less diesel, so each gallon of it represents a greater percentage of the raw material.
No, because a gallon of diesel contains more carbon.
I'm afraid they both are. Suppose you invented a wonder process that compressed each 35-gallon barrel of crude into one gallon of hyper-diesel on which a car could return 1000mpg but still emitted 150g of CO2 per mile. Would you still tax it at the same rate as normal diesel, on a simple volumetric basis ?
A new oneI followed a police a car for several miles along a SC A road until we reached a roundabout. He went all the way round and came along behind...
I think the idea of a carbon tax is more easy to understand. Diesel contains about 18% more carbon than petrol. The tax should reflect that. Diesel owners will still win as the increase in mpg is usually a bit better than 18%, but for the moment they are getting a bit of a free ride. They buy a gallon of fuel that contains more energy and produces more CO2 and pay pretty much the same.
-- I have a vitally important role serving as a bad example.
Mail john rather than nospam...
