Mais sobre o aumento dos preços dos combustíveis

Manuela Ferreira Leite esteve bem ao negar a defesa da diminuição do imposto sobre os produtos petrólíferos.

A argumentação expendida no último Prós e Contras por Nogueira Leite sobre o comportamento da receita cobrada por via desse imposto deve ser qualificada (questionada) - o valor cobrado por conta daquele imposto diminuiu mas a subida do IVA cobrado nas transacções de combustíveis mais que compensou essa descida; a descida da receita do imposto resulta da concorrência da oferta espanhola de combustíveis, mas deve-se também ao efeito da contracção da procura de combustíveis - com a população e a actividade económica a concentrarem-se no litoral, penso que o efeito que predomina será o da contracção da procura (e, logo, o aumento do recurso aos transportes públicos). A concorrência espanhola é um problema, mas até prova em contrário, não justifica a descida do imposto - haveria perda de receita fiscal e o efeito de alívio relativo para o consumo das famílias seria destruído pela subida continuada do preço do petróleo.

As ligações que apresento abordam aspectos diferentes desta problemática (no que respeita à ênfase, porque acabam por falar dos outros aspectos): o da liderança política neste processo (ou falta dela); a argumentação económica contra a descida dos impostos sobre os combustíveis; a situação do mercado do petróleo. As últimas notas sobre esta questão neste blogue: ver aqui, aqui, aqui, e ainda há mais sob a etiqueta energia.

1. Liderança política:
   
   Letters: Lack of action on climate change is criminal Environment The Guardian
   
   
   

   "The hardship and disruption being caused by rising oil prices demonstrates just how much simpler a transition to a zero-carbon economy would be if we planned for it with foresight and determination, rather than having it thrust upon us (Producers say $200 oil is possible, May 23).

   
   
   
   

   How much easier would it be for the government to resist calls to abandon fuel tax rises, for example, had it used a windfall tax on oil companies to invest in a massive expansion of affordable public transport measures? When the government's own figures show that we could save 30% of the energy we currently use through cost-efficient energy-saving measures alone, it is approaching criminal negligence for ministers not to have invested in such measures as a priority.

   
   
   
   

   Peak oil experts warn us that global demand for oil is outstripping its supply, and rising oil prices are here to stay. Climate scientists warn that unless we urgently reduce global carbon emissions to well below their current levels, climate chaos will be unavoidable. The wake up calls could hardly be louder. Gordon Brown has promised he's in listening mode, yet his failure to demonstrate any political leadership on this issue risks compounding an environmental disaster with a social justice disaster." (continua)

   
   
   
   

   Why, Hillary, why? Gristmill: The environmental news blog Grist Climate Progress » Blog Archive » Gas Tax Holiday, Part 4: Report from the Field:

   
   
   
   

   "National leaders need to help citizens understand, accept and adapt to the new realities of this new century. Rising oil prices is one of them. What we don’t need is pandering to voters and more schemes to keep oil company profits up, at the expense of America’s long-term prosperity and security."



2. 
   

   Argumentação económica contra a descida dos impostos:

   
   
   
   

   Economist's View: "The Invisible Hand Is Shaking"

   
   



3. 
   

   Situação do mercado do petróleo (mas não só):

   
   
   
   

   FT.com / Comment & analysis / Comment - Oil has reached a turning point

   
   
   
   

   "Oil prices at this level take us into a new world – “Break Point” – where the question is not only “how high can the price go?”, but also “what will be the response?” Is this the point at which oil begins to lose its almost total domination in transport? Yes, the current high oil price may be a demand shock triggered by what had been several years of excellent global economic growth, and thus more benign than supply shocks caused by 1970s-style disruptions.

   
   
   
   

   It is amplified by a dollar shock caused by the fall in the dollar and by the embrace by financial investors of oil (and other commodities) as an asset class. What is now unfolding is an oil shock. The fact that the world could take $80 in its stride in the context of strong economic growth does not mean that a price that is 60 per cent higher at a time of a credit crunch will be so easily assimilated. The economic toll is mounting. Airlines are certainly in shock as they start charging for checked luggage to find a way to pass on their biggest cost. Carmakers are reeling. Retailers are tracking the shrinking wallets of their customers.

   
   
   
   

   The rising prices for food reflect, in part, the impact of higher energy costs. Oil supply, one might think, should be responding. Yet there are three obstacles. The first is time. These high prices have not been around all that long and development of new supplies takes many years. The second is access to new resources. And the third factor is what is happening to costs. The public focuses on the price at the pump, but the oil industry is preoccupied, and indeed somewhat stymied, by how rapidly their own costs are rising – far exceeding the rate of general inflation. The latest IHS/Cambridge Energy Research Associates (Cera) Upstream Capital Cost Index – the consumer price index for the oilfield – shows that costs for developing a new oil or natural gas field have more than doubled in four years. Some costs have risen even more: a deep-water drill ship might have cost $125,000 per day to rent four years ago. Today it goes for more than $600,000 per day – if you can find one.

   
   
   
   

   Everything is in short supply – people, equipment, engineering skills. Be­cause of the contractions that came with the price collapses of 1986 and 1998, there is a missing generation in the oil industry. More than half the petro-professionals are less than 10 years away from retirement. A petroleum engineer graduating this year is likely to receive a higher starting salary than an Ivy League graduate going to Wall Street. This competition for people and equipment has driven up costs dramatically. These costs and shortages are now causing delays to new projects. Demand is already responding to the new prices except in those parts of the world where retail fuel prices are controlled or subsidised.

   
   
   
   

   What can be done to improve the supply picture? The International Energy Agency’s work on future supply is getting attention. But the IEA’s message is not that the resources are not there. Rather it is the likely risk that the required investment will be “deferred” – will not take place in a timely way – because of these rising costs and because governments restrict access or postpone decisions. This underscores the basic need during an oil shock – to encourage the timely investment that will relieve the pressures. That means encouraging efficient decision-making by resource-holding countries and facilitating complex projects that bring on new supplies. An example of the difference engagement can make is the support the US administration gave to the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. Without that new 1m barrels a day capacity pipeline we would not have that additional oil flowing to the Mediterranean.

   
   
   
   

   The impact of rising oilfield costs and the importance of encouraging investment need to be taken into account when considering a “windfall profits” tax or other new taxes. However attractive politically, the effect would be to constrain investment and to lead to lower production levels than would otherwise be the case. Two years ago, Cera created its Break Point scenario, to explore how supply disruptions and delayed development would lead to $120-$150 oil. What was not fully anticipated was the impact of rapidly rising costs. Not anticipated at all was a falling dollar and how it has stimulated a rush by investors into oil. The real question in the scenario was what would be the response to such high prices. Could oil lose its traction?

   
   
   
   

   That answer is already unfolding – in terms of public policy, technology, consumer response and corporate strategies. At the end of 2007, as oil was heading towards $100 for the first time, the US Congress passed the first bill requiring an increase in automobile fuel efficiency in 32 years. Consumers now want to buy fuel efficiency not sport utility vehicles. Hybrids are going from fringe to mainstream and a concerted assault has been launched on the problems of battery technology. While the backlash against biofuels has gained in intensity with rising food prices, biology is now engaged with the energy business as never before; and biofuels will be a growing part of the motor fuel pool. If “Ethanol” was a country, it would have been ranked number five last year among countries in terms of production growth. The break point is already here.

   
   
   
   

   Oil is in the process of losing its almost total domination in ground transport. It is not going to fade away soon – such is the scale of its use and convenience, it will retain a dominant position for many years. But it will share the transport market with other sources as never before, reinforced by a new drive for fuel efficiency.

   
   
   
   

   Econbrowser: Oil price fundamentals Grasping Reality with Both Hands: The Semi-Daily Journal Economist Brad DeLong:

   
   
   
   

   "Martin Wolf on how the high price of oil is Mr. Market's way of giving us tough love: FT.com / Columnists / Martin Wolf - The market sets high oil prices to tell us what to do: [O]il... is a finite resource; it drives the global transport system; and if emerging economies consumed oil as Europeans do, world consumption would jump by 150 per cent. What is happening today is an early warning of this stark reality. It is tempting to blame the prices on speculators and big bad oil companies.

   
   
   
   

   The reality is different. Demand for oil grows steadily, as the vehicle fleets of the world expand. Today, the US has 250m vehicles and China just 37m. It takes no imagination to see where the Chinese fleet is headed. Other emerging countries will follow China’s example.... It looks increasingly hard to expand supply by the annual amount of about 1.4m barrels a day needed to meet demand. This means an extra Saudi Arabia every seven years.... [I]f speculation were raising prices above the warranted level, one would expect to see inventories piling up rapidly, as supply exceeds the rate at which oil is burned. Yet there is no evidence of such a spike...."

   The hot-air harvest Comment is free:

   "Far more convincing is the second view: that fundamental shifts are taking place which mean our basic commodities - food, oil, metals - will probably be expensive for a long time to come. That era of cheap resources, which lasted from the 80s all the way up until the early part of this decade, is over.

   Just look at the Agricultural Outlook released today by the rich nations' club, the OECD. Commodity prices, it says, 'will average substantially higher above the levels that prevailed in the past 10 years'. Over the next decade, wheat and maize will be 40% to 60% more expensive than they were from 1998 to 2007; butter will be 60% dearer, and vegetable oil prices over 80% higher. Not only that, but they will also be far more volatile.

   As that Economist cover proves, forecasters often make the mistake of believing present conditions will carry on as far as the eye can see. After all, the last time we saw a food and oil shock was in the 70s - and while it was nasty, it was followed by decades of low prices. Won't something similar happen this time? It's unlikely.

   The commodity crunch of the 1970s was a supply shock; this is a demand shock. As the Chinese and Indians and others from formerly poor countries eat more meat and drive more cars, so the price of food and oil rises. These people are not consuming as much per head as British or Americans, but the trajectory is fairly clear. As the OECD agricultural outlook predicts, 'By 2017, developing countries are expected to dominate production and consumption of most commodities'."