Unless we act, the new fuel poverty will be Petrol

This is actually a train of thought I began a while ago, but hadn’t got round to finishing, so apologies that the discussion’s probably moved on a bit. As I was driving back from a weekend away with my wife in the East Midlands, we stopped and pulled over for petrol. Resigned to the fact that it was likely to be more expensive than last time I topped up, I pulled in to the pumps. It seems that the time between jumps in petrol prices keeps getting shorter. Although I’ve just got a lease car which is much more economical than the last car I had, it’s a diesel, making that initial fill up all the more wallet-busting. Whilst I was standing filling the car, my mind thought ‘where will it end’? With the Government annoucing it will be keeping the VAT rise in petrol for the next couple of years, it looks as if petrol will only keep going up. So what can we do?

If the trend continues, many people will be forced out of their current way of living. Now using economics to drive behaviour change can be good if done properly, i.e. by offering suitable alternatives, but not this case. In one of those bizarre coincidences that seem to happen all too often, the Commission for Rural Communities and the Joseph Rowntree foundation have been busy looking at the cost of rural living. Staggeringly, they found that the cost of  rural living is almost 20% higher than that of cities.

We may have to rethink the way we structure our communities. We’ll either need to create more local opportunities, or look at providing much more sustainable connections. The Transition Towns movement have already been dealing with this issue from an environmental perspective, focusing the issue through the lens of peak oil. However, their green tinge often gets them marginalised. But the reality is that as cuts start to bite, and bus subsidies start to disappear, we really need to think about how to solve the problems in rural communities

The other big question is what this means for the new work going on to put in infrastructure that will meet the needs. At the moment, to really drive the uptake of electric cars, infrastructure is being put in in cities because its the only way to get close to making the economics work, but even then it’s a loss. Removing planning restrictions on charging points helps, but if it’s not economical in the first place, then there’s little incentive  to start out. In fact, as demand for petrol in cities begins to dwindle, the cost of bringing it to market for rural communities who will depend on it most will go sky high.

So that’s one solution out. What about the role of Total Place, or Place-based budgeting as it’s now known? Surely the idea of pooling budgets in an area will help these matters as communities will divert funds to tackling these problems? Well, maybe, but it will always be at the expense of something else. For example, Cumbria has the smallest number of inhabitants per hectare, but the largest road network. Running, and maintaining this is incredibly expensive, and so its inevitable that something else will suffer. Again, rural broadband schemes such as Cybermoor in Alston have helped, but it has required massive investment to even get the fibreoptic in the ground, and only a few people signed up for BT’s recent race to infinity.

The added problem is that in looking at jobs and opportunities, there is still a need for physical access in a lot of situations, especially those which open up future opportunities. Going to sixth form requires a bus to college or a willing parent, taking a driving test requires being able to get to a test centre etc.

So how do we crack this? Well, if we’re serious about this, then the idea of redressing the balance between rural and city dwellers has to be the main aim, and in reality this has to involve money. Now the Government doesn’t have a good track record in this area, having recently distributed the Local Government Grant giving very little if no weight to the North-South divide, and with no investment in new rail stock in the North, instead giving them the hand-me-downs of southern commuters. However, the idea of a fuel subsidy (rather than a stabiliser) for rural areas is a good idea, and probably the fairest, as long as it takes into account a few factors.

Applying a stabiliser will help the country in general, but will still re-inforce the divide between those born in rural areas, and those in cities. It also does nothing to acknowledge that we need to be driving people off petrol and onto other transport if at all possible. Instead, A subsidy to those who have no alternatives is more sensible. Where community transport could fill a gap, or demand-responsive services such as dial a ride, then they should be used, but rural communities already do things like share lifts, or do favours for others when making a long journey.

A subsidy would go some way to redressing the inequality gap created by geography and removes one of the main barriers of those in rural areas to accessing opportunity. However, it would need to have the caveat attached for those who have moved out of choice, or can afford to pay the costs, lest it be an unfair burden on the taxpayer. This in itself will not be a panacea, but it would be a good start to a sustainable future…

Advertisement