Surely, by any fair reckoning, it must be a multiple of the current wholesale market rate of about $100 per barrel (for crude oil). http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/O...
There are probably some calculations here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Revie...
Although not very up-to-date as to price and cost levels.
It would also be logical to suppose that development of shale oil and gas, etc, in North America would cut two ways. Lower cost due to less need for military intervention in the Mideast, higher cost due to collateral carbon footprint, disruption of water tables, risk of pipeline breaks, etc.
re "Why are different counties being paid different royalty for the same product?"
Extraction and delivery costs, taxes, subsidies all vary.
The product also varies slightly, "sweet" oil vs heavy etc.
re "Who will pay the unpaid bill in the end?"
The whole world, for many centuries to come, because CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for centuries.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
What ever they are, they are cheaper than environmental concerns. At least mankind in general gets some benefit from the money it spend on fossil fuel. When we donate a trillion dollars to the UN for Global Warming mankind in general gets nothing.
"Does this cover the infrastructure, roads, police protection, power lines etc.? "
What does this have to do with fossil fuels? We had police long before fossil fuels. We had roads before fossil fuels. Just look up Roman history.
You are just a hysteric fool! Your question makes no sense.
We are all paying the cost. It is a paid cost. We have an atmosphere that is marginally dirtier but the atmosphere has mechanism to remove both particulates/aerosols and even carbon compounds.
Those who foolishly look to ban carbon fuels never seem to look at the benefits and low cost of carbon based energy. The benefits include a much wealthier, healthier, happier life for nearly human being.
Infrastructure is not a cost related to fuel. It is a cost related to transportation. Without a good system of transportation, the bread baskets of the world located in the US up into Canada would be unavailable. The industrial goods from the US to China would be unavailable. I don't need to sit in a cold dark place to feel like I am saving the planet. Frankly, I like to have convenience and comfort.
There is no need for geo-engineering. In fact, I would favor regulations to strictly forbid it because over reaction is a much bigger danger. At most, you could argue that is a potential future cost but it is remote IMO.
$3.39 per gallon at the pump the last time I refueled my car which I believe included about $1.0 in federal and state tax ( other fossil fuels are taxed similarly) which covers the cost of the infrastructure and other costs you identified.
If you were truly concerned about fossil fuel consumption and the environment you would support nuclear power.
Stupid question, without fossil fuels you would have no infrastructure, no funds to pay anything, we would be back in the horse and cart dark ages, up to our necks in horse sh!t
$100 a barrel?
Does this cover the infrastructure, roads, police protection, power lines etc.?
How about the costs of geo engineering to correct imbalance it has created in earths atmosphere.
Why are different counties being paid different royalty for the same product?
Who will pay the unpaid bill in the end?
