White House: Obama not planning to propose a carbon tax

posted at 4:56 pm on November 9, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

Earlier this week, I wondered how much more we’re going to see Obama’s climate-change sympathies show their true colors in his more “flexible” second term, seeing as how he doesn’t have any personal qualms with “necessarily skyrocketing” energy prices. The political trickiness of a carbon tax, ergo, is likely the only thing saving us from such an economically costly imposition, and the White House says that it’s not something they’ll be floating as a measure to stave off the fiscal cliff. From The Hill:

“The Administration has not proposed nor is planning to propose a carbon tax,” [a White House] official said.

Imposing a tax on fossil energy sources to curb greenhouse gas emissions faces huge political hurdles. But the idea has nonetheless received increased attention of late, especially as policymakers seek ways to address the deficit.

The concept drew fresh buzz this week when an analyst with banking giant HSBC predicted that Obama might pursue a carbon tax.

“A second Obama Administration could also explore the potential for raising revenues from a carbon tax as part of a wider package of measures to avoid the 
‘fiscal cliff,’ ” said HSBC’s Nick Robins in a Nov. 7 research note…

So, that’s good news I suppose, but the growing clout of the environmentalist movement continually infiltrating the federal government means that this is hardly the last time we’ll hear about the idea, and let’s not forget about Democrats’ attempts at cap-and-trade during Obama’s first term… (A quick word to the wise, by the way: A carbon does not mean greedy oil executives will be deprived of their ostensibly ill-begotten and immoral profits, or wherever it is proponents claim the money will come from; a carbon tax is a tax on your usage of electricity and gas, and your bills will get more expensive.)

Not to worry, however; the Obama administration has plenty of other ideas for limiting American’s job- and wealth-creation opportunities and restricting energy companies’ access to our abundant natural resources — and who knows what sort of Solyndra-repeats they’ve got up their collective sleeve? It’s okay, guys; it’s all for the noble sake of green energy and sage grouse! Also via The Hill:

The Interior Department on Friday issued a final plan to close 1.6 million acres of federal land in the West originally slated for oil shale development.

The proposed final plan would fence off a majority of the initial blueprint laid out in the final days of the George W. Bush administration.

The move is sure to rankle Republicans, who say President Obama’s grip on fossil fuel drilling in federal lands is too tight.

Interior’s Bureau of Land Management cited environmental concerns for the proposed changes. Among other things, it excised lands with “wilderness characteristics” and areas that conflicted with sage grouse habitats.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Guess Obama doesn’t care about Climate Change. Michael Bloomberg hardest hit.

El_Terrible on November 9, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Bwahahaha! Darn.

C’mon, we’re not going to let him get away with that, are we? Get Pelosi on the line. Tell her we’ve got 30 GOP reps ready to cross the line for a carbon tax.

Put it on his desk and dare him not to sign it. It’ll be easy enough to repeal.

Give the people what they want!

HitNRun on November 9, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Expiration date to follow.

hillsoftx on November 9, 2012 at 5:00 PM

I heard they were floating a consumption tax too.

CoffeeLover on November 9, 2012 at 5:00 PM

“The Administration has not proposed nor is planning to propose a carbon tax,” [a White House] official said.

Which is exactly what he is going to do…

… but he will have the EPA do it.

Seven Percent Solution on November 9, 2012 at 5:03 PM

White House: Obama not planning to propose a carbon tax

He is, however, going to ask businesses to make carbon investments

CycloneCDB on November 9, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Propose? NO… Impose. YES

Who will stop him???

phreshone on November 9, 2012 at 5:04 PM

No links to a story yet, but the AP White House reporter tweeted that Obama is moving to shut down oil shale development in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.

No oil, no carbon. No carbon, no tax.

Steve Eggleston on November 9, 2012 at 5:05 PM

YOU LIE!!!

RedNewEnglander on November 9, 2012 at 5:05 PM

of course not. they’ll get harry reid to do it.

t8stlikchkn on November 9, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Propose? NO… Impose. YES

Who will stop him???

phreshone on November 9, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Nailed. It.

Steve Eggleston on November 9, 2012 at 5:05 PM

tom daschle concerned on November 9, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Ah, there’s the link I was looking for.

Steve Eggleston on November 9, 2012 at 5:06 PM

I say go VAT!

rob verdi on November 9, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Erika:

Just a note. This is oil shale fields, not shale oil. There’s a big difference. And most of that is being kept for strategic purposes. It’s pretty much uneconomical to produce this stuff, since WTI would have to be around $150 a barrel to justify its production.

It is a smack to R and D though, as now companies won’t really be working on how to liquefy all of that gunk in the mountains.

Washington Fancy on November 9, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Whatever.

Mr. Arrogant on November 9, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Egg… If a sensible mind like yours is agreeing with me… i’m officially scared that i’m might be correct… but i’ve seen nothing counterfactual in the past 2 days…

phreshone on November 9, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Bullshit.

Pork-Chop on November 9, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Why would he? No one will be producing any carbon before his second term is out.

Axe on November 9, 2012 at 5:17 PM

White House: Obama not planning to propose a carbon tax

Yea… Right… Alternative Headline: Great-white Shark NOT planning to eat helpless baby Seal… Please, tell me a lie that is at least almost believable.

SWalker on November 9, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Oh it will not be a tax to the government. It will be a regulation which you have to pay someone and file paperwork to make you able to comply with this regulation. there will be a fee to just file which everyone must file. Any new position in the office filling out forms and one less person that could be making the company money by making or selling things. No matter what you do the government will want a form to prove that you are in compliance with this regulation. And when you are not in compliance then the new penalty comes in

If you are a baker you have to calculate some yet unknown environmental impact and file a form, pay a fee and reducing productivity in the bakery.

tjexcite on November 9, 2012 at 5:18 PM

“A carbon does not mean greedy oil executives will be deprived of their ostensibly ill-begotten and immoral profits, or wherever it is proponents claim the money will come from; a carbon tax is a tax on your usage of electricity and gas, and your bills will get more expensive”

It is not true that a carbon tax (or any excise tax) is paid entirely by the consumer. It depends on the elasticity of the demand for the product.

Think about it. If you taxed a product at 100%, would the company just pass the tax onto the consumer? If they tried, no one would buy their product, and the company would go bankrupt.

If demand for a product is perfectly elastic, than the tax is ENTIRELY borne by the company. (Increasing the price of the product by 1 penny would lower sales to the point where incoming revenue would stay the same, by definition. So they could not get any additional money out of consumers). If the demand for a product is inelastic, any increase in price is entirely borne by the consumer (again, just by definition). In reality, it is a mix of both, and the portion borne by the company is a function of the slope of the demand curve.

In this case, the entire point of the tax would be to reduce carbon. Increasing the price (attempting to pass on the tax to consumers) will reduce demand, resulting in less revenue.

jd3181 on November 9, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Only because it would never make it through the house, or even the senate.

He’ll have to use other ways to mess with us.

juliesa on November 9, 2012 at 5:18 PM

No oil, no carbon. No carbon, no tax.

Steve Eggleston on November 9, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Apologies. I snarked again before catching up. In my defense, I’ve been having a couple frenetic and wide-eyed days here.

Axe on November 9, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Its official name is “Carbon Dioxide Tax”.

No such thing as a “Carbon Tax”

BobMbx on November 9, 2012 at 5:21 PM

since WTI would have to be around $150 a barrel to justify its production.

True. no chance of increasing energy demands when businesses are laying off by the hundreds.

MechanicalBill on November 9, 2012 at 5:22 PM

When they deny it, you know it is true.

jukin3 on November 9, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Um, Erika- your disdain is showing. Ooh-la-la!

Scotsman on November 9, 2012 at 5:28 PM

When the electricity shuts off and I see a house with lights because they have government subsidized solar panels, will it help the economy if I throw rocks and break them?

Will I be called a brave patriot for creating work for my comrades?

The Broken Solar Panel Fallacy

Coming soon.

jukin3 on November 9, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Santelli threw out the idea of the Wealth Tax

the advanatage of being a leftist is that you can just think of many ways to take people’s money…you don’t actually have to produce anything. Then you get to call anyone who says, wait that’s my money, you can call the names and wrap dead pigs up in Romney tee shirts

as uncle saul always said…make sure that they have fun doing what they do

r keller on November 9, 2012 at 5:30 PM

They’re not PLANNING to. But, y’know, sh*t happens.

fusionaddict on November 9, 2012 at 5:32 PM

OT/

Dear Lord:

The American people have made their choice. They have decided that America must change its course, away from the principals of our Founders. And, away from the idea of individual freedom and individual responsibility. Away from capitalism, economic responsibility, and personal acceptance.

We are a Country in favor of redistribution, national weakness and reduced standard of living and lower and lower levels of personal freedom.

My regret, Lord, is that our young people, including those in my own family, never will know what America was like or might have been. They will pay the price in their reduced standard of living and, most especially, reduced freedom.

The takers outvoted the producers. In response to this, I have turned to my Bible and in II Peter, Chapter 1, verses 4-9 it says, “To faith we are to add goodness; to goodness, knowledge; to knowledge, self control; to self control, perseverance; to perseverance, godliness; to godliness, kindness; to brotherly kindness, love.”

Lord, please forgive me and anyone with me in Murray Energy Corp. for the decisions that we are now forced to make to preserve the very existence of any of the enterprises that you have helped us build. We ask for your guidance in this drastic time with the drastic decisions that will be made to have any hope of our survival as an American business enterprise.

Amen.

http://www.theintelligencer.net/page/content.detail/id/577008/Murray-Prays-for-America.html?nav=509

Axe on November 9, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Let him propose all he wants, he doesn’t control the House. We do.

Charlemagne on November 9, 2012 at 5:34 PM

I would like a thread to discuss the following proposition: that John Boehner should acceed to Obama’s tax increase on the “rich” (but using $500K as the cutoff). My reasoning is thus:

1) we can’t keep doing the same thing and expect different results.

2) let’s demonstrate how little tax revenue will be generated. Watch how the millionaires disappear into thin air.

3) Then Obama will come after the next layer of earners. Boehner (or whoever is Speaker by that time) will counter with “Why not tax wealth instead?” There’s pots of billionaires in the US – grab a chunk of theirs.

4) isn’t it better to get it over with, while we still remember what we’re fighting for (liberty and all of its sweetness)?

Fiscal cliff time is happening real soon, and Obama has supported pretty much every dime of spending that brought us here, whether as a senator or as prez. He will have to own this. His voters will be the first ones to suffer, rich and poor. Hollywood celebs et al. Then we can watch how they all proceed to scramble and hide their money from Obama – offshore.

I dunno, I need something to look forward to. Watching the Dems rip into America would give me perverse pleasure.

disa on November 9, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Who cares, I’m done. Just do it. They voted for this. As others have been saying around here. Let It Burn.

BeachBum on November 9, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Interior proposal would block oil shale development on federal lands in West
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/267095-interior-proposes-shielding-federal-lands-in-west-from-drilling

The Interior Department on Friday issued a final plan to close 1.6 million acres of federal land in the West originally slated for oil shale development.

Galt2009 on November 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Give the people what they want!

HitNRun on November 9, 2012 at 4:59 PM

I hear you!

Just as a parent has to kick the little birds out of the nest, and let them experience the consequences of their actions, so must we stop shielding these idiots from running out into the street chasing their balls.

disa on November 9, 2012 at 5:41 PM

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

You just never know when another crisis might rear its ugly head…

Fallon on November 9, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Washington Fancy on November 9, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Those fields, 30 years ago, were supposed to be profitable with oil trading at $30/barrel. With the Obama lock-up, they won’t be developed at $30/bbl, $150/bbl, or $1,500,000/bbl.

Steve Eggleston on November 9, 2012 at 5:44 PM

You’ll pardon me if I’m skeptical.

clippermiami on November 9, 2012 at 5:45 PM

“The Administration has not proposed nor is planning to propose a carbon tax,” [a White House] official said

Of course not- Senator-Elect Tammy Baldwin is going to do that for them. Mark my words.

M240H on November 9, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Let him propose all he wants, he doesn’t control the House. We do.

Charlemagne on November 9, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Hasn’t really stopped him yet.

txhsmom on November 9, 2012 at 5:46 PM

We have one thing in our favor that might yet save the country…

Obama is lazy.

Lazy people don’t do much but talk. That is why he is jetting off to Asia when he should be getting to work on important domestic economic issues facing this country. The harder we make him work the less likely he will actually do it.

The House GOP maybe should take this road…

William Eaton on November 9, 2012 at 5:47 PM

AND my way, Obama doesn’t get to blame the Republicans for bringing us into another “crisis” and downgrade.

disa on November 9, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Think about it. If you taxed a product at 100%, would the company just pass the tax onto the consumer? If they tried, no one would buy their product, and the company would go bankrupt.

jd3181 on November 9, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Yes, they would pass on the tax. They would do nothing else. It’s not a competition issue: the entire industry gets the same tax. If they passed a tax on basket-weaving, all the basket weavers would likely close because people would no longer buy their product. So that would be an industry eliminated by government meddling.

But in the case of carbon, what are people going to do? Not drive? They would cut back in response to the price, hurting the economy, but only in response to the price. We don’t care about the gas company’s taxes any more than they care about our wallets. Business is business. The economy, meanwhile, would suffer from decreased consumption and decreased transportation.

More to the point, all taxes are “passed on.” Where else is the business going to get the money to pay the tax? Are they going to borrow it from Obama’s stash? Taking less profit is never an option. It’s a business. The goal is always to make the most money.

Democrats live in a fantasy world where heroic Dem legislators pass taxes and, in response, monocle-clad Republican businessmen jump up and down on their top hats in frustration in another victory for the people. In the real world, Atlas shrugs and the consumer pays.

HitNRun on November 9, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Let him propose all he wants, he doesn’t control the House. We do.

Charlemagne on November 9, 2012 at 5:34 PM

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at that. Probably one, then the other, then the first one again.

squint on November 9, 2012 at 5:51 PM

HE WONT EFF UP 2014 MidTerms LIKE HE DID 2010

2015- the communist will put the hammer down !!!!!!!!!!

FlaMurph on November 9, 2012 at 5:59 PM

(A quick word to the wise, by the way: A carbon tax does not mean greedy oil executives will be deprived of their ostensibly ill-begotten and immoral profits, or wherever it is proponents claim the money will come from; a carbon tax is a tax on your usage of electricity and gas, and your bills will get more expensive.)

Would the Obama administration recognize that nuclear power plants should be exempt from carbon taxes (carbon dioxide is an inevitable result of burning hydrocarbons in an oxygen atmosphere, however carbon is not a daughter product of nuclear fission)?

Or will they smite nuclear users out of some misguided sense of fairness and scientific ignorance?

Alberta_Patriot on November 9, 2012 at 6:04 PM

White House: Obama not planning to propose a carbon tax, he’s planning to dictate a carbon tax.

Fixed.

Glenn Jericho on November 9, 2012 at 6:10 PM

This one seems pretty simple. Obama’s EPA issues regulations crippling domestic energy producers. Energy prices sky rocket, at which point Obama asks energy producers to make a deal with the devil: in exchange for supporting a carbon tax, he will pull back regulations preventing domestic energy. Having no choice, producers will cave and get on board the Obama train. The added supply will cause prices to drop, however the new taxes will make up the difference. See, a carbon tax that doesn’t raise prices for consumers!

HarryBackside on November 9, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Anyone believe that? Thought so.

slickwillie2001 on November 9, 2012 at 6:26 PM

This is the way the low-information democratic voter sees the world:

Carbon Tax? That’s a tax on those filthy rich oil and power companies right? Do it.

Clinton Tax rates >$250K? That’s a tax on those filthy rich people right? Do it.

Frank and Dodd? That’s regulations on those filthy rich Wall Street types right? Do it.

Anything else?

slickwillie2001 on November 9, 2012 at 6:33 PM

We need the CEOs of Shell, BP, Texaco, Chesapeake, Devon, Enervest et al to give Obama an open invitation to go out to a drilling rig. Go to the places where they are drilling. Meet the people. Don’t let up until Obama comes. Demagogue him. Turn the limelight to oil and gas drilling. The truth will be known about oil and gas drilling and the pressure will be on the President to reverse his policies.

Glenn Jericho on November 9, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Things we can count on Obama to shut down in his second term:

1. Energy. Oil, Gas and Coal. When prices skyrocket, gubmint will issue energy coupons like food stamps to redistribute wealth.

2. Second Amendment, via UN Treaty and EPA regs on ammunition. Back door gun control.

3. First Amendment.

~Free speech via FCC shutting down talk radio and assaults on FNC.

~ Gubmint control over Internet. Another FCC initiative, bolstered by UN treaty.

~ Assault on religion. Starting with ObamaCare.

Just for openers.

(Never mind the Tenth Amendment.)

petefrt on November 9, 2012 at 9:47 PM

Good, cause conservative market tax wonks would support it..ala Laffer.

As for the Lands issue, the States merely need to assert their powers within their borders. There is no general confiscatory Power of Congress except for a Capitol. Otherwise within the paradigm at the extreme is confiscating in entirety all Lands of the States; if you reject that then you reject what they have done currently.

summary: the States belong to the States.

John Kettlewell on November 10, 2012 at 1:52 AM

Long Live the Sage Grouse! Suck it humans!

Buy Danish on November 10, 2012 at 7:27 AM

We will still be laughing when Obama runs again in 2016 for a Third term.

Bulletchaser on November 10, 2012 at 1:08 PM