The coming carbon tax

posted at 2:01 pm on December 9, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

You know, it seems like only yesterday that I was hearing a bunch of self-professed Eco-warriors prattling on about the need for some form of carbon tax to gin up prospects for algae based energy or something. (Oh, that’s right… it WAS yesterday.) But I took some consolation from the knowledge that something that big and controversial would take quite a while to pick up steam. Apparently, as Redstate’s Steve Maley reports, I may have been wrong about that too.

Folk wisdom tells us, “Where there’s smoke, there’s carbon emissions.” And where there are carbon emissions, there are internationalists hell-bent on hobbling the American economy in the name of Global Warming. Several recent signs:

In 2010, the Treasury Department commissioned a National Academy of Science study of the best ways to “green” the tax code. The report was originally due in September, but an extension has been granted until early 2013.

International banking and financial services giant HSBC Holdings Plc expects the Obama Administration to implement a $20/ton carbon tax (plus 6% per year increase) in its second term, to serve as “revenue enhancement” and as a replacement for the ill-fated Cap-and-Trade scheme.

The Treasury Department’s Office of Environment and Energy has given the Heisman treatment to a Freedom of Information Act request from the Competitive Enterprise Institute for its emails and economic analysis relative to carbon tax proposals. CEI has filed suit in an effort to compel disclosure.

Last but not least, the idea of a carbon tax has been embraced by the unlikeliest suspects: ExxonMobil, BP and Shell.

The first three headlines on that list likely won’t come as much of a surprise to anyone here, but the last one should give you pause. Why on Earth would some of the planets biggest oil and related liquid energy corporations be on board with a carbon tax? I think Steve’s instincts are correct on this one, and as disappointing as it may sound, it’s not that far fetched of an idea. First, having some sort of generic carbon tax across the board would probably work out being cheaper and easier to manage than a truly restrictive and government operated carbon credit trading scheme on a national or even international scale. So in that regard, BP and Shell might be looking at it as the lesser (and cheaper) of two evils.

Also, Big Oil is extremely aware of their public image and they follow the trends of public opinion closely. Particularly in Europe, there’s an appetite for green revolution policies, and the subject gets a lot of play in American media as well. They would probably be willing to not only pay the tax, but use it as a promotional campaign, talking about how they’re pitching in for a renewable energy future. Do you find that annoying?

I’ve been a long-time defender of the oil and gas industry in general, but it’s hard to deny that “Big Oil” (the multinational, vertically-integrated giants) are historically among the first to turn their backs on conservative principles and seek unholy alliances with statist governments. It’s all about rent-seeking and protecting returns.

That’s a bit more harsh than I’d put it, but it’s hard to deny the truth behind the sentiment. But there’s more to this than simple politics. There could be a profit motive here in terms of a competitive edge. Big Oil – particularly those who are cross invested into natural gas – might feel the pinch from a carbon tax, but it would hit the already declining coal industry much harder and faster. That’s a huge segment of the market with competitors ready to dance on their graves if Uncle Sam drives them out of business.

None of this story is pretty, but it’s something to keep our eyes on. Expect to see carbon tax proposals in Washington in the near future.


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

I think I have to stop reading your posts today, Jazz. I don’t have a high blood pressure problem and I don’t want to start now.

Grrr…

Fallon on December 9, 2012 at 2:06 PM

The coming carbon tax

The Obamanation Administration consists of ideological Marxist pseud-intellectuals, they have never seen a Ponzi scheme fraudulent scam that they are not totally in love with, they don’t actually understand how anything works in the real word, but they are damned good at lying cheating and stealing.

SWalker on December 9, 2012 at 2:07 PM

The coming carbon EVERYTHING tax.

FIFY

PappyD61 on December 9, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Why on Earth would some of the planets biggest oil and related liquid energy corporations be on board with a carbon tax?

Why on earth did the pharmaceutical industry and the AMA go along with ObamaCare? They thought (or were told) there would be something in it for them. Same reason Enron supported Al Gore and his machinations, they saw a new market to manipulate and profit from.

Either that, or they are hoping the alligator will eat them last.

And full disclosure, I work for a major oil company (although not one of the ones listed above).

iurockhead on December 9, 2012 at 2:10 PM

I loathe these people.

jawkneemusic on December 9, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Oh, and the carbon tax/offsts/credits: How did that work out in Europe?

iurockhead on December 9, 2012 at 2:11 PM

An extreme example of taxation, I don’t think it was real, I think it was in a fairy tale … it was taxing sunlight. You were taxed based on the size of your windows. The greater the window area, the more sunlight you got, and the greater your tax.

This seems so much like a sunlight tax. How else can we keep warm (and cool) except by burning carbon? Warm our hands by the fire — taxed. A cup of hot chocolate on a cold wintry nite — taxed. A space heater to warm up our legs in a chilly home — taxed. Isn’t it perverse?

Paul-Cincy on December 9, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Big oil has definitely learned from the Saudis.
What have they learned? Always buy both sides.

rodguy911 on December 9, 2012 at 2:14 PM

The coming carbon EVERYTHING tax.

FIFY

PappyD61 on December 9, 2012 at 2:07 PM

In the new American Marxist Utopia, everything belongs to the Government, including you. You will surrender all that you own to the government, work twice as hard, receive 1/10 the compensation for your labor and be damned happy with it, or end up in Bill Ayers Extermination camp.

SWalker on December 9, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Because poor people need more burdens on them in the form of higher gas/oil prices. Yay./

thebrokenrattle on December 9, 2012 at 2:15 PM

We used to have a constitution that said all appropriations bills must originate in the House…

Wethal on December 9, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Clearly, if the whites hadn’t moved out of the urban areas because they hate and are scared of black people……

http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2012/12/08/columbus-apartment-application-crowd-loses-control.html

COLUMBUS, Ohio – Columbus Police sprayed Mace on several people in a crowd that had gathered to sign up for a list to get subsidized housing at a northwest Columbus apartment complex.

Police said the crowd started to gather Friday night for the Saturday morning event at The Heritage apartment complex on Gatewood Road near Sunbury Road in northeast Columbus.

Authorities said that its highest number, the crowd reached 2,000 people.

Residents in the area called police overnight and complained about the noise and number of cars in the neighborhood.

According to police, a melee broke out when the manager of the complex started to set up for the event just before 7 a.m. Saturday morning.

Several individuals were sprayed with Mace by police and treated at the scene by emergency crews.

If we could get a carbon tax and levy it on vehicles and mileage driven maybe those lying, scared-ee-pants crackers would move back downtown and save the cities from decay.

Carbon Tax now………do it for the minorities and poor that you have hated.

PappyD61 on December 9, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Well sure, because in these awesome economic times what needs to be done is crush the last few citizens who are still able to stay above water.

Bishop on December 9, 2012 at 2:24 PM

And note that these taxes are not proposed for revenue, but rather to punish behavior. The behavior of being an American.

pat on December 9, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Carbon taxes and the Keynesians’ emphasis on aggregate demand go together like, well, Detroit and turbo-charged economic growth and ethical politicians.

1. Slap a tax on energy.

2. Make crony capitalists like Al Gore rich.

3. Watch the prices of everything consumers purchase rise and consumer purchasing power fall.

4. Then, scream “Aggregate demand! Aggregate demand! Aggregate demand!” when consumers reduce spending or are unable to purchase the same basket of goods because it costs so much more than it did in the bad, old days of carbon tax-free zones.

5. Finally, demand that the government step in with stimulus spending because “it is the only thing large enough to stop the economic cratering when aggregate demand is weak.”

6. Rinse, lather, and repeat.

Resist We Much on December 9, 2012 at 2:25 PM

When tards prattle on about carbon, they are polluting the air with CO2. They should STFU.

BL@KBIRD on December 9, 2012 at 2:36 PM

And note that these taxes are not proposed for revenue, but rather to punish behavior. The behavior of being an American.

pat on December 9, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Obamacare is a tax on behavior, too. It’s part of Cass Sunstein’s “nudge” tactics, although this is more of a push.

Wethal on December 9, 2012 at 2:41 PM

http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2012/12/08/columbus-apartment-application-crowd-loses-control.html

COLUMBUS, Ohio – Columbus Police sprayed Mace on several people in a crowd that had gathered to sign up for a list to get subsidized housing at a northwest Columbus apartment complex.

Police said the crowd started to gather Friday night for the Saturday morning event at The Heritage apartment complex on Gatewood Road near Sunbury Road in northeast Columbus.

Authorities said that its highest number, the crowd reached 2,000 people.

Residents in the area called police overnight and complained about the noise and number of cars in the neighborhood.

According to police, a melee broke out when the manager of the complex started to set up for the event just before 7 a.m. Saturday morning.

Several individuals were sprayed with Mace by police and treated at the scene by emergency crews.

If we could get a carbon tax and levy it on vehicles and mileage driven maybe those lying, scared-ee-pants crackers would move back downtown and save the cities from decay.

Carbon Tax now………do it for the minorities and poor that you have hated.

PappyD61 on December 9, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Parasites looking for freebies in housing get unruly when there isn’t enough – how much worse will they get when the free food and other goodies dry up?

Is there any doubt as to why gun sales are through the roof?

Galt2009 on December 9, 2012 at 2:42 PM

My idea of carbon tax:

As you wish. Our waste recycling unit is at your disposal. There you will find quantities of methane, sulfurous gas, and some interesting organic compounds. Feel free, take all you want.

Fwiffo, the Spathi Captain in immortal Star Control 2

Archivarix on December 9, 2012 at 2:42 PM

I think I have to stop reading your posts today, Jazz. I don’t have a high blood pressure problem and I don’t want to start now.

Fallon on December 9, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Probably a good idea. I’m sorry to say it, but sadly, high blood pressure medicine isn’t covered under Obamacare. But could I interest you in some free birth control pills?

Jazz Shaw on December 9, 2012 at 2:46 PM

the ‘scientists’ are ready to do their part…join the Army to De-carbonize America!!!!!!

The YaleForum has an article on this entitled The New AGU . . . Talking up its Policy Backbone. The subtitle is “AGU leadership professes its willingness to head-up an aggressive public policy and ‘education’ campaign directed at congressional skeptics.” Some excerpts from the Yale Forum article:

[Chris] McEntee [AGU Executive Director] had spoken formally during her presentation about having AGU lead an effort involving major scientific societies in “educating” Congress on what unquestionably is an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists on a full range of issues. AGU earlier had led the groups in bringing leading society officials to Washington on climate change issues, but the new effort seems destined to go beyond that in intensity and duration, including strategic targeting of specific legislators.

“It’s not something the old AGU would do,” Rutgers’ Alan Robock said from the floor, but McEntee’s statements received overwhelmingly favorable reaction from those in attendance.

Judith Curry adds:

I am 200% opposed to this new level of activism by the AGU, but I seem to be in the minority among AGU members.

this fits with the left’s world view so completely. Barry want a Systematic way of Redistribution. Well, here you go. Poor and Lower Middle Class people will get a PreBate.

the very wealthy will do great because their consumption as a portion of wealth is low…and they are connected (I mean, how much does that gated entrance with a guard emit?) The hated middle class will bear the burden

But, as with all aristocracies, who like those people anyway…I mean sometimes even in Manhattan you can smell them.

Now, here’s the key. Temperatures haven’t gone up for a while. And so therefore they must act FAST…because if temps stay the same, or cool…THEY GET THE CREDIT….THE LEFTISTS HAVE SAAAAAAVED THE WOOOOORLD.

The apparatchik is jumping up and down…they’ve got skin in the GAME….Power over everything…

http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/06/agu-highlights/#more-10580

r keller on December 9, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Very cleaver, we are taxing chemical elements now. Why not tax nitrogen and zinc? Tantalum and vanadium should be taxed as well.

Not sure about iridium and osmium. That’s debatable.

SparkPlug on December 9, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Probably a good idea. I’m sorry to say it, but sadly, high blood pressure medicine isn’t covered under Obamacare. But could I interest you in some free birth control pills?

Jazz Shaw on December 9, 2012 at 2:46 PM

I am a father to a 20 years old daughter. Birth control pills actually do lower my blood pressure, but I’m not the one taking them. Of course, since my company manufactures them, I had them for free even before ObamaCare…

Archivarix on December 9, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Very cleaver, we are taxing chemical elements now. Why not tax nitrogen and zinc? Tantalum and vanadium should be taxed as well.

Not sure about iridium and osmium. That’s debatable.

SparkPlug on December 9, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Don’t give ‘em ideas. Silver and gold purchases will be taxed soon, and I need to stash them up before they are.

Archivarix on December 9, 2012 at 2:53 PM

In the fall of ’72 during the Yom Kippur War Nixon went to DefCon 3 and ordered the 6th Fleet out of Naples to take up positions in the eastern Med. The ships left Naples with half empty fuel bunkers because Exxon Italy, at the demand of the saudis, would not refuel them in Naples. Later during Senate hearings democrat William Proxmire demande of an Exxon representative an explanation for such an unpatriotic act. The rep responded, “Exxon flies 37 flags and owes allegiance to none of them.” Plus ca change. Plus ca meme chose.

xkaydet65 on December 9, 2012 at 2:54 PM

[Chris] McEntee [AGU Executive Director] had spoken formally during her presentation about having AGU lead an effort involving major scientific societies in “educating” Congress on what unquestionably is an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists

r keller on December 9, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Chris needs to pull his head out of his Marxist a$$

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs

SWalker on December 9, 2012 at 2:57 PM

We used to have a constitution that said all appropriations bills must originate in the House…

Wethal on December 9, 2012 at 2:19 PM

That was before that master.

onomo on December 9, 2012 at 2:58 PM

I’m not surprised about BP. In 2008 they gave more money to the Obama campaign than to any previous one. Then they were working with John Kerry to get the cap and trade bill passed, right up until they pooped the bed with that oil spill.

People like Tim Carney are right, that the GOP needs to be about free market enterprise. Not to demonize all Big Business as the boogeyman, but there are all too many who love big government because it’s easier to beat their competition by rent seeking than by innovating.

juliesa on December 9, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Wait…isn’t the power to levy taxes reserved for Congress?

flipflop on December 9, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Wait…isn’t the power to levy taxes reserved for Congress?

flipflop on December 9, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Silly flipflop, that was in the old Constitution of the Republic, we are now operating under the New Constitution of the Marxist United Socialist States of America.

SWalker on December 9, 2012 at 3:05 PM

This is merely the evolution as to control of society by an oppressive-socialist government.

It’s been said that mankind has advanced by how it controls energy – advancing from crude combustion of fuel and oxygen down to precise control with electrons.

The oppressives are pretty much seeing an energy-carbon tax as a way to precisely control society – because what aspect of our lives doesn’t involve energy at some point?

Galt2009 on December 9, 2012 at 3:17 PM

I suppose, simplistically speaking, that the 51% of the voters want higher taxes, so why not a carbon tax to go along with every other evil that’s being planned for America.

The crazy thing is, when their utility bills, gas prices, food, goes up even further, they’ll still love the tax & spend President.

Agree, SWalker, Obama uses executive power these days, the Senate will have new & improved filibuster rules, caving Boehner won’t be a threat, & in 2014 all will be under Democratic rule.

Belle on December 9, 2012 at 3:18 PM

…if anybody has any money left over after gas prices, food prices, and all the inflationary prices of other goods and services you have adjusted too…the government needs it!

KOOLAID2 on December 9, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Correct, Gait, like who’d want to buy a new car nowadays with big brother monitoring you in his creepy black box?

Belle on December 9, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Correct, Gait, like who’d want to buy a new car nowadays with big brother monitoring you in his creepy black box?

Belle on December 9, 2012 at 3:19 PM

A black box in your car=speeding ticket in the mail because you car ratted you out for speeding up to 63 miles per hours to pass that slow moving semi-truck last Saturday on the way to Billy’s football game.

SWalker on December 9, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Since when did Obama and his crew respect any Constitution?

tngmv on December 9, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Big corporations never mind statist solutions. First, they pass on any increase to their costumers and second they can afford an army of lawyers and pr people to game the regulations. The end result is that they are not harmed and their smaller competitors are crushed. Big corporations love expensive regulations and a dense tax code.

Fred 2 on December 9, 2012 at 3:33 PM

The people that will be impacted by a carbon tax are consumers. Big Oil doesn’t care, they can and will add any such tax to the cost of doing business.

Big Government loves this tax. They get to say they are saving the planet and get to tax us all and blame it on Big Oil.

Gird your loins folks. This ain’t gonna be pretty.

WestTexasBirdDog on December 9, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Correct, Gait, like who’d want to buy a new car nowadays with big brother monitoring you in his creepy black box?

Belle on December 9, 2012 at 3:19 PM

***don’t forget NOW when you go into a chain auto shop they deflate your tires to the mandated 35 psi (even if you put more in because the ride is bumpy).

You could (several years ago) by tires for your SUV that were 45 psi. Then the dopey federal gods decided that “rollovers” were related to the tire pressure and we needed LOWER TIRE PRESSURE to save us from ourselves. So they “suggested” 35 PSI. Well people didn’t go along voluntarily (duh, the ride was bumpy). So they forced manufacturers to include a message that you should have 35 psi max. That didn’t work and so now we can only buy tires with 35psi. And if you try to fill them to more than 35 (duh, because the ride is bumpy) then the tire rotators at the autocare chain deflate them (Management has told them they would be held liable if they didn’t deflate them and there was an accident).

This kind of logic gives us this as well.

I went to get a roll of paper towels at the office. Well the new “earth friendly” roll has only 60 sheets (instead of 80). Somehow that’s supposed to make me use fewer paper towels? HUH? So now instead of 2 cardboard inside support rolls for 160 sheets there are 2 support rolls for only 120 sheets. So we’re going to require MORE CARDBOARD SUPPORT ROLLS because the smaller rolls of paper towels are being purchased.

Do the math, If I used 1600 paper towel sheets before I would have used 20 rolls of paper towels (with the cardboard support roll).

With the newer smaller roll to use 1600 paper towel sheets I will require 26.7 rolls.

Now magnify that across the country.

No God………No common sense.

That’s where we’re at in TEATERMERICA.

PappyD61 on December 9, 2012 at 3:36 PM

But could I interest you in some free birth control pills?

Jazz Shaw on December 9, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Nah, I saw a pic of Axelrod without his ‘stache. I’m good.

Fallon on December 9, 2012 at 3:39 PM

…if anybody has any money left over after gas prices, food prices, and all the inflationary prices of other goods and services you have adjusted too…the government needs it!

KOOLAID2 on December 9, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Everything is going up except wages.

SparkPlug on December 9, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Lefty: “Good, stick it to Big Oil and the frackers!”

Rational Person: “Uh, you know those costs get passed on to the consumer, right?”

Lefty: “What are you talking about? Sounds like some racism to me.”

Rational Person: “Do you even understand the basics of economics?”

Lefty: “You’re a hate-filled bigot!”

Rational Person: “Sigh.”

visions on December 9, 2012 at 3:55 PM

I’m not sure why anyone is surprised by this. Obama and his ilk have made quite clear all along their opposition to cheap energy (though they were quite willing to indirectly benefit from fracking in swing states in the Northeast/Upper Midwest).

Things like this are why it was so important to win this election-and why it was so foolish to pick an objectivist hill to die on.

Romney-Ryan was an epic fail, in what should have been a very winnable election.

Welcome to the Hippie States of America.

What a nightmare.

I suppose, simplistically speaking, that the 51% of the voters want higher taxes, so why not a carbon tax to go along with every other evil that’s being planned for America.

The crazy thing is, when their utility bills, gas prices, food, goes up even further, they’ll still love the tax & spend President.

Agree, SWalker, Obama uses executive power these days, the Senate will have new & improved filibuster rules, caving Boehner won’t be a threat, & in 2014 all will be under Democratic rule.

Belle on December 9, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Most of that “51%” did not want higher taxes. In fact it was Romney’s tax reform proposals that had them thinking they were going to be paying higher taxes, and have their entitlements cut, along with the stubborn and silly refusal to raise tax rates on the rich, that caused this electoral defeat.

Another problem is that conservatives, (and moderates, for that matter) have ceded involvment in the energy and transportation government bureaucracies to the left.

I work in government in the Northeast-every time there is a policy discussion or public meeting on transportation or energy issues the left turns out in droves, conservatives are nowhere to be seen. Guess what message the elected officials and bureaucrats take away from that?

The only time conservatives show up is if there is a discussion on making fracking legal in New York State, and then only because they are landowners who stand to make a buck.

Conservatives need to start taking the attitude that not all government spending is bad, and get involved in the process and start bending government to their will-becuase those of us in government who are involved in these issues have seen this type of nonsense coming for a long time-and this is only the beginning!

Dreadnought on December 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Big Oil, I’m sure, got some more permits out of this deal. And probably weighed in on Keystone, too.

The left throws Halliburton at the GOP, and the right throws all the rest at the left.

Crony capitalists=shadow government. Bigger and better than ever.

PattyJ on December 9, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Can we start taxing wind and solar? I am getting darn tired of subsidizing these costly inefficient niche market alternatives to competitive energy sources.

KW64 on December 9, 2012 at 4:18 PM

In fairness to the people who rioted, they made a big mistake by trusting the government, specifically, the Democrat Party. Sure, they got some free stuff, but they lost their pride, their souls, and family. And they found out the freebies are still not enough to have a decent life amongst those who have lost all civic values.

IOW the Democrats have crushed their souls. And it continues and spreads through every demographic.

PattyJ on December 9, 2012 at 4:29 PM

I work in government in the Northeast-every time there is a policy discussion or public meeting on transportation or energy issues the left turns out in droves, conservatives are nowhere to be seen. Guess what message the elected officials and bureaucrats take away from that?

Having been a co-chair of the NYS Business Council Environment Committee and sitting on several groups like the Niagara River Remedial Action Planning group, I can tell you that what you call for is a difficult thing to do. First you have a real job and going to all these things is not your primary function. The opportunity to speak with enough time to educate people up to the point where they even understand your point of view is seldom. I got the entire period in an environmental law class to make my point on the Great Lakes Water Quality initiative and won most of the initially hostile class to my side but such situations where you get to speak very long are few. One Environmental Organization Head who invited me to speak on the issue got overruled by his membership who disinvited me. They did not want to hear the other side. Frankly the enviro left can be rather obnoxious.

Another problem is that the activists stated agendas are often not their real agenda so you are at a disadvantage in making an argument that would both appeal to the public and the activists. In some cases they just are interested in keeping donations coming in and have no interest in a real solution. One pair told me they did not want regulations that were feasible because they wanted industry to “go away”. Sadly, you do better to speak to regulators and legislators directly as public forums get hijacked and government officials do not feel free to speak frankly.

KW64 on December 9, 2012 at 4:36 PM

There is no viable alternative to carbon based fuels. So, why does big oil care? They will just pass the costs along to the consumers. It isn’t as though windmills and algae are going to take market share from them, even if the price of their product sky rockets.

MJBrutus on December 9, 2012 at 4:44 PM

The Obamanation Administration consists of ideologiotical Marxist pseud-non-intellectuals,
SWalker on December 9, 2012 at 2:07 PM

fify

cableguy615 on December 9, 2012 at 5:21 PM

There is no viable alternative to carbon based fuels. So, why does big oil care? They will just pass the costs along to the consumers. It isn’t as though windmills and algae are going to take market share from them, even if the price of their product sky rockets.

MJBrutus on December 9, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Bingo.

Besides, it’s not as if these companies aren’t already heavily invested in biofuels and alternate energy sources. From their perspective, it’s just a license to raise the price of petroleum and petroleum byproducts to the point where their other operations become profitable as well.

They’re playing the Obama administration because they know Obama is an idiot who hires idiots.

northdallasthirty on December 9, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Conservatives need to start taking the attitude that not all government spending is bad, and get involved in the process and start bending government to their will-becuase those of us in government who are involved in these issues have seen this type of nonsense coming for a long time-and this is only the beginning!

Dreadnought on December 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Exactly the opposite.

Government spending is by definition “bad”, because the only way in which the government can get money to spend is to take it out of the private sector.

Government action is by definition “bad”, because the government is a legal monopoly; it has no competition and no pressure to do things better or more efficiently.

Government itself in a democracy is by definition “bad” because it will reflect the lowest common denominator of agreement. Obamaphone Lady’s opinion, ignorant and stupid as it is, counts the same as an Albert Einstein’s.

Hence, you cannot “bend” government. You can only reduce it and contain it.

northdallasthirty on December 9, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Last but not least, the idea of a carbon tax has been embraced by the unlikeliest suspects: ExxonMobil, BP and Shell.

It’s all about rent-seeking and protecting returns.

Bingo.

petefrt on December 9, 2012 at 5:51 PM

So who pays the ‘carbon tax’ to the government?

When you pay for it at the pump or with your natural gas bills who gets that money first? The government or the company? Does the company pay the government? When?

Basically companies are looking for a good reason to soak YOU for a few more bucks that they then hold on to, with interest, until the time comes to pay the government… see how that works?

You get soaked, the nasty carbon companies get extra cash and the government gets revenue!

Isn’t life in crony-capitalist land fun?

ajacksonian on December 9, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Well sure, because in these awesome economic times what needs to be done is crush the last few citizens who are still able to stay above water.

Bishop on December 9, 2012 at 2:24 PM

All in the plan to pi$$ off the downtrodden who will turn to the Democrats who promise them redistribution of wealth.
I believe the last time this happened in a major way, people were shouting slogans like “Worker’s Unite!”.
Meanwhile, the politicians maneuver to stay the privileged class that keeps ruling over everyone.
I believe Bill Ayers is quite proud.
ALong with all other communists.

Badger40 on December 9, 2012 at 7:41 PM

They would probably be willing to not only pay the tax, but use it as a promotional campaign, talking about how they’re pitching in for a renewable energy future. Do you find that annoying?

A deal breaker, actually. If they solicit green, I try to go somewhere else. Only exception is anyone begging me to “go paperless” to save the trees — that’s a business trying to manipulate me so it can shift printing costs to me and save mailing costs. That I can respect.

Businesses usually support anything that eliminates competition, by the way. Huge meat packers support heavy meat-handling regulations because it shuts the door on the little guys — only they, the big guys, can afford it, and the little guys go away. We have to try to get past our blind spot to big business, as conservatives; they are the other half of the perverted relationship that’s crony capitalism. We want capitalism to remain intact; we want a free marketplace; we want a limited government — we are trying to protect our own liberty. But as often as not, large businesses will sell us down the river exactly as quickly as the nearest progressive politician.

Another way to put that: Stop asking and caring about what Bill Gates thinks about macroeconomics — or at least limit the care to the same level we’d have for Charlie Rangel’s thoughts about macroeconomics. I mean, they’re dating.

Axe on December 9, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Chris needs to pull his head out of his Marxist a$$…

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs

SWalker on December 9, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Of course, not one of them is known to be engaged in current research in climatology.

And the name on the example, Edward Teller, spent his professional career in fusion physics, which has nothing to do with climatology.

oakland on December 9, 2012 at 9:01 PM

. . . Edward Teller, spent his professional career in fusion physics, which has nothing to do with climatology.

oakland on December 9, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Yet. Give it a few months. :/

Axe on December 9, 2012 at 9:09 PM

oakland on December 9, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Axe on December 9, 2012 at 9:09 PM

PS: Isn’t it a little silly to suggest you’ve vetted a list of 31,500 people for their credentials’ applicability to climate sciences?

Axe on December 9, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Tell Oakie that those that worked on the IPCC reports and among who Fat Al claimed there was a ‘consensus’, were not all climatologists either. They were experts in their particular field which played a part in the overall study as the problem called for.

slickwillie2001 on December 9, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Good luck getting a carbon tax through the House.

And if Big Oil supports it, most likely it’s to help increase the cost of natural gas to keep it from being fully developed.

dczombie on December 9, 2012 at 9:47 PM

I work in government in the Northeast-every time there is a policy discussion or public meeting on transportation or energy issues the left turns out in droves, conservatives are nowhere to be seen. Guess what message the elected officials and bureaucrats take away from that?

Having been a co-chair of the NYS Business Council Environment Committee and sitting on several groups like the Niagara River Remedial Action Planning group, I can tell you that what you call for is a difficult thing to do. First you have a real job and going to all these things is not your primary function. The opportunity to speak with enough time to educate people up to the point where they even understand your point of view is seldom. I got the entire period in an environmental law class to make my point on the Great Lakes Water Quality initiative and won most of the initially hostile class to my side but such situations where you get to speak very long are few. One Environmental Organization Head who invited me to speak on the issue got overruled by his membership who disinvited me. They did not want to hear the other side. Frankly the enviro left can be rather obnoxious.

Another problem is that the activists stated agendas are often not their real agenda so you are at a disadvantage in making an argument that would both appeal to the public and the activists. In some cases they just are interested in keeping donations coming in and have no interest in a real solution. One pair told me they did not want regulations that were feasible because they wanted industry to “go away”. Sadly, you do better to speak to regulators and legislators directly as public forums get hijacked and government officials do not feel free to speak frankly.

KW64 on December 9, 2012 at 4:36 PM

KW64:

I agree with you it can be a pain for conservatives to show up as they are, quite frankly, more likely to be productive citizens (i.e. they have a job). But not every lefty activist is unemployed and yet they still go out of their way to show up for meetings-also there are plenty of conservative retirees who could take an interest-maybe they are volunteering to help people, etc, but taking an interest in what the govt. does helps people too.

For example-Every metro area above 50,000 people in New York, Pa., and the rest of the country has a transportaion planning organization (MPO) that oversees the spending of millions of Federal transportation dollars every year-I go to some of their meetings around NYS as part of my job and I can tell you, that the amount of input they get from conservatives is almost nil. People could comment on their activites without even going to meetings-the left does-conservatives never do….conservative activists cede the playing field.

Kudos by the way, on your own activism and going into the “arena” to make a presentation to an environmental law class….we need more like you!

Dreadnought on December 9, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Conservatives need to start taking the attitude that not all government spending is bad, and get involved in the process and start bending government to their will-becuase those of us in government who are involved in these issues have seen this type of nonsense coming for a long time-and this is only the beginning!

Dreadnought on December 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Exactly the opposite.

Government spending is by definition “bad”, because the only way in which the government can get money to spend is to take it out of the private sector.

Government action is by definition “bad”, because the government is a legal monopoly; it has no competition and no pressure to do things better or more efficiently.

Government itself in a democracy is by definition “bad” because it will reflect the lowest common denominator of agreement. Obamaphone Lady’s opinion, ignorant and stupid as it is, counts the same as an Albert Einstein’s.

Hence, you cannot “bend” government. You can only reduce it and contain it.

northdallasthirty on December 9, 2012 at 5:35 PM

You can’t reduce it and contain it from the outside only-you have to get involved in its workings.

Dreadnought on December 9, 2012 at 10:54 PM

We’re broke but the politicians never think that’s possible and will search for and find something to tax to prove they were correct. Examples of this are all over the world and United States. The intelligent wanting to know about cold weather survival will talk to the Eskimos and take their advice. The intelligent government will talk to economists and take their advice. We’re looking for intelligent government, however, we are still on the well worn paths of spend and tax. The solution is not rocket science and it boils down to accepting the dirty, filthy, painful truth.

mixplix on December 10, 2012 at 6:29 AM

Big Oil has nothing at all to fear from a carbon tax. Every single penny of it will be passed on to consumers. It will hit smaller energy companies hard though (great for Big Oil) and take out Coal (superb for Big Oil).

As usual, the rent seekers will make out like bandits and the consumer will get fleeced.

FORWARD.

CorporatePiggy on December 10, 2012 at 10:48 AM