Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Even Big Oil Wants a Carbon Tax

slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 7:48:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
http://www.bloombergview.com...

Now that six of the world's largest oil companies have essentially come out in favor of a carbon tax, it's getting harder to dismiss the idea as some kind of outlandish lefty plot. And those companies can help their cause by engaging Congress directly, instead of outlining their case in a polite letter to the United Nations.

.....
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 7:54:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Carbon tax?

Pro
1. Helps investment into alternative energy which creates jobs.
2. Reduces carbon emissions.

Con
1. Increases cost of oil and petrol products.
2. Decreases discretionary spending.

What else is there?

So does the increase in alternative energy investment offset the decrease in discretionary spending due to lost oil jobs and less money in people's pockets?

I think when you add in global warming whether it is a complete wash or even slightly detrimental, it is a kicker that makes all the sense to start forcing a turn over from oil to alternative energy.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 8:58:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 7:54:18 AM, slo1 wrote:
Carbon tax?

Pro
1. Helps investment into alternative energy which creates jobs.
I hate this argument so, so very much.
It doesn't create jobs. It is zero sum, unless alternate energy is less efficient, which they claim it is not.
Creating/maintaining a solar farm may close a coal plant - creates some jobs while eliminating others. Zero sum.
My work here is, finally, done.
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 9:30:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 8:58:36 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/11/2015 7:54:18 AM, slo1 wrote:
Carbon tax?

Pro
1. Helps investment into alternative energy which creates jobs.
I hate this argument so, so very much.
It doesn't create jobs. It is zero sum, unless alternate energy is less efficient, which they claim it is not.
Creating/maintaining a solar farm may close a coal plant - creates some jobs while eliminating others. Zero sum.

It is not zero sum because coal plants are 100% operations. Alternative energy has significant R&D required to get it in a functional state, plus operations once implemented.

You are making the argument that benefits of technology of automation in manufacturing is a net sum to the manufacturing line jobs that were lost. We know that not to be true.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 10:00:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 9:30:33 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/11/2015 8:58:36 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/11/2015 7:54:18 AM, slo1 wrote:
Carbon tax?

Pro
1. Helps investment into alternative energy which creates jobs.
I hate this argument so, so very much.
It doesn't create jobs. It is zero sum, unless alternate energy is less efficient, which they claim it is not.
Creating/maintaining a solar farm may close a coal plant - creates some jobs while eliminating others. Zero sum.

It is not zero sum because coal plants are 100% operations. Alternative energy has significant R&D required to get it in a functional state, plus operations once implemented.

You are making the argument that benefits of technology of automation in manufacturing is a net sum to the manufacturing line jobs that were lost. We know that not to be true.

I said nothing of the benefits, only jobs.
If green energy is as efficient as dirty energy, then the jobs are zero sum in the long run. We'll dig less coal, but more textiles/metal. We'll have R&D for green energy, but stop funding it for current technology. We'll stop exploring for oil, and more for geothermal hotspots. We'll hire people for the new dam, but run the coal plant at half staff for half the hours for half the power.

Maybe it isn't zero sum, literally, but you get the idea.
It's like saying computers create jobs due to manufacturing them, while the typewriter manufacturers close their doors. Unless green energy permanently creates and requires more employees than current dirty power, then why is it wrong to assume these news jobs come at the cost of the old ones?
My work here is, finally, done.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 10:10:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I know it's difficult for urban liberals to understand, but carbon taxes are horrible for anyone that lives in a rural area. Rural areas are already poorer, but they get hit by carbon taxes the worst.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 10:39:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 10:10:43 AM, TN05 wrote:
I know it's difficult for urban liberals to understand, but carbon taxes are horrible for anyone that lives in a rural area. Rural areas are already poorer, but they get hit by carbon taxes the worst.

How big are rural industries relative to total GDP?

I found some pie charts for 2012 data. Look at it and tell me what you think. I'm not sure what kinds of "rural industries" fall where.

http://www.economicpopulist.org...
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 10:48:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 10:00:22 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/11/2015 9:30:33 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/11/2015 8:58:36 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/11/2015 7:54:18 AM, slo1 wrote:
Carbon tax?

Pro
1. Helps investment into alternative energy which creates jobs.
I hate this argument so, so very much.
It doesn't create jobs. It is zero sum, unless alternate energy is less efficient, which they claim it is not.
Creating/maintaining a solar farm may close a coal plant - creates some jobs while eliminating others. Zero sum.

It is not zero sum because coal plants are 100% operations. Alternative energy has significant R&D required to get it in a functional state, plus operations once implemented.

You are making the argument that benefits of technology of automation in manufacturing is a net sum to the manufacturing line jobs that were lost. We know that not to be true.

I said nothing of the benefits, only jobs.
If green energy is as efficient as dirty energy, then the jobs are zero sum in the long run. We'll dig less coal, but more textiles/metal. We'll have R&D for green energy, but stop funding it for current technology. We'll stop exploring for oil, and more for geothermal hotspots. We'll hire people for the new dam, but run the coal plant at half staff for half the hours for half the power.

Maybe it isn't zero sum, literally, but you get the idea.
It's like saying computers create jobs due to manufacturing them, while the typewriter manufacturers close their doors. Unless green energy permanently creates and requires more employees than current dirty power, then why is it wrong to assume these news jobs come at the cost of the old ones?

It is wrong because it is not as simple as that.

1. Coal and hydrocarbons are limited. This is forcing a turn over of industries now versus waiting for the natural markets to do it later. This in turn means risks such as out of job people with old skill sets that don't transfer to new industries can be mitigated.

2. Jobs is not the only way to measure economic impact. Things such as global leadership (imports, exports, IP, etc) matter. Secondly cost to consumers and business, if I can get the same amount of energy at lower cost this helps spur investment in many other areas. (of course that will take much current investment to get alt energy to that level) On the job angle, the quality of jobs and ability of companies to competitively fill roles must be included in any analysis of job loss and the net effect.

3. Since alt energy is not as efficient today and it requires tremendous investment to get to that level any investment does come at a cost from somewhere. The point about being able to mitigate various risks by forcing a turn over now versus being at the mercy when supply runs low is a huge benefit.

4. Oh yeah, don't forget global warming. The cost of potential 10 ft sea rise in the next 200 years far out weights any investment in alt energy today.

Unfettered capital markets while the most efficient don't care anything about the points in 1-4. Fortunately and unfortunately capital markets are run by humans who can have a grand long term vision to gently influence markets to resolve looming problems. Granted it does not always go as planned, but our standard of living in the US has not been obtained from unrestricted markets nor would it be higher if we had completely unfettered markets.
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 10:52:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 10:10:43 AM, TN05 wrote:
I know it's difficult for urban liberals to understand, but carbon taxes are horrible for anyone that lives in a rural area. Rural areas are already poorer, but they get hit by carbon taxes the worst.

That is not a liberal or conservative issue. Nobody including unfettered capital markets are going to guarantee that you or anyone get to live in one particular location your entire life. Things change including markets and there is no stopping it. Adjust to the market or sink like many a company has because they couldn't adjust.

Watch some Little House on the Prairie when pa had to work in the granite mines away from the family.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 10:56:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 10:48:16 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/11/2015 10:00:22 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/11/2015 9:30:33 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/11/2015 8:58:36 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/11/2015 7:54:18 AM, slo1 wrote:
Carbon tax?

Pro
1. Helps investment into alternative energy which creates jobs.
I hate this argument so, so very much.
It doesn't create jobs. It is zero sum, unless alternate energy is less efficient, which they claim it is not.
Creating/maintaining a solar farm may close a coal plant - creates some jobs while eliminating others. Zero sum.

It is not zero sum because coal plants are 100% operations. Alternative energy has significant R&D required to get it in a functional state, plus operations once implemented.

You are making the argument that benefits of technology of automation in manufacturing is a net sum to the manufacturing line jobs that were lost. We know that not to be true.

I said nothing of the benefits, only jobs.
If green energy is as efficient as dirty energy, then the jobs are zero sum in the long run. We'll dig less coal, but more textiles/metal. We'll have R&D for green energy, but stop funding it for current technology. We'll stop exploring for oil, and more for geothermal hotspots. We'll hire people for the new dam, but run the coal plant at half staff for half the hours for half the power.

Maybe it isn't zero sum, literally, but you get the idea.
It's like saying computers create jobs due to manufacturing them, while the typewriter manufacturers close their doors. Unless green energy permanently creates and requires more employees than current dirty power, then why is it wrong to assume these news jobs come at the cost of the old ones?

It is wrong because it is not as simple as that.

1. Coal and hydrocarbons are limited. This is forcing a turn over of industries now versus waiting for the natural markets to do it later. This in turn means risks such as out of job people with old skill sets that don't transfer to new industries can be mitigated.

2. Jobs is not the only way to measure economic impact. Things such as global leadership (imports, exports, IP, etc) matter. Secondly cost to consumers and business, if I can get the same amount of energy at lower cost this helps spur investment in many other areas. (of course that will take much current investment to get alt energy to that level) On the job angle, the quality of jobs and ability of companies to competitively fill roles must be included in any analysis of job loss and the net effect.

3. Since alt energy is not as efficient today and it requires tremendous investment to get to that level any investment does come at a cost from somewhere. The point about being able to mitigate various risks by forcing a turn over now versus being at the mercy when supply runs low is a huge benefit.

4. Oh yeah, don't forget global warming. The cost of potential 10 ft sea rise in the next 200 years far out weights any investment in alt energy today.

Unfettered capital markets while the most efficient don't care anything about the points in 1-4. Fortunately and unfortunately capital markets are run by humans who can have a grand long term vision to gently influence markets to resolve looming problems. Granted it does not always go as planned, but our standard of living in the US has not been obtained from unrestricted markets nor would it be higher if we had completely unfettered markets.

What part of the underlined do you not understand?
Did I ever state that benefits do not outweigh the risks? Nope. In fact, the underlined shows I explicitly wasn't commenting on it.

Ironically, it seems this response agrees with me, that jobs will be lost, and I see no evidence that more jobs are created than jobs are lost. I don't understand your issue with my challenging the value of the pro argument "jobs are created".
My work here is, finally, done.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 11:02:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 10:56:53 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/11/2015 10:48:16 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/11/2015 10:00:22 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/11/2015 9:30:33 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/11/2015 8:58:36 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/11/2015 7:54:18 AM, slo1 wrote:
Carbon tax?

Pro
1. Helps investment into alternative energy which creates jobs.
I hate this argument so, so very much.
It doesn't create jobs. It is zero sum, unless alternate energy is less efficient, which they claim it is not.
Creating/maintaining a solar farm may close a coal plant - creates some jobs while eliminating others. Zero sum.

It is not zero sum because coal plants are 100% operations. Alternative energy has significant R&D required to get it in a functional state, plus operations once implemented.

You are making the argument that benefits of technology of automation in manufacturing is a net sum to the manufacturing line jobs that were lost. We know that not to be true.

I said nothing of the benefits, only jobs.
If green energy is as efficient as dirty energy, then the jobs are zero sum in the long run. We'll dig less coal, but more textiles/metal. We'll have R&D for green energy, but stop funding it for current technology. We'll stop exploring for oil, and more for geothermal hotspots. We'll hire people for the new dam, but run the coal plant at half staff for half the hours for half the power.

Maybe it isn't zero sum, literally, but you get the idea.
It's like saying computers create jobs due to manufacturing them, while the typewriter manufacturers close their doors. Unless green energy permanently creates and requires more employees than current dirty power, then why is it wrong to assume these news jobs come at the cost of the old ones?

It is wrong because it is not as simple as that.

1. Coal and hydrocarbons are limited. This is forcing a turn over of industries now versus waiting for the natural markets to do it later. This in turn means risks such as out of job people with old skill sets that don't transfer to new industries can be mitigated.

2. Jobs is not the only way to measure economic impact. Things such as global leadership (imports, exports, IP, etc) matter. Secondly cost to consumers and business, if I can get the same amount of energy at lower cost this helps spur investment in many other areas. (of course that will take much current investment to get alt energy to that level) On the job angle, the quality of jobs and ability of companies to competitively fill roles must be included in any analysis of job loss and the net effect.

3. Since alt energy is not as efficient today and it requires tremendous investment to get to that level any investment does come at a cost from somewhere. The point about being able to mitigate various risks by forcing a turn over now versus being at the mercy when supply runs low is a huge benefit.

4. Oh yeah, don't forget global warming. The cost of potential 10 ft sea rise in the next 200 years far out weights any investment in alt energy today.

Unfettered capital markets while the most efficient don't care anything about the points in 1-4. Fortunately and unfortunately capital markets are run by humans who can have a grand long term vision to gently influence markets to resolve looming problems. Granted it does not always go as planned, but our standard of living in the US has not been obtained from unrestricted markets nor would it be higher if we had completely unfettered markets.

What part of the underlined do you not understand?
Did I ever state that benefits do not outweigh the risks? Nope. In fact, the underlined shows I explicitly wasn't commenting on it.

Ironically, it seems this response agrees with me, that jobs will be lost, and I see no evidence that more jobs are created than jobs are lost. I don't understand your issue with my challenging the value of the pro argument "jobs are created".

Your emphasis on jobs probably gave slo the implication that you weighed the effects on jobs very heavily. His point was then to show it wasn't all about the jobs.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 11:39:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 11:02:57 AM, ben2974 wrote:

Your emphasis on jobs probably gave slo the implication that you weighed the effects on jobs very heavily. His point was then to show it wasn't all about the jobs.

I understand that, but I am sick and tired of people not responding to what I write, but respond to how they feel about or label what I write. And, when I explicitly state the issue is jobs, not benefits, and I am still ignored, that is annoying.

Whatever happened to honest discussion and conversation, if people don't care what is said, but rather, how it is said, or you respond to it, or lump what is said with others who say similar things?
My work here is, finally, done.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 12:11:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 7:48:00 AM, slo1 wrote:

This is an issue we actually completely agree on. Interestingly enough, there are even plenty of conservative economists, including Greg Mankiw, who support this. Heck, I think it was Scott Sumner who wrote that he doesn't know a single economist who wouldn't cheer if Congress were to pass a carbon tax.

My understanding of the Big Oil position is that - because it really isn't possible at this point to deny the existence of climate change without looking like an utter buffoon - they're willing to accept a carbon tax, but only with compensating marginal rate cuts. If that were the actual policy, I don't see that doing much good, though suffice it to say people like myself (and I assume you as well) would probably demand a heck of a lot more than just a carbon tax to start with.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 12:23:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why does everyone always hate on big oil? Sure they're big businesses, but you probably couldn't last four weeks without a gas station.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 12:33:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 10:56:53 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/11/2015 10:48:16 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/11/2015 10:00:22 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/11/2015 9:30:33 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/11/2015 8:58:36 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/11/2015 7:54:18 AM, slo1 wrote:
Carbon tax?

Pro
1. Helps investment into alternative energy which creates jobs.
I hate this argument so, so very much.
It doesn't create jobs. It is zero sum, unless alternate energy is less efficient, which they claim it is not.
Creating/maintaining a solar farm may close a coal plant - creates some jobs while eliminating others. Zero sum.

It is not zero sum because coal plants are 100% operations. Alternative energy has significant R&D required to get it in a functional state, plus operations once implemented.

You are making the argument that benefits of technology of automation in manufacturing is a net sum to the manufacturing line jobs that were lost. We know that not to be true.

I said nothing of the benefits, only jobs.
If green energy is as efficient as dirty energy, then the jobs are zero sum in the long run. We'll dig less coal, but more textiles/metal. We'll have R&D for green energy, but stop funding it for current technology. We'll stop exploring for oil, and more for geothermal hotspots. We'll hire people for the new dam, but run the coal plant at half staff for half the hours for half the power.

Maybe it isn't zero sum, literally, but you get the idea.
It's like saying computers create jobs due to manufacturing them, while the typewriter manufacturers close their doors. Unless green energy permanently creates and requires more employees than current dirty power, then why is it wrong to assume these news jobs come at the cost of the old ones?

It is wrong because it is not as simple as that.

1. Coal and hydrocarbons are limited. This is forcing a turn over of industries now versus waiting for the natural markets to do it later. This in turn means risks such as out of job people with old skill sets that don't transfer to new industries can be mitigated.

2. Jobs is not the only way to measure economic impact. Things such as global leadership (imports, exports, IP, etc) matter. Secondly cost to consumers and business, if I can get the same amount of energy at lower cost this helps spur investment in many other areas. (of course that will take much current investment to get alt energy to that level) On the job angle, the quality of jobs and ability of companies to competitively fill roles must be included in any analysis of job loss and the net effect.

3. Since alt energy is not as efficient today and it requires tremendous investment to get to that level any investment does come at a cost from somewhere. The point about being able to mitigate various risks by forcing a turn over now versus being at the mercy when supply runs low is a huge benefit.

4. Oh yeah, don't forget global warming. The cost of potential 10 ft sea rise in the next 200 years far out weights any investment in alt energy today.

Unfettered capital markets while the most efficient don't care anything about the points in 1-4. Fortunately and unfortunately capital markets are run by humans who can have a grand long term vision to gently influence markets to resolve looming problems. Granted it does not always go as planned, but our standard of living in the US has not been obtained from unrestricted markets nor would it be higher if we had completely unfettered markets.

What part of the underlined do you not understand?
Did I ever state that benefits do not outweigh the risks? Nope. In fact, the underlined shows I explicitly wasn't commenting on it.

Ironically, it seems this response agrees with me, that jobs will be lost, and I see no evidence that more jobs are created than jobs are lost. I don't understand your issue with my challenging the value of the pro argument "jobs are created".

Lets focus on only jobs then. It is absolutely false that in the long run it is zero net to jobs. Hydrocarbons are limited which means jobs are limited and will decline naturally. If hydrocarbon jobs could be steady and grow indefinitely to match the economic growth then you may have an argument.

The turn over from hydrocarbons to alt energy is one that has to happen. So compare an industry and jobs that will peak some time then decline to one which will grow to match the world's energy needs. It is clear the alt energy has potential to provide many many many more times jobs over 200 years than hydrocarbon base energy.

Now toss in the fact that the materials industry that requires hydrocarbons as a supply source to create an end product. Those industries too can last much much longer when its supply does not get eaten up. We are maintaining jobs for things not so easily replaced such as plastics, hydrogen, lubricants, asphalt, etc.

If you are making a short term argument, that is fine, but you also have to make an argument why the long term is not consequential at this point. It is a turn over that has to happen, why not manage the risk to jobs now and focus on educating the new world work force so we don't end up with the problem we have now, which is unqualified work force. That is its own drag the the economy that has to be considered on jobs.
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 12:37:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 12:23:13 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Why does everyone always hate on big oil? Sure they're big businesses, but you probably couldn't last four weeks without a gas station.

Are you saying they hate themselves since they are starting to get on board with implementing a carbon tax?

Who hates them? We regulate Doctor's by requiring they meet and maintain certain standards before working their craft on patients. This drives up the cost of getting educated to be a Doctor. Do we hate them too for having such regulation?

Me thinks you are making rhetoric.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 2:35:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 7:48:00 AM, slo1 wrote:
http://www.bloombergview.com...


Now that six of the world's largest oil companies have essentially come out in favor of a carbon tax, it's getting harder to dismiss the idea as some kind of outlandish lefty plot. And those companies can help their cause by engaging Congress directly, instead of outlining their case in a polite letter to the United Nations.

.....

lol, zero of these companies are US companies.
The very next question you should always ask if you see a big business supporting a regulation is NEVER is it conservative or liberal, what a silly thing to say both sides are not in up to the gills.
The very next question should always be...wait for it.... "which companies do they want to drive out of the market?"

(hint, none of the US companies signed off on this)
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 2:39:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 12:23:13 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Why does everyone always hate on big oil? Sure they're big businesses, but you probably couldn't last four weeks without a gas station.

I'll tell you why. We can afford to drive away US oil business cause we can still get cheap Saudi and south american oil.

You will never see any puff peaces by global blog warriors explaining why American coal plants accounting for far more share than Oil gets a free ride, because we can't get cheap electricity from the Saudis (yet).
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 2:58:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 7:48:00 AM, slo1 wrote:
http://www.bloombergview.com...


Now that six of the world's largest oil companies have essentially come out in favor of a carbon tax, it's getting harder to dismiss the idea as some kind of outlandish lefty plot. And those companies can help their cause by engaging Congress directly, instead of outlining their case in a polite letter to the United Nations.

.....


I was quite surprised to see this-- that is until I actually read the article and found straight away that none of the six companies are US companies.

The US, as usual, bringing up the rear on policy related to climate science while other countries look to us to lead the way-- although that reputation may be diminishing.

Nothing new to see here...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 6:28:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 2:58:54 PM, Fly wrote:
At 6/11/2015 7:48:00 AM, slo1 wrote:
http://www.bloombergview.com...


Now that six of the world's largest oil companies have essentially come out in favor of a carbon tax, it's getting harder to dismiss the idea as some kind of outlandish lefty plot. And those companies can help their cause by engaging Congress directly, instead of outlining their case in a polite letter to the United Nations.

.....


I was quite surprised to see this-- that is until I actually read the article and found straight away that none of the six companies are US companies.

The US, as usual, bringing up the rear on policy related to climate science while other countries look to us to lead the way-- although that reputation may be diminishing.

Nothing new to see here...

Just like Japan looks to our leadership for 43 new coal plants,
http://dailycaller.com...
and China can follow the US lead with 801 Gigawatts of coal goodness.

Nothing new to see here at all.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 7:56:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If carbon emissions are a negative externality -- which they seem to be with global warming -- a per-unit tax would be the most efficient remedy. Imposing environmental standards simply endear greater deadweight loss for the economy.

I could get behind carbon taxes, as long as they were used entirely for deficit reduction. I don't see this happening, so if they're offset with some sort of tax cut, that'd be the path I'd support.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 7:58:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 12:37:09 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/11/2015 12:23:13 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Why does everyone always hate on big oil? Sure they're big businesses, but you probably couldn't last four weeks without a gas station.

Are you saying they hate themselves since they are starting to get on board with implementing a carbon tax?

Who hates them? We regulate Doctor's by requiring they meet and maintain certain standards before working their craft on patients. This drives up the cost of getting educated to be a Doctor. Do we hate them too for having such regulation?

Me thinks you are making rhetoric.

I mean, we leave a lot of doctors "unregulated" (i.e. unburdened with a cumbersome system of red tape), such as cardiologists, dermatologists, and so on, and things have pretty much been alright if I'm not mistaken.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 10:11:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 7:54:18 AM, slo1 wrote:
Carbon tax?

Pro
1. Helps investment into alternative energy which creates jobs.

The issue is that oil is much better at producing jobs than alternative energy. Though I do think we need to deregulate (to some reasonable degree--some of the NRC regulations are really dumb, and I can elaborate if you want) the industry so it can replace some of our energy use.

2. Reduces carbon emissions.

And this is a pro.


Con
1. Increases cost of oil and petrol products.
2. Decreases discretionary spending.


What else is there?

So does the increase in alternative energy investment offset the decrease in discretionary spending due to lost oil jobs and less money in people's pockets?

I think when you add in global warming whether it is a complete wash or even slightly detrimental, it is a kicker that makes all the sense to start forcing a turn over from oil to alternative energy.

I think there is an alternative strategy: stop subsidizing oil. Let the market work. Stop giving them tax credits. That is an economically efficient way to allow competition from other sources of energy. Chances are gas would replace coal and other energy sources would move to replace gas. I still don't know to what extent warming will harm us, but I think it is enough to at least warrant some action.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 8:35:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 10:11:25 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/11/2015 7:54:18 AM, slo1 wrote:
Carbon tax?

Pro
1. Helps investment into alternative energy which creates jobs.

The issue is that oil is much better at producing jobs than alternative energy. Though I do think we need to deregulate (to some reasonable degree--some of the NRC regulations are really dumb, and I can elaborate if you want) the industry so it can replace some of our energy use.

2. Reduces carbon emissions.

And this is a pro.


Con
1. Increases cost of oil and petrol products.
2. Decreases discretionary spending.


What else is there?

So does the increase in alternative energy investment offset the decrease in discretionary spending due to lost oil jobs and less money in people's pockets?

I think when you add in global warming whether it is a complete wash or even slightly detrimental, it is a kicker that makes all the sense to start forcing a turn over from oil to alternative energy.

I think there is an alternative strategy: stop subsidizing oil. Let the market work. Stop giving them tax credits. That is an economically efficient way to allow competition from other sources of energy. Chances are gas would replace coal and other energy sources would move to replace gas. I still don't know to what extent warming will harm us, but I think it is enough to at least warrant some action.

I would love to hear some of the regulation and unintended consequences.

I also agree that the favorable tax law which subsidizes the oil industry needs to go away. A good example of this the ability to expense 70% of drilling costs. 30% of costs roll up under capital expenditures and depreciate over time versus 100%. This gives a tax advantage as the 70% that is expenses lowers their tax liability in the same year of drilling versus 100% of drilling costs spread over many years.

Although, one has to ask himself whether special tax treatment such as the above greatly helped the expansion of oil development in the US or not. I think the sentiment is that at the previous higher prices the industry would still have had just as much oil development in the US without the favorable tax treatment.

One thing is clear in all of this.
1. The oil market is global.

2. When you add in all the various countries, tax treatments, trade associations (opec) , and commodity markets(futures trading, which is really a derivative not related to actual oil consumption or need), it is one of the most greatly manipulated markets ever.

3. For the two above reasons, it is almost impossible to gather enough people to agree that there is a need to force a turn over of fossil fuels to alt energy by applying carbon credits. I don't even know if the EU or US doing it would be enough to influence the market enough to prompt a turn over.

4. With that said carbon tax has the potential to increase private investment towards alt energy. Private investment is much much much more preferable than gov loans to private business. Things tend to be much more successful when the individuals who stand to gain the most also are the ones to risk losing the most. As a result I would rather as you mention have gov invest in alt energy as tax credits to offset a carbon tax to the consumer versus giving low interest loans to Solarzyme.