Exxon is probably pushing this because it will help their business.
The #1 "victim" of a carbon tax is coal, which accounts for about 30% of our energy production. A carbon tax will redistribute this production to other sources, mainly natural gas (which emits 42% less carbon). Exxon does a lot of natural gas extraction, and virtually nothing with coal.
Exxon is also working on carbon sequestration technology.
Which becomes a much more profitable business if there is a real carbon tax.
And as far as oil goes - a carbon tax has comparatively little effect on gas prices. $30/ton would be about 27 cents per gallon [1].
EDIT - After RT-entire-FA, I see they got to this point. But I think they are overcomplicating things with points #1,2,4,5. It's just good business for Exxon.
I'm fine with Exxon benefitting from a carbon tax. They have the political clout to push a bill like this through Congress, and it benefits the country as a whole to have carbon legislation in place. Seems like a win-win to me.
I think that it's a bad thing that "multi-national corporation" has become synonymous with "bad agent" or even "evil." Much of our society is multi-national corporations, so when we have a biased view of them we may end up cutting off our nose to spite our face.
And in popular culture, if we end up with people opposed to a carbon tax just because Exxon wants a carbon tax too, well it doesn't more nose-less than that.
"Much of our society is multi-national corporations"
I have problems with that statement.
In my opinion, if we start forgetting we are a society of humans that, sometimes, use corporations as a tool for collaborating, we have serious problems.
So, everybody, repeat with me: we want to maximize humans welfare. Corporations are tools.
That's exactly what I meant by that statement, corporations are tools for our collaboration. They are a dominant form of our economic collaboration. Nearly all of us invest in them in our retirement savings. Many of us work for them. Everyone uses their services. So they have a big role in our society, and they are a tool that can be used in good and bad ways.
So in summary, I'm not sure what your problem was with that statement, other than perhaps my statement was too ambiguous :)
Society doesn't have aims, people do. Your unstated assumption that you views represent everyone else's is incorrect, and I am sure that my aims are very different from yours.
That's pretty lazy reasoning. Tech companies spend a lot of time promoting STEM education. They benefit from the government teaching people those skills on the public dime. So do you reflexively question the benefit society gets from STEM education?
There are typically competing multi-nationals that have market share to gain by diminishing their competitors, so you can assume that there will be lobbies on both sides for legislation that interferes with the free market.
There is no "free market here"--CO2 production is an externalized cost and not taxing it enables some companies (that use energy) to pass off part of the costs of their profit-making activities on everyone else.
My understanding is that externalized costs have nothing to do with a free market. Intervention is necessary in order to account for the externalized costs, which is an infringement on a free market. Are you saying that is incorrect?
Corporations are infinitely selfish and completely merciless, not evil. They're as likely to do good for good's sake as they are to do evil for evil's sake.
Ok, I did my due diligence and read my comment over at least three times, I fail to see where I said corporations are "evil". Were you agreeing with me? Because other than the evil part, your comment is much in line with what I meant.
I have deeply negative feelings about Exxon for misleading the public on the dangers of fossil fuel combustion while having ample knowledge of that danger (they've known for 40 years). However, I'm a pragmatist; it's more important that we take steps which will move us off carbon-generating energy sources than it is to render punishment. If Exxon happens to benefit, fine. I'd be more pleased if their executives were convicted on criminal charges and the tax was implemented due to the overwhelming will of American voters, but this is fine too.
It's nowhere near enough to meaningfully affect demand. The EIA estimates[1] that gasoline has to get 25-50% more expensive to reduce demand by even 1%.
The article linked to an Economist article on British Columbia's $30/ton carbon tax, where it seemed to have a much more significant effect:
>BC’s fuel consumption is also down. Over the past six years, the per-person consumption of fuels has dropped by 16% (although declines levelled off after the last tax increase in 2012). During that same period, per-person consumption in the rest of Canada rose by 3%. “Each year the evidence becomes stronger and stronger that the carbon tax is driving environmental gains,” says Stewart Elgie, an economics professor at University of Ottawa and head of Sustainable Prosperity, a pro-green think-tank. At the same time, BC’s economy has kept pace with the rest of the country.
I'm not sure I trust future projections much from the EIA; they are extremely conservative in terms of being unable to imagine non-fossil fuel energy. They've been consistently wrong on renewable technology as well:
I don't mean to diminish the excellent work they do. But for projections like this they must necessarily embody lots of opinion, and there's a good chance that their opinions embody the slow-change mindset of the energy industry.
This is comparing miles traveled to fuel costs when it really should compare fuel consumed / person to fuel costs since MPG is not static.
I would bet with hybrid (and arguably electric) cars being as usable as their ICE cousins that the demand for transportation fuel will become far more elastic.
No it isn't. US gas prices are comically low compared to virtually every other country on the planet. The exceptions are countries with stupidly low gas prices like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. If this tax was applied it wouldn't push America into European levels of pricing. It wouldn't even nudge it into Canadian pricing levels.
We cannot rely on Exxon to lobby for carbon tax legislation that will represent the average person. Please take 2 minutes to learn about the carbon tax and call your representatives. "Hey my name is [your name] and I want the Representative to support the "Climate Protection and Justice Act"
I wasn't sure if carbontax.org was a good site, but then saw a number of the founders worked for Move NY, and upon googling them, I found that they are fighting for congestion pricing in NY. Which signals to me that they get it.
I feel like a lot of the people who are against carbon taxes have little to no empathy for those who live in areas of the globe most likely to become less hospitable to life in a few decades.
And that's a lot more people who tend to be much poorer than even the poor rural Americans.
People in rural communities typically earn less and consume more petroleum based products. They don't have public transportation. A carbon tax will only further widen the gap between the rich and the poor.
People in rural communities typically earn less and consume more petroleum based products.
The argument goes, this is exactly why a carbon tax is needed. The externalities of using fossil fuels aren't captured in the price, leading to overconsumption. There are plenty of ways to mitigate impact, either by applying a graduated subsidy to low-income populations, etc. Allowing folks to continue to live in a financially unsustainable way doesn't seem to be the answer...
Rural communities spend more carbon than city communities. Basically they drive farther. Also less people live in apartment buildings which are more efficient to cool/heat because of shared walls.
Exactly James. I don't live in a rural area, but I did grow up in a small town. You have to drive everywhere. Most people live in houses. I have a problem in general with taxing for change. It always benefits the large corporations and crushes the small businesses. Besides that, the three letter agencies have a horrible track record of catering to corrupt companies.
Everyone knows we need a direct carbon tax, it's just too convenient politically to be anti-tax. As a result, I think this is mostly a marketing problem.
From the article, it looks like the current bill is "Climate Protection and Justice Act of 2015". I propose instead the "Save our Children Act". Hard to be against that.
From what I can tell, this is a political maneuvering by the oil industry to not be nailed to the cross like the tobacco industry did: knowingly selling a highly toxic product that is conclusively linked to many disorders including cancer, and covering it up or minimizing it in the media for decades to continue profiting.
Unfortunately, it's not going to work, and they will be ran out of business through the political will of the people, just as the tobacco industry is now having done to it.
You're not cool if you smoke, and you're not cool if you don't drive a Tesla. It isn't often that the right thing is also the cool thing; everyone involved should pat themselves on the back for a job well done.
People who compare oil and tobacco ignore the benefits side. For tobacco, the positive benefits are very small. The oil industry on the other hand powers our entire modern way of life.
* Ever fly in an airplane - thank oil
* Ever ride in a car or bus - thank oil
* Live in a cold climate and heat your home in winter - thank oil
* Ever use plastics - thank oil
* Ever buy something on Amazon and had it shipped to you - thank oil
* Ever buy something manufactured in another country - thank oil
* Ever use electricity on a still night - you should probably thank natural gas or coal
* Ever mail a letter - thank oil
If tobacco and tobacco products were suddenly unavailable tomorrow morning - the world would probably be a better place
If oil and oil products were suddenly unavailable tomorrow morning - it would probably result in the collapse of civilization as we know it and millions of deaths
Let's not pretend oil and tobacco have anywhere near the same pro/con trade offs.
Oil is in everything. Transportation of course, but it's in our clothes, our houses, computers, our food (fertilizer for example), etc. It's very difficult to point to something that oil ISN'T in (here in the US). I'm sure I'll get responses which do.
>People who compare oil and tobacco ignore the benefits
That's wrong. This article compares the two because it seems both groups committed fraud via funding misinformation campaigns that had a goal of affecting legislation on regulation.
Extremists are the ones who cannot deal with the obvious negatives of oil along with the benefits.
Unfortunately, it's not going to work, and they will be ran out of business through the political will of the people, just as the tobacco industry is now having done to it.
Cool, and what's your proposal for an alternative energy source to power modern civilisation?
Nuclear would solve a lot of problem if we are able to overcome power transmission issue. Not everyone wants a nuclear power plant anywhere near them. But oil would still be used for plastics, transportation (airplanes, tankers), heating, etc...
1. If fossil fuel use is reduced to cars/trucks, the problem is largely solved. In the US, only 26% of emissions come from transportation.[1]
2. Electric cars will make this irrelevant, since they'll draw their power from the grid. In the meantime, ICEs/hybrids are becoming increasingly efficient.
"Cool, and what's your proposal for an alternative energy source to power modern civilisation?"
We have several alternatives.
The only problem they have is that most of them are difficult to store in a self-contained moving vehicle that turns rubber wheels to move on flat blacktop.
So, we increase reliance on vehicles that turn steel wheels on steel tracks, and get their power from overhead wires.
Most of the electrical energy comes from burning things that create carbon-dioxide as a side product. The only real alternative is fission, and the public opinion against nuclear is even worse than against oil. How do you solve this problem?
Getting people and things moved by train is a great idea, but in the grand scheme of things we're dependant on oil for so many other things.
Well over 40% of US electricity comes from things that don't create carbon dioxide. Exact numbers are hard to come by because a lot of solar power for example never ends up on the electric grid.
I know this is very hard for this forum to consider at times, but the world is not only the US, and the question about what do with coal, oil, and gas is a global, not a US problem. United States is a somewhat lucky outlier when it comes to energy production. Unfortunately, even in other currently lucky nations, the public sentiment is strongly against nuclear power.
In 2013 91.6% of the energy cames from CO2 producing sources[1], and nuclear production is decreasing[1], having peaked in 2005.
The exact percentage, whether it's 91.5% or under 60% doesn't even matter though, what matters is that fossil fuel burning is increasing in absolute terms[1].
I think part of the coolness of driving a Telsa comes from the cars being a symbol of wealth, although maybe the Model 3 will be a little different in this regard.
And I propose the e-bicycle conversion kits, generally for the price of a commuter class cheap bike the cost per watt of motor and cost per KWh lithium battery has been dropping by half every couple years. Today in 2016 you're looking at about two watts of motor power per dollar (so $500 kit would get you more than a horsepower, and riding on horseback seems adequately fast) and about $30 per mile of battery range so $500 of lithium ion should get me around 15 miles on a charge (depends a lot on speed, hills, how much you pedal, etc)
Of course the government is getting in the way with all kinds of regulation and outright banning in some more backwards cities (NYC, etc). But I don't live in a backwards city so no problemo.
Until 2016 I'm not going to ride a bike to work because I'll be all sweaty during the roughly two months per year the weather is good enough to ride a bike. However my son is very interested in the mechanical work of assembling an ebike conversion, and it sounds like a fun teen boy and dad project to work on together, so in 2017 I could slowly ride an ebike to work mostly sweatless. Its an interesting technological development. I have not gone beyond a couple hours of online research on this project, but I'm figuring for a couple grand, which isn't much, we can build matching ebikes.
> However my son is very interested in the mechanical work of assembling an ebike conversion, and it sounds like a fun teen boy and dad project to work on together
Sounds cool! Let me suggest (if you haven't thought about this already) to document all steps and publish it on a blog or something. Other interested dads, curious kids and DIYs in general will love it and might give a shot.
I actually don't have one, though, but that's only because everything I do on a regular basis is within 2 miles. My ride to work on a normal pedal bike is 6 minutes.
I agree that cities are absurd for banning small 2 wheeled vehicles with little momentum while permitting large 4 wheeled vehicles with massive momentum (and with it, massive ability to mangle and destroy human bodies).
> You're not cool if you smoke, and you're not cool if you don't drive a Tesla.
PM has been trading for more in the last 5 months than it has in the last 8 years.
Cool to who? Tesla ownership is a sign that you have money to spend but are not informed enough to purchase a vehicle that's worth the money. You might be cool in tech circles, but people that know cars will roll their eyes.
Car guy here: None of my car guy friends "roll there eyes" at Teslas. Myself and my "car guy" friends are all Porsche guys who all work on their own air cooled cars - we rebuild our own motors and transmissions, corner balance our cars for the track, etc. Then again, we probably aren't cool though. ;-)
Have any of your car guy friends driven a Tesla? They're some of the worst-handling cars on the market today. Quick 0-60 times land them in lots of headlines, but the second you have to turn the car, it's really frustrating.
My car friends fall into two camps: those who have never driven a Tesla, and those who have. The former group is optimistic and looks upon Tesla products with naked desire; the latter group has already dismissed the entire company as The Sharper Image of car sales.
I haven't found a Tesla to have bad handling. I'm not a handling expert, but during a test drive, it met my needs for handling. I'd buy a Tesla for the zero emissions and driver assistance features. The handling as-is is sufficient for me. (I don't recall any of the major automotive publications mentioning bad handling in their reviews. Do you have links to the C&D, R&T or Motor Trend reviews that mention this issue?)
Very rarely do mainstream auto reviewers talk about this sort of thing. A couple of exceptions are in the case of a car that is damn near dangerous to drive, or a car that is expected to handle properly and fails to excel.
Since the Tesla is a car that competes with luxury cars rather than sports cars, it falls into neither of these categories. A reviewer calling it out for poor handling will thus generate a ton of ill-will and angry comments sections from the 'who-cares' crowd, so they don't bother with it.
Here's an example of what passes for an excoriation from mainstream auto media:
The phrasing here, combined with a lead-photo of abysmal body roll, indicates to car people that this thing handles like a boat. I've verified this myself behind the wheel.
I understand and agree that this car handles just fine for the mass majority of people, but "meets needs" is kind of a shitty bar to set for a car priced to compete with the BMW M4.
I have driven one (two?) and was very impressed with it's straight line acceleration. I didn't press the handling at all (the owner wasn't the kind of guy who would/could appreciate that) so you may have a good point.
I feel it's important to note that the entire world of "not car guys" spends pretty much every interaction with "car guys" rolling their eyes about everything. Generally speaking, people just don't care about being cool for the sake of subcultures.
The #1 "victim" of a carbon tax is coal, which accounts for about 30% of our energy production. A carbon tax will redistribute this production to other sources, mainly natural gas (which emits 42% less carbon). Exxon does a lot of natural gas extraction, and virtually nothing with coal.
Exxon is also working on carbon sequestration technology. Which becomes a much more profitable business if there is a real carbon tax.
And as far as oil goes - a carbon tax has comparatively little effect on gas prices. $30/ton would be about 27 cents per gallon [1].
[1] https://www.uscleanenergyfund.com/articles/carbon-tax-simula... (disclaimer - I made this)
EDIT - After RT-entire-FA, I see they got to this point. But I think they are overcomplicating things with points #1,2,4,5. It's just good business for Exxon.