Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Edging Towards a Carbon Fee (Tax)

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Fly-over country
    Posts
    6,372

    Default Edging Towards a Carbon Fee (Tax)


    The big corporate shift on climate change


    A
    my Harder Axios 5/20/19



    Corporate America is calling on Congress to pass big climate policy in the most aggressive and united way since 2009.

    Driving the news: Companies across virtually all sectors of the economy, including big oil producers, are beginning to lobby Washington, D.C., to put a price on carbon dioxide emissions.


    • A new coalition launched last week, a similar advocacy campaign is unveiling new corporate money today, and in yet another separate but parallel effort, executives from more than 75 companies will be on Capitol Hill this week lobbying on the issue.

    The intrigue: This is happening against a tumultuous background that may not welcome such a shift.

    • On one side, President Trump outright dismisses climate change as a serious issue.
    • On the other, a loud chorus of environmentalists and progressive leaders, led by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, say big corporations — especially fossil-fuel producers — can’t be trusted.

    Where it stands: Three separate but similar corporate-led campaigns are calling for an explicit price on carbon emissions.


    • 3 big energy companies — Shell, BP and EDF Renewables — have committed new funding over the next 2 years, to a lobbying group, called Americans for Carbon Dividends. Shell and BP are offering $1 million each and EDF is promising $200,000. That group wants Congress to pass policy putting a tax (backers call it a fee) on carbon and returning the money raised to consumers. It already has funding from numerous other big companies, includingExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips.
    • In a sign of the influence of investors, the nonprofit Ceres, which works on sustainable investments, is organizing a lobbying push this week with more than 75 companies, including BP, Microsoft and Tesla.
    • A new coalition of more than a dozen major corporations and four environmental groups launched last week to urge Congress to pass legislation putting a price on CO2 emissions.

    “They see a rising public demand for action and they’re smart enough to know this extreme denial of the Trump era will not last and may be coming to a halt in 2020,” said David Doniger, a strategic director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group not officially connected to any of these new campaigns.

    The big picture: Several years-long trends are driving corporations to ask for government policy — but it’s not really about saving the planet. It’s about investor and legal pressure, falling prices for renewable energy, new bounties of cleaner-burning natural gas and growing public concern about a warming planet’s impacts.


    • The fervor around the Green New Deal, backed by AOC and Sanders, has accelerated this shift among businesses, which are worried about the far-reaching impacts of that progressive proposal.

    What we’re hearing: The messaging firm Luntz Global released a survey today that found broad support for the plan that returns money raised from a carbon price back to consumers.


    • “This is the first time we’ve polled a climate plan that has real positive appeal across Republicans and Democrats,” said Nick Wright, a partner at the firm, which has been conducting surveys on climate change for decades.
    • Luntz Global’s founder, Republican pollster Frank Luntz, is known — notoriously so by some — for suggesting in a 2002 memo that Republicans should start using “climate change” over “global warming” because it sounded less scary.
    • The sheer fact that this firm, which rarely discloses its work, is publicly releasing a survey that’s positive for action on climate change is a sign of how much the public consensus has evolved since then.

    What they’re saying: Republican Rep. Tom Reed of New York said he opposes a “straight-out” carbon tax, but finds the dividend idea “more intriguing.”

    “If it’s coming out of American pockets, and going back in, at least it’s not going into government bureaucracy,” Reed said in an interview in his office last week. He cautioned: “But as I generally am opposed to carbon taxes, I would have to see a compelling case made to me to support that."

    But, but, but: Reed is so far an outlier among a Republican Party that is almost universally and categorically opposed to explicit prices on carbon — at least publicly. Most of the GOP is heavily influenced by special-interest and conservative groups that steer them away from such proposals, arguing the policies would hurt average Americans.

    • While some Democrats think they can push through big policy if they control enough of government, research and past precedent suggest that some Republican support will be necessary.
    • Meanwhile, AOC, Sanders and other politicians on the far left side of politics are unlikely to be satisfied with corporate-led pushes whose goals aren’t aggressive enough in their eyes.

    What’s next: Bubbling beneath the presidential campaign where climate change is featuring more prominently than ever, big fights loom over wonky policy.


    • Such as: Whether a carbon price is the best approach, whether regulations should be repealed in exchange, and to what extent (if at all) big oil companies should get protection from lawsuits related to climate change.

    https://www.axios.com/the-big-corporate-shift-on-climate-change-1edea61e-ca43-4df9-a293-d42e00f08caa.html



  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    3,724

    Default

    Yeah, they figured-out a way to make money on it, and / or to ensure their smaller competitors will collapse.

    Same thing happened with Freon way-back-when. Chemical companies were against banning it - until they realized the Freon patent had expired, and they had newer, still-patented things to sell.



    Earl
    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    Withdraw consent!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,345

    Default



    Leftists aren't going to stop until they've turned the USA into 'taxed to death' rat-infested socialist Europe.


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    since CO2 is about 4% of what we exhale and increased activity can increase that by more than 5X-- are professional athletes going to be taxed for their increased CO2 emissions
    just think how much one football game increase the levels
    now back to your regularly scheduled climate doom
    The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but the newspapers."
    Thomas Jefferson

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    6,296

    Default

    The inverted flat spin tightens, but the passengers are all inebriated. They probably won't even feel the final impact.
    Europe used to have empires. They were run by emperors.
    Then we had kingdoms. They were run by kings.
    Now we have countries...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    9,229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by merovingian View Post
    The inverted flat spin tightens, but the passengers are all inebriated. They probably won't even feel the final impact.
    Not all of us are, we are sewing seat cushions into parachutes at a furious pace.............

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    This side of the Rainbow/ KC MO
    Posts
    3,551

    Default

    OK, If they do what about all of those Congress Critters that fly all over the place for all sorts of useless schemes.
    Will they pay the tax or will it be on the backs of the taxpayers.

    I'll bet ya they exempt themselves, page 27, paragraph 19C.

    All talk and no rules for them. They are the anointed ones over all of the serfs.

    Rhodie
    I have seen the Elephant, War and Worse,
    I do not love it
    Nor do I fear it.
    I just dread what it can do to my country.

    Duty, HONOR, Country.
    If you have to ask, you will never Know.

    Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
    John F Kennedy

    The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves.
    George Washington

    'Forged in a fire lit long ago. Stand next to me, you'll never stand alone.'



  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    6,296

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhodie View Post
    OK, If they do what about all of those Congress Critters that fly all over the place for all sorts of useless schemes.
    Will they pay the tax or will it be on the backs of the taxpayers.

    I'll bet ya they exempt themselves, page 27, paragraph 19C.

    All talk and no rules for them. They are the anointed ones over all of the serfs.

    Rhodie
    Yep.

    Time to hit the flush lever on this load of crap called American politicians.
    Time for a restart.
    Europe used to have empires. They were run by emperors.
    Then we had kingdoms. They were run by kings.
    Now we have countries...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,345

    Default

    .

    My brother was a career NASA scientist beginning with Apollo 11. Although he is now retired, he continues to participate in a climate study group that began as all-NASA scientists. Part of his work at NASA involved atmospheres of the terrestrial planets, including Earth and Mars.

    A few years ago when I asked, he emailed me his overview - see below:


    " The truth lies between those who say there is no global warming caused by humans and those who say the Earth and mankind face rapid and certain catastrophe. My view is that we cannot ignore future warming, but response should be measured, phased, and carefully thought out.

    Some points:

    1) CO2 produced by fossil fuel burning does cause warming, as does land use practices, cement making, and other ways humans alter the surface.

    2) The oceans have been absorbing half of CO2 emitted. Via limestone deposition, they are the ultimate end of dissolved CO2. They also absorb heat. These effects are poorly quantified.

    3) By itself, CO2 produces modest warming, about one deg centigrade (1.8 Fahrenheit) for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

    4) The greater effects are produced by feedbacks of the warming. There are many; some warm, some cool. For example, warming evaporates more water into the atmosphere, and that water is a greater greenhouse gas than CO2. But more atmos. water produces more clouds, which reflect sunlight back to space and cool Earth.

    5) Many of these feedbacks are poorly understood and some probably not known.

    6) Long-term variations in the Sun are generally ignored, as are other natural factors (e.g. changes in ocean currents or cloud cover).

    7) The "doom predictors" use computer models of future warming. These model predictions are all over the map, but in past have predicted more warming than occurred. Models range from about 2 to about 8 deg-C total warming for each CO2 doubling. The truth is likely between 2 and 3. But politicians and Greens adopt numbers of 5 to 8, which are unlikely.

    Renewable energy (solar and wind) are intermittent, and often not predictable (Sun behind cloud; wind stops blowing). Storing renewable energy is very difficult and that is not likely to change soon. (Today's options are pumped hydro or huge battery groups.) That means fossil fuel plants have to be kept operating in reserve. So more power plants are needed than before.

    9) Coal plants cannot be started up quickly, as needed for backups. That leaves natural gas. From fracking the US has a growing NG supply, but not the rest of the world. It requires enormous funding to retire all coal plants, build new NG plants, and new renewable facilities.

    10) Further new transmission lines and grid lines to distribute are needed. And when the fraction of renewable into a grid exceeds about 20%, new problems and costs arise. We are talking $$trillions here. It must be a slow phased process.

    11) Nuclear energy, which is NOT intermittent and produces no CO2 is being ignored or phased out around the world.

    I could go on and on. But you get the picture. Replacing fossil fuel energy is a very difficult, expensive, and disrupting process. It will probably require many decades. And electrical power is only part of fossil fuel CO2 production. There is transportation (oil) and business and home heating (coal, oil and gas). Together these are even bigger than electrical power. "



  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    6,296

    Default

    All the carbon that ever was is here still. Regardless of the activities of man, no change it the total carbon will occur. Facts are stubborn things.
    Europe used to have empires. They were run by emperors.
    Then we had kingdoms. They were run by kings.
    Now we have countries...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •