Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is surprising but unfortunately no companies in the US, this coupled with the G7's agreement to reduce carbon dioxide is a step in the right direction although very late.
Quote:
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.
None of the companies -- BP Plc, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Total SA, Statoil ASA, Eni SpA and BG Group -- is based in the U.S. Still, their argument should resonate in Washington: "Clear, stable, long-term" policies that make carbon more expensive (the letter never uses the word "tax") are necessary to reduce
uncertainty, stimulate investment and encourage the most efficient reductions in emissions. Only governments can make those changes, they say. And those national systems must eventually be connected to create a global system.
Would imagine that they support the tax as it would further erode the coal industry in electrical generation, and would cause more plants to convert to NG or be built for NG generation.
Have read an article or three about how they are looking to capture the NG that gets flared off. Guessing that the carbon tax begins to make those capture costs more realistic.
You can be pretty well assured that their support has more economic self serving at heart than a true commitment to environmental issues. Either way though, NG is at least somewhat more "cleaner' than most/all coal usage.
not at all surprising given the carbon tax would get applied to not only their competition, but also companies in different competing industries, like coal, natural gas etc, which probably means they would increase business while reducing competition, while at the same time, passing the cost onto the consumer.
My immediate reaction is to dismiss it as PR, then to ask whether or not the CEOs have invested in any specific Green Energy companies. This of course would be followed by me asking anyone if they know where can I find this information.
This is surprising but unfortunately no companies in the US, this coupled with the G7's agreement to reduce carbon dioxide is a step in the right direction although very late.
My immediate reaction is to dismiss it as PR, then to ask whether or not the CEOs have invested in any specific Green Energy companies. This of course would be followed by me asking anyone if they know where can I find this information.
You need to follow the money, and see the underlying motivations. Many times a big corporation seems to favor a new regulation, tax, or policy that seems like it actually harms them financially. But what they are actually doing is favoring laws and reqs which drive out smaller corporations who cannot absorb the new onerous costs and requirements, thus giving the big corps a larger share of the market.
Remember, the really large corporations do not pay taxes, or suffer financial hardships from onerous regulations, they just pass costs onto the consumers.
As Obama said about how onerous regulations and taxes affect corporations: "Coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers."
I actually believe I support a carbon tax. Here's why:
1. I work in the O&G industry. As someone else just pointed out, it will hurt coal producers much harder and give my industry a competitive advantage. Since the tax will be pretty much be universal across the O&G industry and just passed on to the consumer, it won't really hurt us (the company that employes me).
2. The roads are getting more and more congested. An increase in such taxes will drive up gas prices which will force more lower income families into public transportation. This will result in less cars on the road, and less traffic for me.
3. With lower income people dependent upon public transportation, it will result in less of them living out in the x-burbs with me.
4. Higher fuel and electrical costs will result in higher food prices and reduced crop yields. This should help reduce the increase in population.
I just don't really see a downside. Even thought I don't subscribe to man-made global warming, I am beginning to dig the idea of a carbon tax simply because the slight dent it makes in my budget is offset by the positive effects. Is it classist? Well, yes, but if most people are honest, most people are classist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
