3 edits
http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/why-has-bp-endorsed-the-cap-trade-bill
I have heard many say that the BP disaster is yet another reason that cap and trade is needed. In fact any disaster, whether it be hurricane, earthquake, or volcano seems to raise those pushing the cap and trade legislation to spew their propoganda. Why then is BP, of all people, endorsing the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act?
The web site above, makes the claim that corporations like BP will utlimately benefit, rather than be hurt economically. It claims that BP would benefit from greater highway subsidies that encourage more driving and oil consumption. Additionally, it would benefit from subsidies for coal-fired plants that switch to gas.
In fact, it seems that other major oil companies and energy companies favor cap and tax. The article cited a Wall Street Journal comment which said, "Every business or interest that could afford a half-competent lobbyist stands to benefit."
I liked how the article ended. Basically it said that if alternative energy sources are what is needed, then lets invest in those and those alone. We don't need yet another large pot of money floating around in Washington that goes God only knows where. We should begin to convert to other energy sources rather than making energy consumption punative.
Originally posted by whodeySo why hasn't the GOP been pushing hard to get this bill passed? Have the oil companies forgotten to tell all of their GOP minions in Congress that they support cap and trade?
http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/why-has-bp-endorsed-the-cap-trade-bill
I have heard many say that the BP disaster is yet another reason that cap and trade is needed. In fact any disaster, whether it be hurricane, earthquake, or volcano seems to raise those pushing the cap and trade legislation to spew their propoganda. Why then is BP, of all people, endor ...[text shortened]... ould begin to convert to other energy sources rather than making energy consumption punative.
Originally posted by MelanerpesIf they are needed they will. If they are not needed then then can pander to the right by opposing the bill. I know that McCain was endorsing this bill during his presidential campaign just like Obama, so it seems that both parties have supported this bill at various times.
So why hasn't the GOP been pushing hard to get this bill passed? Have the oil companies forgotten to tell all of their GOP minions in Congress that they support cap and trade?
Additionally, Congress recently gave the EPA the power to begin implementing cap and tax. I presume they will first try to take a Constitutional appraoch first so as not to take additional heat for doing so. However, if it fails I predict that the EPA will being the procedure and let the chips fall where they may. Even though public outrage may boil over, there is simply too much money on the table for these fat cats to care.
Originally posted by whodeyI'm no expert on the bill, so it may be that there are a lot of measures besides the highway subsidies that would be beneficial to oil companies and that this is the reason they are in favour.
http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/why-has-bp-endorsed-the-cap-trade-bill
I have heard many say that the BP disaster is yet another reason that cap and trade is needed. In fact any disaster, whether it be hurricane, earthquake, or volcano seems to raise those pushing the cap and trade legislation to spew their propoganda. Why then is BP, of all people, endor ...[text shortened]... ould begin to convert to other energy sources rather than making energy consumption punative.
If there aren't, there can still be a number of reasons BP likes this. The most important of those is also in your post, even though their oil and gas products will pollute and suffer a bit from higher prices, their main competition in electricity production, coal, will suffer more. Characterizing this as subsidies is probably false though (although this may be in the bill somewhere), basically it should be that both are taxed extra, but one is taxed more than the other.
I have to disagree with your and the articles conclusion though.
The article says that a simple carbon tax is the way to go. Theoretically, this is a good solution to the problem. However, it is a lot harder to get a specific amount of emission reductions with a tax. When using cap-and-trade, you sell a specified number of carbon credits so you reach your emission goal. When that is done, you just let the market decide the correct price for carbon credits. When you want to use a tax, you have to do a lot of work to first decide on the correct size of this tax. Remember we want a specific emission reduction, so if our tax is set too low, we don't reach it, if it's too high we're punishing the industry and the economy more than we have to. Even if we would be able to set such a correct tax size, we would have to redo all that work every few months to account for changing market conditions.
Your conclusion, to invest in (dare I say subsidize ?) alternative energy sources, surprises me, simply because you're supposed to be more right-wing than me. To an extent this may be a solution, certainly in fundamental research. However, once we get to subsidizing the applications it gets a lot harder. For this to work we have to assume a lot of expertise to allocate these subsidies correctly. One form of alternative energy isn't the same as another, and which ones will be the most efficient in the future ? We wouldn't want to be wasting a lot of money on an inefficient form of alternative energy. (A good example are ridiculous subsidies in solar panels in Belgium). Besides, this runs the risk of becoming a huge pork pot, expect subsidies to be allocated in function of their location instead of their merits.
Of course, another way to subsidise is to match a part of the investments made by the private sector in cleaner energy sources. This way we can let the free market decide what is most efficient (they're pretty good at it) and subsidize that. Last subsidy option is to subsidize based on how emissions/electricity generation, but in that case I'd rather tax those with high emissions instead of subsidizing low emissions.
Basically, I think that most of the valid criticism in the article focuses on provisions in the bill that have little to do with the core of cap-and-trade and more with all the subsidies that are included as well. I don't see any reason why a bill that at it's core proposes a simple tax won't have the same problems as well.
2 edits
Originally posted by BartsWhy is it surprising? I am in favor of strengthening America which means energy independence rather than being dependent on countries abroad who wish the US would destroy itself. My plan would be short term to make cars run on natty gas. It may be initially expensive to convert to gas, but natty gas is cheaper than oil overseas and is abundant in the US and we don't need offshore drilling to exploit it. This means more jobs, cheaper prices at the pumps and a carbon fuel that burns cleaner than oil. Its a win/win situation don't you think? Long term the US should focus on nuclear power. Again, I have NO problem with the government INVESTING in alternative energy so long as the funds we are taxed with go towards investing in the nation rather than a blind and never ending tax that enriches corporate America and those in Washington even further. So if cap and tax is so great what has it done for Europe? LOL. Once those nuclear plants are operational, it would not only be a cheap form of energy, it would be carbon free. You would think that all those who really believed carbon emissions were destroying the planet would favor nuclear energy, but they don't. That tells me that they probably don't believe what they are spewing.
[Your conclusion, to invest in (dare I say subsidize ?) alternative energy sources, surprises me, simply because you're supposed to be more right-wing than me.
I have said it before and I will say it again, the conservative approach is to learn from history. So who exports their energy in Europe? Isn't it France who has gone mostly nuclear? Why can't the US learn from this?