Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Obama Apparently Drops Windfall Profits Tax Proposal
During the campaign, President-elect Barack Obama promised to stick it to Big Oil with a windfall profits tax. At the time, reason explained why such a tax was a bad idea:
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is also calling for a windfall profits tax on oil companies. But will it work?
The last time the United States imposed a windfall profits tax on oil companies was in 1980 and it lasted until 1988. The result, according to a 1990 Congressional Research Service analysis, was that the tax on oil company profits decreased domestic production by 3 percent to 6 percent and increased dependence on foreign oil by 8 percent to 16 percent. Keep in mind that the big private oil companies actually control only about 6 percent of the world's known oil reserves—the rest are owned by gigantic foreign national oil companies. And just where do private oil companies get the billions they invest in projects to increase supplies? That's right; their profits.
Obama has now quietly dropped the idea:
President-elect Barack Obama has removed any reference of his promise to implement a windfall profits tax on the oil and gas industry from the Obama-Biden Transition Team website, www.change.gov.
Activists are dismayed:
With the election behind him, President-elect Obama has failed to justify the removal of the windfall profits tax from his tax plan. The subtle and unexplained elimination of this issue from the Obama-Biden agenda should concern Americans from every background. The American Small Business League (ASBL) questions whether the sudden elimination of this issue is a further indication that large corporations are already demonstrating their ability to influence the Obama Administration.
Hooray for economic sanity.
|12.2.08 @ 6:20PM|#
Maybe the man did learn something at the University of Chicago.
Of course, it's more likely that a couple of oil industry lobbyists
made a few calls.
-jcr
Warty|12.2.08 @ 6:28PM|#
That's too rich. If Obama does something bad, it's because the corporations are influencing him.
cunnivore|12.2.08 @ 6:34PM|#
Looks like the "change" in that URL has double meaning. While I think it's good that Change was changed, keep in mind the adage that a man who steals for you will probably also steal from you.
mike farmer|12.2.08 @ 6:41PM|#
In a couple of years we're going to see some very pissed off Birkenstockers.
|12.2.08 @ 6:56PM|#
His rep said they aren't playing up the "excessive profits"
"tax" because the price of oil has dropped so dramatically. There
has been no indication that the plan has been scrapped, only that
it is no longer featured on the website.
Whatever, the quote you posted in support of no-tax is still
ridiculous:
And just where do private oil companies get the billions they invest in projects to increase supplies? That's right; their profits.
And you're smoking what, now?
Chevron posts record $18.7 billion profit
Big
Oil Feasts on Economic Woes
Oil
Company Profits Soar
It's real simple ... oil company profits go to oil company
executives. End of story. The drop in production you cite as
evidence that a "tax" on oil company profits was bad news obviously
has alternative causes. You can't claim prescience on this one.
Kaiser|12.2.08 @ 6:57PM|#
Ahh this gets better every day. Yep he is full of change and new ideas alright, starting with a VP pick that has been in washington for over 30 years, to appointing an AG that has a hard on for "drug abusers" and continuing by appointing all the clintonistas he can get his hands on. No matter though, no one on the left will dare to criticize their lord and savior.
|12.2.08 @ 6:58PM|#
I'm going to assume everyone on these boards read this article
and was all "Like, duh!" about it, seeing that this thread has a
relatively minuscule number of comments.
I'm also going to assume R.B. included the blank reference after
"Hoorah for economic sanity" to reference the zero number of
statements made by Obama supporters who are happy with his
"change".
|12.2.08 @ 6:58PM|#
You know, since you get less of that which you tax, perhaps
Obama should call for a windfall losses tax.
Yes, oil companies are making less now, but they're not facing
losses just yet. Apply the windfall losses tax to financial
institutions and auto companies first!
Obama Lad|12.2.08 @ 7:03PM|#
This is not the Obama I voted for. The big corporations must have kidnapped him and replaced him with a brown android. FREE OBAMA!!!
|12.2.08 @ 7:04PM|#
Although I, too, mock the apparent Unchang-edness of Obama in
this pre-taking of office period, the one small hope we do have is
that he'll try to stay in the center on many issues to avoid what
happened to Clinton in 1994.
One thing to keep in mind, too, is that oil prices are dropping
like a rock.
|12.2.08 @ 7:04PM|#
As a self-interested person, I think that any windfall-profits tax leading to a $1000 tax credit for me is good. I really can't see the penalty to the oil companies outweighing the benefit to me. To the rest of the nation as a whole, sure. To me, no.
|12.2.08 @ 7:07PM|#
It's tough to collect a lot of money from a windfall profits tax
with Regular selling for under two bucks a gallon.
It's also no longer necessary to create a funding source for his
green infrastructure program, now that it's being rolled into the
deficit-funded stimulus package.
Economic sanity, indeed.
|12.2.08 @ 7:09PM|#
Oh, look, people who spent the election believing that the type
of change Obama was going to bring was a radical form of leftism
have been proven wrong again, yet they're gloating.
I guess that's the booby prize.
Kolohe|12.2.08 @ 7:11PM|#
You know, since you get less of that which you tax, perhaps
Obama should call for a windfall losses tax.
Yes, oil companies are making less now, but they're not facing
losses just yet. Apply the windfall losses tax to financial
institutions and auto companies first!
You joke, but it's a large part of the reason why I think we should
raise the gas tax by a quarter or a half dollar - as a windfall tax
on consumers.
Seriously, I remember you making some points about the gas tax
holiday that it could paradoxically raise prices because of a
demand increase. I would think it's possible that reverse to be
true as well - that raising the price now would keep demand low and
thus the price more stable at an overall lower equilibrium.
The Angry Optimist|12.2.08 @ 7:13PM|#
You can't claim prescience on this one.
It's not prescience, it's science. When you tax something, you get
less of it. When you tax oil companies' profits, you get less of
them, and they make profit by finding, processing and selling
oil.
Ergo, profit tax on oil = less oil.
|12.2.08 @ 7:15PM|#
While I fear some socialistic nonsense from Obama, I view him more as a machine guy than as an ideologue. What I'm really concerned about is zany lefty nonsense from Congress, which Obama may or may not have the cojones to resist.
|12.2.08 @ 7:17PM|#
Ergo, profit tax on oil = less oil.
Exactly. The original plan was to allow the companies to avoid the
tax by investing in green energy research and development. It was
an effort to get them to shift their investments from oil
exploration and corporate profits to alternative energy.
The "windfall profits tax" name was just an attempt to sell the
proposal when people who ticked off over the price of gas.
|12.2.08 @ 7:24PM|#
I hate people who play dumb. Like "green energy" is some kind of
obscure term no one's ever heard of.
If I put a gun to your head and told you to define green energy, do
you think you'd be able to figure it out, or do you think I'd get
to shoot you?
Do you have a point?
The Angry Optimist|12.2.08 @ 7:29PM|#
Yes, joe, my point is that it doesn't really have a definition. It's a feel-good, catch-all term for anything that isn't oil or coal.
The Angry Optimist|12.2.08 @ 7:30PM|#
Exhibit A: you got pissed off when asked to define it. If it was so simple, you should have just done it.
joe has a gun???|12.2.08 @ 7:30PM|#
If I put a gun to your head and told you to define green energy, do you think you'd be able to figure it out, or do you think I'd get to shoot you?
.. you wouldn't shoot though - wouldja joe...? Say it ain't
so..!
|12.2.08 @ 7:34PM|#
Seriously, I remember you making some points about the gas
tax holiday that it could paradoxically raise prices because of a
demand increase.
Under high prices due to strapped supplies, the holiday would not
be passed to the consumer but pocketed by the producer.
I would think it's possible that reverse to be true as well -
that raising the price now would keep demand low and thus the price
more stable at an overall lower equilibrium.
I think it's debatable that you'd get more stable prices. The
result of such a tax, which would indeed fall on the consumer in
the present regime, would be decreased long-run production. I would
think would mean greater variance in supply and therefore price.
But it is true that the less oil demanded, the more certain the
supply, so the less room for speculation on the future.
|12.2.08 @ 7:41PM|#
The Angry Optimist | December 2, 2008, 7:29pm | #
Yes, joe, my point is that it doesn't really have a
definition.
So, in other words, I'd get to shoot you.
I just don't understand why people think playing dumb is clever, or
a good debating strategy.
Green energy: energy that is low in pollution, carbon emissions, is
renewable, and otherwise has a significantly lower environmental
impact than fossil fuels.
But you already knew that.
I just don't get it.
|12.2.08 @ 7:41PM|#
I think Joe maybe pissed that others wrongfully accused him of posting under my name on the thread concerning the SJC's decision to permit the jury to decide whether the limo driver was negligent in dropping off his intoxicated passenger at a car.
The Bearded Hobbit|12.2.08 @ 7:41PM|#
The original plan was to allow the companies to avoid the
tax by investing in green energy research and
development.
.. all right!! .. nukes on every corner!!
.. nukes are green, right?? .. right??
.. Hobbit
|12.2.08 @ 7:45PM|#
www.wikipedia.org/green_energy
Green energy is a term used to describe sources of energy that
are considered to be environmentally friendly and non-polluting,
such as geothermal, wind, and solar power. These sources of energy
may provide a remedy to the systemic effects of global warming and
certain forms of pollution.
Green energy is commonly thought of in the context of electricity,
heating and cogeneration.
Duh.
|12.2.08 @ 7:46PM|#
libertymike,
I never looked at that thread.
Hobbit,
There's actually a big debate about that. Nuclear waste tends to be
rather nasty. On the other hand, so does global warming. There's a
lot more support for nuclear energy among environmentalists than
there was just ten years ago.
Kolohe|12.2.08 @ 7:48PM|#
The result of such a tax, which would indeed fall on the
consumer in the present regime, would be decreased long-run
production
I guess it depends what you mean by 'long-run'.
I believe in the existence of peak-oil, but not consequences (i.e.
I believe it will have the same consequences as 'peak land' did
when the frontier closed in 1890 - things will be different, but
not necessarily worse)
Which is to say, most oil production is continue to go full out
pretty much indefintely. And there will be very little variance in
supply, but high variablity in demand (in aggregate - not
necessarily individually, but certainly at an economy wide level).
By increasing prices now, you both reduce demand imediately, and I
hypothesize, help to level-load the inevitable demand increase over
the medium (5-10 year) term.
|12.2.08 @ 7:49PM|#
TAO:
When you tax oil companies' profits, you get less of them, and they make profit by finding, processing and selling oil.
Actually, they only make profit by selling. The others are
expenditures. I'm guessing that you are familiar with the term
"slowdown", where a plant or industry that objects to a particular
ruling decreases production in order to spank those who laid down
the ruling? That's what we saw in the 80s, not some profit:loss
battle that ended with oil production going down because there
wasn't enough profit in it.
MNG|12.2.08 @ 7:50PM|#
joe
How does TAO's lunch taste? Did it come with a drink?
I mean come on TAO you know what people are getting at by that
term.
TAO was the guy who recently argued that since "poverty" refers in
some sense to social norms that it must really then have "no real
meaning." And I pointed out that by that defintion "rudeness" would
have no "real meaning." But everyone knows what rudeness and
poverty are.
The Angry Optimist|12.2.08 @ 7:55PM|#
Green energy: energy that is low in pollution, carbon
emissions, is renewable, and otherwise has a significantly lower
environmental impact than fossil fuels.
You know, for a numbers-based kind of guy, I do not see a lot of
figures in there:
1. Define "low" in "low emissions"
2. Define "significantly lower"
3. Define "environmental impact" - Does that mean less land use?
Less resources?
Mike Laursen|12.2.08 @ 7:55PM|#
Going back on campaign promises?! Shocking! Next thing we'll hear that he isn't getting his girls a puppy!
Some Guy|12.2.08 @ 7:56PM|#
I was under the impression that he dropped this about 3 months ago. Not that I ever expected him to go through with a subsidy for foreign oil companies once he was elected.
|12.2.08 @ 8:06PM|#
How does TAO's lunch taste?
PB&J on Wonder Bread, with the crusts cut off. And a cupcake
with a little pink candy heard reading "Mom Loves You."
You know, for a numbers-based kind of guy, I do not see a lot
of figures in there That's probably because it's not a
numerical definition.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|12.2.08 @ 8:11PM|#
The background energy to the universe is green, so that must be
green energy.
We should use that. All we need is more funding.
|12.2.08 @ 8:13PM|#
I guess it depends what you mean by 'long-run'.
By long-run production, I don't mean total future oil output, but
rather the rate of extraction. I used 'long-run' because no
foreseeable tax change will alter the supply of oil in the time
frame of a year. Virtually all planning of oil production is in the
5-10 year term.
If there is a tax on gas while it appears plentiful, it will drive
more consumers to alternative transportation choices or lack of
choices sooner than otherwise. That would probably smooth the
transition through peak oil, but it would be less economically
efficient and it therefore would pose a cost to the wealth of
society.
But if the alternative is jockeying by the government economic
illiterates who own the oil and, more to the point, major
overreaction by the government economic illiterates who run net oil
consumer nations (think Nixon and Carter) maybe it pays off in the
end.
sage|12.2.08 @ 8:19PM|#
It's real simple ... oil company profits go to oil company
executives.
Wow, I'm an oil company executive? I had no idea. Or do those
dividend payments on oil company stocks not count?
The Angry Optimist|12.2.08 @ 8:21PM|#
That's probably because it's not a numerical
definition.
Not even going to try, eh?
Let's suppose for a minute that so-called "green" energy's
definition turns on its contrast with traditional fossil fuels, and
we'll peg fossil fuels pollution rate at 100% (because "green" is
to be contrasted). At what percentage of pollution or emissions
would an energy source become "green"?
Right now, there really is no workable definition of "green"
because you refuse to define your terms. Basically, it's green
based on the "I'll know it when I see it" standard.
|12.2.08 @ 8:28PM|#
oil company profits go to oil company executives. End of
story.
Nope. You forgot that they also pay out billions in
dividends.
-jcr
MNG|12.2.08 @ 8:35PM|#
"I'd like to invest in high tech stocks."
TAO: "The term "high tech stocks" is a meaningless one."
"Uhh, what do you mean? You know what I'm talking about."
"Oh no. Let's suppose for a minute that "high tech's" definition
turns on its contrast with traditional stocks and we'll peg pork
futures as 100% traditional. At what percentage of involvement with
technology does the issuing corporation's stock become "high
tech."
"Uh, are you retarded?"
|12.2.08 @ 8:41PM|#
Green energy:
Energy sources that make zero economic or engineering sense but are
mandated through government action. This mandate is obtained using
a clever combination of
1. Pressure from slogan happy but technically ignorant activists
groups and citizens
2. Rent seeking companies with excellent lobbyists and bought and
paid for politicians.
These green energy sources generally end up producing less energy
and causing more environmental destruction than the "non-green"
energy sources they were supposed to replace.
The Angry Optimist|12.2.08 @ 8:42PM|#
Still unable to give a constructive definition, huh?
Just tell me, MNG, short of "I know it when I see it", how would
one point to an energy and say "that is green" or "that is not
green"?
jk|12.2.08 @ 8:44PM|#
Green energy comes from the voltage on the green wire that's connected to the "D"-shaped plug on AC receptacles.
Kaiser|12.2.08 @ 8:45PM|#
I am no trying to speak for anyone here, but I think the point TAO was trying to make is that if you are going to force companies into investing in something it needs to be well defined. Personally if I was a Big Oil exec and I was just told "You need to invest in "green energy."" I would just invest in technology to make oil green... you see where I am going here?
The Angry Optimist|12.2.08 @ 8:51PM|#
Kaiser, that is certainly part of it.
The other part of it is that the term "green" just kind of slipped
into the vernacular without any useful definition.
Definition 1: "It's low pollution". Well, what does that mean? What
pollutants are we specifically trying to reduce in the atmosphere
and why?
Definition 2: "Low greenhouse gases". Which greenhouse gas are we
targeting? All of them? Methane and CO2, or just N2O or what?
"green" is an extremely slippery term, evidenced by the fact that
its proponents have clearly never thought out what green
actually looks like and why it is desirable.
|12.2.08 @ 8:55PM|#
Examples of the rousing success of green energy policies.
Unintended Consequences ,the Politics of Biofuels
A study published in the latest issue of Science finds that corn-based ethanol ... will nearly double the output of greenhouse-gas emissions instead of reducing them
and
E85 Boondoggle Of The Day: Government Flex Fuel Mandates Increased
Fuel Consumption
The Washington Post notes a lesson in unintended consequences: a US government initiative to reduce gasoline consumption has been a miserable failure.
enforcement came in 1999 after environmental groups Sierra Club and Bluewater Network sued to force compliance.
despite all good intentions, the result is an increase in government gasoline consumption
In this last example we have clueless activist groups enforcing
policies that actually increased gasoline consumption.
If environmentalists actually wanted to help the environment they
would fight against government mandated green energy policies.
Kolohe|12.2.08 @ 9:05PM|#
But if the alternative is jockeying by the government
economic illiterates who own the oil and, more to the point, major
overreaction by the government economic illiterates who run net oil
consumer nations (think Nixon and Carter) maybe it pays off in the
end.
Exactly.
Of course, we're not going to see a gas tax increase because the
right will oppose it because it's a tax increase, the left will
oppose it because it's a regressive tax increase, and for the hoi
polloi it have about as much popularity as
yam ice cream
MNG|12.2.08 @ 9:06PM|#
"Just tell me, MNG, short of "I know it when I see it", how
would one point to an energy and say "that is green" or "that is
not green"?"
Just tell me TAO short of "I know it when I see it" how one could
point to a stock or industry and say "that is high tech stock or
industry" or "that is not high tech stock."
Is the term orange meaningless unless we point to the exact
wavelength at which it occurs?
You're seriously being retarded here.
MNG|12.2.08 @ 9:09PM|#
If what you're getting at is when we legislate concerning "green" energy we will have to have a specific benchmark as to whether company x or y is making appropriate progress along that line, then DUH. But you're acting like when people use the term "green" energy they have no idea what they are talking about, or worse that you have no idea what they are talking about.
Wicks Cherrycoke|12.2.08 @ 9:10PM|#
All this proves is that after a two-year-long presidential campaign, we still really know next to nothing about this guy we just elected. And that the slogan, "Change You Can Believe In," was a ink-blot that allowed each of us to see what he wanted to see.
The Angry Optimist|12.2.08 @ 9:13PM|#
Just tell me TAO short of "I know it when I see it" how one
could point to a stock or industry and say "that is high tech stock
or industry" or "that is not high tech stock."
I didn't say anything about high-tech stocks and I don't see how
that's relevant.
If you want to talk about "green energy", you should be
prepared to tell people what that means.
Is the term orange meaningless unless we point to the exact
wavelength at which it occurs?
Orange is a color; a very low-level concept composed of simple
percepts.
Colors are about as close as concepts get to "self-evident". "Green
energy" does not even come close to anything that
simple.
You're seriously being retarded here.
If I am being such a simpleton, it should be a simple task for you
to educate me. So quit talking about how self-evident the
definition of "green energy" is and just define it
already.
Kolohe|12.2.08 @ 9:20PM|#
Just tell me TAO short of "I know it when I see it" how one
could point to a stock or industry and say "that is high tech stock
or industry" or "that is not high tech stock."
There is the de riguer arguementativeness for its own sake in this
back and forth, yes, but there is also a valuable point.
People in 1999 invested in stocks *only* because they were labelled
'high tech stocks' with zero understanding of the underlying
reality. Just as long as it had 'e-' or 'www' or '.com' in the
name, it was self-evidently a 'high tech company' and a worthwhile
investment.
It is useful to guard against putting money (either public or
private, but I am more interested in the former, as a lot of the
latter is currently on the sidelines) into something 'green' just
because someone labels it 'green'. Even if it is
'self-evident'.
|12.2.08 @ 9:24PM|#
kaiser wrote: "I am no trying to speak for anyone here, but I
think the point TAO was trying to make is that if you are going to
force companies into investing in something it needs to be well
defined. "
The specifics only have to appear in the laws or regulations as
they are eventually haggled over and drafted.
This may be news to you but blog comments and politician websites
can't force anyone to do anything.
MNG|12.2.08 @ 9:28PM|#
TAO
It's been defined for you: low pollution methods of producing
energy. Just like high tech industry or stock is an industry or
stock that deals in things that involve a high level of technology
(see, it's an a-n-a-l-o-g-y) and if someone were to say "what does
that mean, you haven't told me numerically how much technology has
to be involved in the product sold has to exist before something
can be called high tech, if you can't tell me exactly how much
numerically it shows the meaningless of that term" would be, well
retarded.
You understand the meaning of retarded without me having to
reference a numerical IQ score cut-off, right?
MNG|12.2.08 @ 9:32PM|#
No one with any sense thinks green is "self-evident." They think it means "low pollution" even if they might not give you the exact numerical level of pollution at which they would cut off the term.
The Angry Optimist|12.2.08 @ 9:41PM|#
I never really asked for an exact, numerical definition, but
give me some measurements.
No one with any sense thinks green is "self-evident." They
think it means "low pollution"
And you think "low pollution" is self-evident, and it is not.
As joe points out, there are apparently even more definitions of
"green":
- "Low" environmental impact
- Must be "renewable" (or may be renewable)
on and on.
To a lot of people, solar panels qualify, except that they are
high-energy to initially produce and can take up a lot of land. So
maybe they're not "green".
Apparently, nuclear may or may not be green, not because it's not
"low pollution", but because the amount of pollution is produces is
nasty or dangerous. So, somehow, the definition of "green" also
needs to say that the energy source does not have "nasty or
dangerous" byproducts.
And you do realize that reduction of greenhouse gases and the
reduction of pollution do not necessarily go hand-in-hand? Not all
pollutants are GHGs, Not all GHGs are pollutants.
So, is the idea of "green energy" to reduce pollution or to reduce
GHGs? or both?
phalkor\'s pimply expletive de|12.2.08 @ 9:49PM|#
green isn't a very meaningful adjective in public discourse.
does it mean less carbon? does it mean less power consumption? does
it mean employing chlorophyll? maybe it's just a color.
i guess it must be very vague. is it possible that it sometimes
means one thing in one context and something else in another? yeah,
that's probably it.
there's no science in political energy policy-making. it's all
about the quality aspects, not quantity. in the qualitative sense,
yes, green energy is a well understood term. but most don't have a
clue about the numbers or the "high level of technology" that
produce the quality buzzword "green energy"
so what i'm really saying is don't be such an asshat. oil and
fossil fuels in general are way more accessible means of obtaining
enough energy in the present than anything else. because of the
behemoth infrastructure dedicated to it, it will stick around and
hopefully be forced to become more efficient.
one wonders what it will take to shift entirely away from petro as
king of fuel. calamity, doom?
certainly not taxes.
Kolohe|12.2.08 @ 9:50PM|#
just wondering, was the CED thing for 'a month' after the election, or just for the rest of the month?
Kolohe|12.2.08 @ 9:54PM|#
"phalkor's pimply expletive deleted"
so kleinfan 92 is neither hot nor female, possibly young, and
probably nude.
That's kinda what I figured.
The Angry Optimist|12.2.08 @ 9:58PM|#
Kolohe,
That's up for debate. Here's the text:
Mr. Nice Guy | November 2, 2008, 8:35pm | #
If Obama wins VA Tuesday I will post under the name of "Crow Eating
Dumbass" for the following month. It just ain't going to happen
fellas.
To me, I think he still has two more days.
|12.2.08 @ 10:02PM|#
This is not the Obama I voted for. The big corporations must
have kidnapped him and replaced him with a brown android. FREE
OBAMA!!!
That's the fun part: watching all the hard-lefties wig out as Obama
gets all "DLC" on them...
SIV|12.2.08 @ 10:13PM|#
OT:
No surpise but Saxby Chambliss soundly won the Senate runoff in GA
today. I dropped my "principled single issue non-voter" position to
vote for him, holding my nose at the RINO stink.
Local news is reporting the libertarian vote was all for
Chambliss.Unproven, but highly likely here in GA.I'm anecdotal
evidence of that.
The Angry Optimist|12.2.08 @ 10:14PM|#
Bob Barr endorsed him, which showed principles and reasonableness over politics on his part.
MNG|12.2.08 @ 10:42PM|#
TAO
Do you understand what is meant by saying that some ways of
producing energy create more pollution than other ways? Pollution
being stuff harmful to the environment.
"Low pollution" or green energy would be the latter and not the
former.
That's pretty simple ain't it?
The Angry Optimist|12.2.08 @ 10:46PM|#
Pollution being stuff harmful to the environment.
That's the definition now? Now what does THAT mean?
you're demonstrating that I'm not the one who doesn't know what
he's talking about.
So, are all GHGs pollutants, MNG?
When you say "harmful to the environment", what do you mean by
that? What constitutes harm?
MNG|12.2.08 @ 10:48PM|#
TAO
What is a "business friendly" environment? Or my old one a "high
tech" industry?
Elemenope|12.2.08 @ 10:51PM|#
Still unable to give a constructive definition,
huh?
Wittgenstein called. He wants to slap you.
Wittgenstein|12.2.08 @ 10:57PM|#
After reading the remainder of the thread, I have decided to amend that to "all of you".
economist|12.2.08 @ 11:11PM|#
"If I put a gun to your head and told you to define green
energy, do you think you'd be able to figure it out, or do you
think I'd get to shoot you?"
Did joe take up a meth habit recently?
economist|12.2.08 @ 11:13PM|#
"You forgot that they also pay out billions in dividends."
jcr, you've obviously forgotten that oil company stockholders are
evil and should be punished.
economist|12.2.08 @ 11:14PM|#
Or is joe simply pissed off that his favorite Obama program is dead for the time being?
The Angry Optimist|12.2.08 @ 11:18PM|#
oh, economist, don't kid yourself: we never know any of joe's
ACTUAL positions. He likes to feint certain positions but carefully
constructs his "points" so no one can call him on anything.
You'll note that he's technically said nothing on this
thread supporting the profits tax.
|12.2.08 @ 11:47PM|#
Hsrd to deny that Obama president elect is far more likable then Obama the candidate.
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 1:07AM|#
OK, why?
You can't be serious. You and a few others just spent the last
fifty posts or so bitching at each other about definitions of vague
terms.
News flash: all terms are vague if you want them to be.
And you were all being quite unreasonable about it.
Hence, Wittgenstein's ghost come to slap you. You can all form a
line and make it easier for him, I suppose. It'll go quicker.
|12.3.08 @ 2:14AM|#
Define "environmental impact" - Does that mean less land
use? Less resources?
Obviously not, since all of the "green" energy sources (wind,
solar, alcohol) require enormous tracts of land to operate. I find
it amusing that the same people who decry "urban sprawl" and demand
we put growth rings around every city want power generation methods
that do far worse damage and use far more land than human
habitation.
|12.3.08 @ 2:20AM|#
Green:
Anything that promotes photosynthesis in plants.
CO2 emissions are very green, in that plants love the shit.
It also means we should be planting more trees and shrubs.
BTW, I'm a professional landscape designer, please contact me for
any green services you need provided.
Thanks
|12.3.08 @ 2:46AM|#
Whether one is for or against a windfall profits tax for big
oil, it looks like Obama has a lot of explaining to do. This 180
degree turn-around on a promise so recently made is breath-taking.
It is not the first thing Obama has reneged on since becoming
Presidnt-elect, and he is not even sworn into the Presidency yet.
He has been back-pedaling and doing U-turns since Nov 4.
The lame excuse that oil is less than $80 makes no sense. There
still were windfall profits when oil was above $80. Obama lied, the
windfall tax died.
Obama lied, a change in Cabinet died.
bubiyuqn|12.3.08 @ 6:42AM|#
The reason that nuclear technology has not taken off has nothing
to do with waste products. The real problem is that nuclear power
is inevitably tied to nuclear weapons, and thus the research of
nuclear energy is tied to non-proliferation, which for some reason
is heavily championed by a lot of democrats, I guess because it
makes us look hawkish to develop advanced nuclear technology. Of
course, these-a-days, it's probably going to be the republicans to
shoot down nuclear research based on non-proliferation arguments.
At this point, I'm almost positive that we don't use nuclear energy
just for the sole sake of making it look like nuclear is an
illegitimate source of power, and thus we can assert some sort of
stupid moral imperative to prevent Iran from having it, etc. If
nuclear energy could fix the world's energy woes (which it very
well might) we still would still opt not to use it so we can keep
our military monopoly on nuclear weapons. Seriously.
Read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor - A safe nuclear
reactor that produces relatively safe waste that is no longer
dangerous after only 200 years, cancelled by congress in 1993 after
Clinton's energy secretary and John Kerry led a crusade against
it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinch_River_Breeder_Reactor_Project -
The original breeder reactor project, also cancelled, mostly due to
opposition from Carter (and rising expenses, but if Obama's serious
about the gov't investing in green energy, this is a drop in the
bucket).
I'm not saying this is some sort of conspiracy, but we need to be
willing to relax our concerns on proliferation if we're serious
about greener energy.
Art-P.O.G.|12.3.08 @ 7:41AM|#
News flash: all terms are vague if you want them to be.
OK, define "vague". And I don't want some vague definition.
MNG|12.3.08 @ 7:57AM|#
You don't know what it would mean for something to be "harmful
to the environment?"
Do you understand what your doctor means when he says that certain
things are "harmful to a person's health?" Well, does he mean
physical health? Mental health (smoking might be harmful to the
former but provide peace of mind that promotes the latter)?
Spiritual health (again, smoking weed, if you are a Rastafarian or
the like, might promote the latter)? So I guess when a doctor tells
you that you think it's meaningless talk?
Of course you know it's not meaningless, and you know it yourself.
In your earlier posts you quite easily deduced that "traditional
fossil fuels" were not going to make the cut. How did you do that
with such an empty term to use?
"As joe points out, there are apparently even more definitions of
"green":"
This is stupid. There is a goal expressed in "green", a goal which
had some people thinking "low environmental impact" is the main
feature and others reminding us that renewability would be an
important concept involved. Just like you have a goal in the "tort
reform" movement, though you have some people in that movement
letting us know that achieving this goal will mean capping certain
awards, others having us re-think the nature of punitive awards,
others emphasizing making it more difficult to get some things
before juries, etc. That doesn't mean the idea of "tort reform" is
a meaningless one. We all know what those guys want.
It's just like "business friendly" (which woul dbe something like
"conducive to business growth and success" but may focus on things
like low government, or government assistance even, but could still
find widespread agreement among users of the term as to what is or
is not business friendly, and provides a metric to measure whether
something is or is not within the concept).
Or how about the concept "religious." Does it mean a person who
behaves in certain ways (prays twice a day, goes to Mass every
week, etc)? A person who believes in certain ways (believes in God,
believes in an afterlife)? Does this make the term "religious"
"meaningless" to you TAO? I mean, at what point of behavior x or
belief y (take your pick) does someone become "religious." You
can't say? Well, I guess it must be a meaningless term for you
then!
I think you're finding that "A=A" and all that stuff may not be as
all encompassing for navigating the big world of ideas and
phenomena as you might have thought.
MNG|12.3.08 @ 8:00AM|#
Regulators will of course have to sit down and set numerical benchmarks in specific pollutants (chosen not arbitratily but based on certain metrics such as harmfulness to humans, animals, eco-systems, etc) connected to specific energy producing methods. Hell, many scientists have already done this. That's the specifics Im guessing you are looking for, but it's obtuse to need that to grasp what the overall concept "green" energy means
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 8:24AM|#
OK, define "vague". And I don't want some vague
definition.
LOL. Touché, good sir.
I just logged on groggy-eyed last night and saw here what looked
for all the world like a few people masturbating competitively. Let
me tell you, as uncomfortable as that is during the day, it is far
worse when you don't have the adequate bed-rest.
"You wanted an argument? Sir, this is Abuse. If you want argument,
you have to go down the hall."
Art-P.O.G.|12.3.08 @ 8:34AM|#
I just logged on groggy-eyed last night and saw here what looked for all the world like a few people masturbating competitively. Let me tell you, as uncomfortable as that is during the day, it is far worse when you don't have the adequate bed-rest.
At least it wasn't concerned observer and a bunch of sock puppets (knock on wood). I'm just sorry I missed the Wal-Mart thread. And now it's pretty much too long to read.
Zubon|12.3.08 @ 9:03AM|#
Art-P.O.G.: It was averaging a post every 30 seconds for several hours. Once a thread clears 200 comments, what are the odds of its not being a train wreck? I have resisted the urge to click on it, but if it gets to 1000, I may, just out of respect.
Art-P.O.G.|12.3.08 @ 9:26AM|#
Zubon,
It depends on the subject. But good point, a lot of these
"hot-button" threads that go on too long devolve into something
bad.
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 9:29AM|#
Once a thread clears 200 comments, what are the odds of its
not being a train wreck?
[...]
...a lot of these "hot-button" threads that go on too long devolve
into something bad.
Threaded comments would help a little. That way, at least, all the
digressions would be compartmentalized and identifiable.
Xeones|12.3.08 @ 9:53AM|#
Art & Zubon, the Walmart thread is a great read if you're a masochist... or if you've been waiting with bated (batin'?) breath for joe to slide into epic self-parody.
|12.3.08 @ 10:19AM|#
It's real simple ... oil company profits go to oil company
executives. End of story.
Not the stupidest thing I've read at H&R this week. But close,
so very close.
BTW, corporations/businesses do not pay taxes. Corporations collect
taxes from the users of their products and services.
|12.3.08 @ 10:27AM|#
Hmm what is James butler smoking anyway. Big oil must make a profit or go under. Let them make massive profits as that is good for the USA. get it?
|12.3.08 @ 10:29AM|#
Right now, there really is no workable definition of "green"
because you refuse to define your terms.
You sit here and feign confusion if you want, TAO. It really
doesn't matter if you want to pretend not to understand this term.
Everybody else does, and your effort to obfuscate the issues by
quibbling over semantics will only leave you out the
discussion.
There is no confusion here about what green energy means. You know
exactly what the term refers to, both on its own, and in the
context in which I used it, and I'm not interested in playing "see
if you get me to stop playing dumb" with you.
|12.3.08 @ 10:37AM|#
"What constitutes harm?"
This what somebody in a dorm room, badly losing an argument,
retreats to.
Hey, man, how do we even know what's actually real? How can
anything be "true" or "false," anyway? What if D-O-G actually
spells cat?
It's sort of pseudo-intellectual version of putting your fingers in
your ears and gong "la la la la la la..."
Zeb|12.3.08 @ 10:42AM|#
"no one on the left will dare to criticize their lord and
savior."
What the fuck are you talking about? People on the left are quoted
in the post criticizing Obama. Get over your cute little catch
phrases.
|12.3.08 @ 10:50AM|#
Well, you see, Zeb, they have a talking point for every
occasion.
The same people will write "Nobody will criticize the One," and ten
minutes later crow about "The Civil War in the Democratic Party,"
and how terribly disappointed progressives are with him.
It's that whole "reality-based" vs. "reality-creating" thing again.
When people on the right state something, they aren't concerned
with providing an accurate description of reality, but with
controlling people's perception of it, in that hope that the ideas
they plant will, themselves, become the new reality. Hence, it
simply doesn't matter if they contradict themselves, or the
evidence in front of their faces.
|12.3.08 @ 10:55AM|#
If I pretended not to understand what "low taxes" and "small government" refered to, and acted as if those concepts are unknowable unless someone provides a set of income tax rates or numbers of federal employees, you'd laugh me off the board. And you'd be right to do so.
|12.3.08 @ 11:01AM|#
I think there should be a windfall profits tax on all companies that have received money from the bailout program. The total sum of the tax being equal to the total amount of the bailout.
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 11:15AM|#
When people on the right state something, they aren't
concerned with providing an accurate description of reality, but
with controlling people's perception of it, in that hope that the
ideas they plant will, themselves, become the new reality. Hence,
it simply doesn't matter if they contradict themselves, or the
evidence in front of their faces.
In all fairness, leftists do it with equal aplomb.
Reality really treats all ideologies roughly.
The Angry Optimist|12.3.08 @ 11:21AM|#
joe, it really is not my problem that you talk about things you
do not understand and cannot explain.
you can be a nasty snot about it, but you retreat to nastiness when
you have been asked something you do not know.
"Waaah! I cannot explain it, so TAO must be being willfully
obtuse!"
Yeah, stud. That's it.
|12.3.08 @ 11:36AM|#
Nobody fails to understand what green energy is. Not even you,
and you're pretty slow.
You want to make a big pretense of stupidity, I'm going to treat
you as stupid. Try discussing the issue in good faith next
time.
The Angry Optimist|12.3.08 @ 11:39AM|#
you are one to talk about good faith, joe.
do not be upset that you were unable to define "green energy". It
was apparently a tough task for a mess of people here.
I will just know for next time that when you say those words, you
do not really know what they mean.
The Angry Optimist|12.3.08 @ 11:41AM|#
I mean, we can make this really easy. Please tell me which of
the following sources are green:
1. Solar Panels
2. Windmills
3. Batteries
4. Geothermal Energy
5. Oil
6. Coal
And please tell me why they are or are not green, please.
Gilbert Martin|12.3.08 @ 11:50AM|#
Since the oil companies profit MARGINS on sales have never been
excessive compared to other corporations in other industries, there
were never any actual "windfall profits" to tax in the first
place.
Case closed.
|12.3.08 @ 11:53AM|#
Hmm. Well, to wade into this a little, the whole concept of
"green" has some problems with it. I think I understand what people
mean when they talk about green energy, but I also think many
proponents of such things don't understand the non-ecologically
friendly natures of some aspects of "green" energy (e.g.,
batteries). Perhaps the debate here could be solved by just
acknowledging that what green energy proponents are advocating is
"greener" energy.
I'm also a little jaded about "green", "organic", and "natural",
seeing how such terms are used often in a fuzzy marketing sense and
not in any precise way.
All of this reality-based crap from the left is a real hoot. While
the right is delusional, the left is even more so. From my
perspective, both groups have way too much faith in their beliefs
and cherry-pick on just about every issue. A desire to find the
truth about things seems to be the last interest of the partisan.
One thing I'll give the right is that they seem a little less
comfortable with the "by any means necessary" philosophy that is so
popular among the more radical left, but both "sides" piss me off
to know end.
bubiyuqn|12.3.08 @ 11:54AM|#
It doesn't make sense to talk about green technology in a
binary, is or isn't manner.
Here's my definition of green, TAO, you can nitpick this one too,
if you'd like. Nailing down specifics is actually somewhat handy if
you're handing out money for "green energy."
The relative greenness of an energy source is a measure of how much
(let's say for standard's sake) 1 joule of exergy produced by an
energy source contributes to the shift of ecosystems both locally
and globally to stray from the equilibrium that would be present
without human presence.
|12.3.08 @ 11:55AM|#
Nobody fails to understand what green energy is.
Then why are so many green activists opposed to nuclear?
"What constitutes harm?"
This what somebody in a dorm room, badly losing an argument,
retreats to.
Hundreds of years of common-law jurisprudence debating this very
issue, airily dismissed by our very own joe.
Not to get back to the post or anything, but I won't believe that
Obama has dropped his announced intention of imposing a windfall
profits tax on oil until he actually makes a public statement to
that effect. Removing it from a website doesn't mean he's
repudiated it, it merely means he's waiting a better
opportunity.
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 12:00PM|#
TAO --
The "greenness" of something is a property on a continuum, not a
binary operand. And as far as energy production goes, it is a
*relative* measure. So, it would be more appropriate to rank your
six according to their relative environmental impact, rather than
just declare some green and some not.
And while I'm no expert, I'd be willing to guess it breaks down
something like:
(from "greenest" to "least green")
1. Geothermal
2. Windmills
3. Solar Panels
4. Batteries (not really an energy production tech so much as a
storage and delivery tech, but whatever)
5. Oil
6. Coal
I do find it odd that you do not include biomass, nuclear, and
methane. Nuclear is probably on that list at about 2.5, methane at
3.5, and biomass a 4.5.
Since we do not fully understand all the impacts of each
technology, including production and operation effects, it is
possible that each item may be a full place or place and a half off
from reality. But is deeply unlikely that coal, say, has less
impact than wind or solar.
|12.3.08 @ 12:06PM|#
"Green energy" is derived from solar collectors utilizing
electromagnetic energy composed of wavelengths from 495-570
nm.
Do I have to everything around here?
MNG|12.3.08 @ 12:17PM|#
LMNOP
Your wasting your time with TAO, he doesn't get it.
Or he does and is trying to be cute.
TAO
Please tell me which of the following beliefs/behaviors are
religious
1. Praying
2. Tithing
3. Belief in God
4. Belief in afterlife
5. Attending services
And please tell me why they are or are not religious, please.
What % of income must one tithe to be religious? How often must
they pray? What must the level of certainty of God's existence
be?
And what do you mean by supernatural?
lol
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 12:30PM|#
"Green energy" is derived from solar collectors utilizing
electromagnetic energy composed of wavelengths from 495-570
nm.
Do I have to everything around here?
This wins.
|12.3.08 @ 12:38PM|#
do not be upset that you were unable to define "green
energy"
Uh, I did. Twice. You even commented on the definitions.
You just didn't like the definitions, because you need to pretend
the term is meaningless.
Here, let me post those definitions again.
Green energy: energy that is low in pollution, carbon
emissions, is renewable, and otherwise has a significantly lower
environmental impact than fossil fuels.
and
Green energy is a term used to describe sources of energy that
are considered to be environmentally friendly and non-polluting,
such as geothermal, wind, and solar power. These sources of energy
may provide a remedy to the systemic effects of global warming and
certain forms of pollution.
Green energy is commonly thought of in the context of electricity,
heating and cogeneration.
Definitions. Two of them. Upset? This is an endzone dance.
1. Solar Panels
2. Windmills
3. Batteries
4. Geothermal Energy
5. Oil
6. Coal
OK, now let's look back at that defintion:
Green energy: energy that is low in pollution, carbon
emissions, is renewable, and otherwise has a significantly lower
environmental impact than fossil fuels.
You know the answer to this, too. There is nobody reading this who
doesn't know the answer to this question. I'm not going to indulge
you for playing dumb; I'm going to mock you.
|12.3.08 @ 12:40PM|#
I second Elemenope--J sub D has established and defined the
meaning of "green energy" for all time.
However, I fear that this could open up many energy factions.
What's next, blue energy (440 - 490 nm)? Or, God forbid, indigo
energy (420 - 450 nm)?
Johnny Nowhere|12.3.08 @ 12:42PM|#
The relative greenness of an energy source is a measure of
how much (let's say for standard's sake) 1 joule of exergy produced
by an energy source contributes to the shift of ecosystems both
locally and globally to stray from the equilibrium that would be
present without human presence.
The problem with this is defining the state represented by
"equilibrium ... without human presence." We haven't got a clue
what that would be.
Furthermore, the concept that Earth has some sort of steady-state
that would last until eternity were it not for the interference of
humans is deeply flawed. If geology has taught us anything, it is
that nothing on Earth lasts forever. Just ask the dinosaurs.
|12.3.08 @ 12:43PM|#
RC,
Then why are so many green activists opposed to
nuclear?
Oh, good, more playing dumb. Those who oppose it, do so because it
produces highly-toxic, radioactive pollution as a byproduct, and
because of the risk of even greater pollution from an
accident.
I just don't get why people do this. Does anybody really believe
that RC Dean doesn't know the argument against nuclear power?
Why do people do this, instead of making whatever straightforward
point they have in mind? Is an unwillinigness to submit their ideas
to scrutiny? My scrutiny in particulary, or what? Just make your
argument, if you've got one. Sheesh.
Hundreds of years of common-law jurisprudence debating this
very issue, airily dismissed by our very own joe.
It's precisely because you can argue about the precise definition
of "harm" for hundreds of years that makes dismissing this dodge so
appropriate.
|12.3.08 @ 12:48PM|#
The problem with this is defining the state represented by
"equilibrium ... without human presence."
It's also unnecessary. Just say "causes environmental harm."
If TAO wants to stand around, suck down mercury-laden SO2 fumes,
and choke out platitudesd about the cosmic unknowability of what
exactly constitutes harm, let him. Maybe he can show how smart he
is by explaining that most of the volume of solid material, at the
atomic level, is actually empty space.
And, like, what if the color blue I see isn't the same as the color
blue you see? Man?
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 12:51PM|#
Furthermore, the concept that Earth has some sort of
steady-state that would last until eternity were it not for the
interference of humans is deeply flawed. If geology has taught us
anything, it is that nothing on Earth lasts forever. Just ask the
dinosaurs.
So true. But is it not within our interests to attempt to maintain
a metastable state friendly to our needs? Seriously, fuck the
planet. I'm an environmentalist because I want humans to
survive.
|12.3.08 @ 12:52PM|#
Aren't batteries a serious problem with "going green"? Adding
billions of tons of batteries to the environment may not be a good
thing, either. Which shows the fallacy in focusing on how energy is
originated without viewing the whole energy picture. For instance,
I think some people mistakenly view biofuels as "greener" than
other fuel sources without understanding some of the non-green
issues associated with their production, use, etc.
I'd say that developing less toxic batteries needs to be a focus of
the green energy movement. Even if we can't successfully switch to
solar or other greenish energy types, building a viable and "green"
electric infrastructure has got to be a net improvement. For one
thing, it would allow for more diversity in energy supply. Of
course, there are efficiency arguments against going purely
electric. Nothing simple about this issue, that's for sure.
Johnny Nowhere|12.3.08 @ 1:22PM|#
It's also unnecessary. Just say "causes environmental
harm."
Too simplistic, as it would define hurricanes, tsunamis, droughts,
meteors and all manner of environment-altering natural phenomena as
"not green."
'Environmental harm' is an emotionally loaded and decidedly
unscientific term. As such, it has debatable merits as a metric for
determining law or policy.
The Angry Optimist|12.3.08 @ 1:45PM|#
So, it would be more appropriate to rank your six according
to their relative environmental impact, rather than just declare
some green and some not.
Exactly, or as ProL said earlier, perhaps some energy sources are
"greener" than others.
My overall point, of course, is that we should be balancing harms
and risks v. benefits, something that most people who just say
"green" like enviro-zombies are categorically incapable of doing.
Most folks who spout off about "green this and that" cannot tell me
what the end state of "green policy" should be. Is it a reduction
of the total amount of GHGs, or should some GHGs be targeted?
"Environmental harm" means nothing. What environment? Whose
environment? The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 put more SO2 in
the atmosphere than the total human input from 1991-1993. Some
people say "harm to the environment", like that means
something.
The main concern should be stability of environment if, and
only if, that stability supports the surviving and thriving of
humans.
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 1:47PM|#
'Environmental harm' is an emotionally loaded and decidedly
unscientific term.
'Harm' definitely adds a normative component, but I think that the
problem here is one of interpretation. Since humans require certain
things from their environment (a certain temp. range, oxygen at a
certain partial pressure, gravity in a certain range, access to
sustenance), it is not unreasonable for humans to conceive of
environmental change as harm if it deprives us of one or more of
these things, or even if it makes them harder to access.
So, one might conceive of hurricanes of a certain range of number
and severity as normal to the current metastable state of the
environment, and would be justified in saying that something which
*increases* either the number or severity of hurricanes would be
"harm", in the anthropic sense.
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 1:50PM|#
My overall point, of course, is that we should be balancing
harms and risks v. benefits, something that most people who just
say "green" like enviro-zombies are categorically incapable of
doing.
Really? Then your point was lost in the pedantics. Incidentally, if
it was your point, I agree with it.
However, see me @ 1:47 pm about "environmental harm".
|12.3.08 @ 1:55PM|#
Rather than "greener" I'd prefer J sub D's implied usage: "495-570 nanometerier".
The Angry Optimist|12.3.08 @ 2:09PM|#
it is not unreasonable for humans to conceive of
environmental change as harm if it deprives us of one or more of
these things, or even if it makes them harder to access.
No, I agree, but the term "environmental harm" is rarely used in
the sense of "it harms the requisite state of the environment human
beings need to survive and thrive."
I know that it's generally considered pedantry to state that
cavemen lived in "cleaner" environments than ours is currently, but
that kind of pedantry actually cuts to the costs and benefits
analysis that needs to be done.
MNG|12.3.08 @ 2:21PM|#
"No, I agree, but the term "environmental harm" is rarely used
in the sense of "it harms the requisite state of the environment
human beings need to survive and thrive.""
Oh yea, remember that Al Gore movie? It totally neglected to think
about environmental harm in a way which involved the needs and well
being of humans. I mean, environmentalists never even think about
that!
Are you retarded or high or do you actually think that
environmentalists don't think and talk about the harm to human well
being from the things they oppose all the time? Jesus.
The Angry Optimist|12.3.08 @ 2:36PM|#
Are you retarded or high
Did you start drinking already?
You should get help.
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 2:40PM|#
TAO --
MNG has a point. The vast majority of the harm described by Al
Gore's movie was framed in terms of human tragedy.
The Angry Optimist|12.3.08 @ 2:46PM|#
Fair is fair. I'll note that the subject of "What is best for
humans" did not come up, on this thread, until you
broached it.
Prior to that, I just heard a lot of bleating about "harm" without
any definition of who or what was being harmed and how that is
relevant to the human race.
|12.3.08 @ 2:51PM|#
Yeah, yeah ... shareholders get to split the profits, too. THE
POINT BEING that oil company profits do not STRONGLY go into
development of any kind of new technology. They are complete
pussies about investing in alternatives to petroleum. There are
plenty of reports describing the various levels of investment by
these companies in various types/classifications of technology
(including "green" technology, hee hee). It's like the so-called
"American" auto manufacturers and their lip service to alternative
fuel vehicles.
Jesus, people. I thought thinking was the norm around here, but it
seems like many of you need every little thing spelled out because
you have no internal resources to draw from, or something.
And, lastly, I still agree with R C Dean re: we don't know for sure
whether Obama has dropped the idea or whether it's just missing
from the website.
I remember many folks here complaining about the "excessive
profits" "tax" during the campaign who are now expressing faux
outrage that this idea may not make it through to fruition. Pick a
position and stick with it, for crying out loud. Sometimes these
threads seem full of devil's advocates and little else.
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 2:55PM|#
TAO --
That could be because of two things:
1. It's so obvious that it doesn't need to be said (joe is
right)
2. It doesn't really cross the mind of environmentalists to think
about human costs (you are right)
Most people simply do not examine their beliefs closely enough to
uncover all of their premises, but it does not mean the premise is
not in play. Frankly I think that most people think about the thing
in terms of fuzzy "general harm", but if you pinned them down to
something their formulation would almost inevitably include a "harm
to humans" component.
Except for the truly whacked, but we routinely exclude the crazies
of a particular group under discussion unless their proportional
share of the group is large.
|12.3.08 @ 3:27PM|#
THE POINT BEING that oil company profits do not STRONGLY go
into development of any kind of new technology. They are complete
pussies about investing in alternatives to petroleum.
You're going
for the gold I see.
They are OIL COMPANIES you idiot. Their experience
and expertise is in (write this down, it may be important)
extracting, refining and retailing OIL
PRODUCTS.
Kroger Inc. is not getting into the solar electricity generating
business either.
Gilbert Martin|12.3.08 @ 3:48PM|#
"They are OIL COMPANIES you idiot. Their experience and
expertise is in (write this down, it may be important) extracting,
refining and retailing OIL PRODUCTS."
Exactly.
Those who believe in the viability of some "alternative" energy
source are perfectly free to make the case for it and pursue
investment capital for it on their own.
The oil companies are no more obigated to "invest" in it than Home
Depot, Microsoft or Proctor and Gamble are.
|12.3.08 @ 4:01PM|#
J sub D and Gilbert, Have you forgotten the whole point of the
"tax" under discussion? Let's see if this helps ...
Oil companies (all that shit you said, duh) are reaping record
profits even as both the petroleum supply diminishes and as the
dangers of its continued use, both to the planet and to the
security of America, become ever larger issues in the public
debate.
The "tax" isn't just because the oil companies are making too much
damn money (yeah yeah, duh again), it's because they are not doing
anything to ameliorate those issues and are in fact using their
profits to exacerbate the issues by neglecting to use their profits
to expand the available resources for the activities traditionally
powered by petroleum products.
The "tax" is for the purpose of enabling American society to pick
up the slack by taking some of those profits and using them to do
what the oil companies will not do ... investigate and propagate
alternative forms of energy. It's to help us protect and prepare
ourselves from and for the future when petroleum is no longer a
viable energy source from a cost, an ecological or a security
standpoint.
It's really not hard to understand if one acknowledges that the
planet is a place where humans live, and that if one particular
industry is doing more than its share of damage to our little
sphere and, in particular, to the security of this Nation, then it
is incumbent on our elected representatives to mitigate that damage
by taking some kind of action. In this case, a "tax" on the profits
of oil companies that they SHOULD be using, as American members of
Planet Earth, to help us in our quest to survive beyond the
draining of the petro-reserves.
Your free market ideology is useless, in this instance. It has been
abused to the point of irrelevance by these conglomerates, and the
whole "tax" was intended to be an attempt to restore some balance
to a situation pushed off-kilter by simple greed. Yeesh.
|12.3.08 @ 5:07PM|#
It's that whole "reality-based" vs. "reality-creating" thing
again. When people on the right state something, they aren't
concerned with providing an accurate description of reality, but
with controlling people's perception of it.
This is sort of like Obama saying he was going to implement a
windfall tax while trying to get elected and then after he is
elected not doing what he said he would. It was almost as if Obama
was trying to control people's perception in order to garner their
support.
Is Obama a member of the "right"?
|12.3.08 @ 6:55PM|#
Check the news reports during the drops in gas prices. Obama
publicly announced he would not impose the windfall tax as long as
gas prices were below a certain level.
There was no secrecy, no conspiracy with the oil companies, no
change in philosophy, just public common sense in response to
changing conditions. I guess 'Reason' wasn't watching the news that
day. Or maybe you're just another hate and fear mongering liar with
a blog and nothing useful to say.
|12.4.08 @ 1:58AM|#
Regulators will of course have to sit down and set numerical
benchmarks in specific pollutants (chosen not arbitratily but based
on certain metrics such as harmfulness to humans, animals,
eco-systems, etc)
At this point auto pollution standards are entirely arbitrary.
Harmfulness is irrelevant, what matters is slowly ratcheting down
the standards in order to justify the regulator's jobs and appease
certain political groups. We've passed the point where further
lowering of emissions standards (I do not include CO2 as a
pollutant) results in improvements in air quality. "Zero is the
only acceptable number" is scientific nonsense.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245