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.

Comments

John C. Randolph | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 6:28pm | #

That's too rich. If Obama does something bad, it's because the corporations are influencing him.

Paul | December 2, 2008, 6:32pm | #

Change You Can...

Awww forget it.

cunnivore | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 6:41pm | #

In a couple of years we're going to see some very pissed off Birkenstockers.

LGF Fan | December 2, 2008, 6:44pm | #

MARXIST! COMMIE! SOCIALIST!

Oh, wait...

James Butler | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 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.

Big Green Monkey | December 2, 2008, 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".

MikeP | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 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!!!

Pro Libertate | December 2, 2008, 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.

John-David | December 2, 2008, 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.

joe | December 2, 2008, 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.

joe | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 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.

Pro Libertate | December 2, 2008, 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.

joe | December 2, 2008, 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.

The Angry Optimist | December 2, 2008, 7:22pm | #

What does "green energy" even mean?

joe | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 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??? | December 2, 2008, 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..!

MikeP | December 2, 2008, 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.

joe | December 2, 2008, 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.

libertymike | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 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

libertymike | December 2, 2008, 7:43pm | #

Joe-

Why didn't you lend me a helping hand on that thread?

joe | December 2, 2008, 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.

joe | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 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.

James Butler | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 7:55pm | #

Going back on campaign promises?! Shocking! Next thing we'll hear that he isn't getting his girls a puppy!

Some Guy | December 2, 2008, 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.

joe | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 8:08pm | #

Green energy is energy that has that green thing on it.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | December 2, 2008, 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.

MikeP | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 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.

John C. Randolph | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 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?"

TJIT | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 8:44pm | #

Green energy comes from the voltage on the green wire that's connected to the "D"-shaped plug on AC receptacles.

Kaiser | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 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.

TJIT | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 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'.

Jon H | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 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 deleted | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 9:50pm | #

just wondering, was the CED thing for 'a month' after the election, or just for the rest of the month?

Kolohe | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 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.

Jim Walsh | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 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.

Urkobold™ | December 2, 2008, 10:13pm | #

KOLOHE,

THE URKOBOLD SHARES YOUR DISENCHANTMENT.

The Angry Optimist | December 2, 2008, 10:14pm | #

Bob Barr endorsed him, which showed principles and reasonableness over politics on his part.

MNG | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 10:48pm | #

TAO

What is a "business friendly" environment? Or my old one a "high tech" industry?

Elemenope | December 2, 2008, 10:51pm | #

Still unable to give a constructive definition, huh?

Wittgenstein called. He wants to slap you.

Wittgenstein | December 2, 2008, 10:57pm | #

After reading the remainder of the thread, I have decided to amend that to "all of you".

The Angry Optimist | December 2, 2008, 11:02pm | #

Wittgenstein called. He wants to slap you.

OK, why?

economist | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 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 | December 2, 2008, 11:14pm | #

Or is joe simply pissed off that his favorite Obama program is dead for the time being?

The Angry Optimist | December 2, 2008, 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.

Joshua Corning | December 2, 2008, 11:47pm | #

Hsrd to deny that Obama president elect is far more likable then Obama the candidate.

Elemenope | December 3, 2008, 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.

Bob Smith | December 3, 2008, 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.

Coarsetad | December 3, 2008, 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

Voter remorse | December 3, 2008, 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 | December 3, 2008, 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. | December 3, 2008, 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 | December 3, 2008, 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 | December 3, 2008, 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 | December 3, 2008, 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. | December 3, 2008, 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 | December 3, 2008, 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. | December 3, 2008, 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 | December 3, 2008, 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.

Jess Fields | December 3, 2008, 9:44am | #

Gotta love Democratic hypocrisy.

Xeones | December 3, 2008, 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.

J sub D | December 3, 2008, 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.

roger olson | December 3, 2008, 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?

joe | December 3, 2008, 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.

joe | December 3, 2008, 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 | December 3, 2008, 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.

joe | December 3, 2008, 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.

joe | December 3, 2008, 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.

Mark Borok | December 3, 2008, 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.

DADIODADDY | December 3, 2008, 11:03am | #

6 on a scale of 10 for political douchebaggery

Elemenope | December 3, 2008, 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 | December 3, 2008, 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.

joe | December 3, 2008, 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 | December 3, 2008, 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 | December 3, 2008, 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 | December 3, 2008, 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.

Pro Libertate | December 3, 2008, 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.

Pro Libertate | December 3, 2008, 11:54am | #

Piss me off to no end.

bubiyuqn | December 3, 2008, 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.

R C Dean | December 3, 2008, 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 | December 3, 2008, 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.

J sub D | December 3, 2008, 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 | December 3, 2008, 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 | December 3, 2008, 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.

joe | December 3, 2008, 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.

Pro Libertate | December 3, 2008, 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 | December 3, 2008, 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.

joe | December 3, 2008, 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.

joe | December 3, 2008, 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 | December 3, 2008, 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.

Pro Libertate | December 3, 2008, 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 | December 3, 2008, 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 | December 3, 2008, 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 | December 3, 2008, 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 | December 3, 2008, 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".

Pro Libertate | December 3, 2008, 1:55pm | #

Rather than "greener" I'd prefer J sub D's implied usage: "495–570 nanometerier".

The Angry Optimist | December 3, 2008, 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 | December 3, 2008, 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 | December 3, 2008, 2:36pm | #

Are you retarded or high

Did you start drinking already?

You should get help.

Elemenope | December 3, 2008, 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 | December 3, 2008, 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.

James Butler | December 3, 2008, 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 | December 3, 2008, 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.

J sub D | December 3, 2008, 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 | December 3, 2008, 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.

James Butler | December 3, 2008, 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.

joshua corning | December 3, 2008, 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"?

Bubba | December 3, 2008, 5:16pm | #

It depends on what is, is.

Prophet1 | December 3, 2008, 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.

Bob Smith | December 4, 2008, 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.