Carbon Tax

Big Oil Backs Carbon Tax

Climate activists not impressed.

|

Executives from leading oil companies, including ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and the American Petroleum Institute (API), met virtually with Biden administration officials to discuss policies aimed at addressing the problem of man-made climate change. The Wall Street Journal reported that company leaders said that "they wanted to work with the administration and pledged support for policies that would make it more expensive to emit the gases that contribute to climate change." In a statement issued after the virtual meeting, API CEO Mike Sommers declared, "We are committed to working with the White House to develop effective government policies that help meet the ambitions of the Paris Agreement and support a cleaner future." The API is rumored to be considering coming out in support of carbon emissions pricing.

ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips previously endorsed the bipartisan Climate Leadership Council's (CLC) revenue neutral carbon tax and dividend proposal in which escalating taxes collected on oil and natural gas at the wellhead and on coal at the minehead would be entirely rebated in equal sums to each American as an annual payment. The CLC cites a 2018 study that finds that 70 percent of American households would receive more in dividend payments then they would pay in increased energy prices.

Once the CLC's carbon tax plan is adopted, all other regulations and subsidies aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions, such as automobile fuel efficiency and renewable portfolio standards, are supposed to be permanently repealed.

However, lots of climate activists oppose carbon taxes. Why? InsideClimateNews offered the example of Matto Mildenberger, a political scientist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who has argued that carbon taxes make climate action unpopular because they front load the costs immediately onto consumers while the eventual benefits of lower temperatures, less fierce storms, and lower sea levels stretch into the future. As InsideClimateNews explained:

In the view of Mildenberger and others who've studied climate politics around the world, subsidies, regulation, and other policies that provide more immediate and visible benefits—like jobs creation—are a better way to jump-start climate policy, even if they cost more in the short run. That's because they stimulate investment to help lower the cost of alternative energy, and at the same time help broaden political support for stronger climate policy. New actors with real investments they want to protect and advance will want more aggressive action, and politicians will respond.

On the other hand, economists in general favor the idea of imposing a price on carbon emissions as an efficient way to steer economic activity toward energy efficiency and the development of cheaper no-carbon energy supplies. Carbon taxes, economists argue, should attract the support of free market conservatives. But in fact, during the procedural votes on Biden's COVID-19 relief plan, all of the Senate's 50 Republicans voted in favor of an amendment to prohibit the adoption of a federal carbon tax.

If oil company support for a carbon price is aimed at forestalling the rollout of big climate change regulations and expenditures, the effort has likely come too late. For example, the Biden administration's $3 trillion infrastructure plan is anticipated to include $400 billion to combat climate change, including $46 billion on climate-change R&D, $60 billion for green transit, and billions more on upgrades to the electrical grid, energy efficiency improvements to housing, and the construction of thousands of charging stations for electric vehicles across the country. In order to pay for at least part of this costly plan, the Biden administration might happily tax carbon while forgetting all about revenue neutrality.

NEXT: These San Francisco Condo Dwellers Are NIMBY Hypocrites

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This sounds like wolves discussing the menu.

    How about no carbon tax manipulations and let the market steer itself?

    1. Well shit, Abbatoir; that’s just plain silly. What? You thought this was a Libertarian forum or something?

      Take your carbon tax, or market, or however else you want to get rich and cripple the West, and go straight to Hell. When China stops producing more energy by burning coal, than the United States did through all sources of energy, I might not think you were completely full of shit.

      See for yourself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China

      1. Is it libertarian to ignore externalities?

        1. Do externalities not matter if China emits them? Which they do, to a degree that makes US emissions a rounding error. Not that the US emissions you whine about, are a problem at all.

          Fuck, but you’re not only stupid, you’re mendacious. Why do you pollute this board with your ill-thought out bullshit? Is the pay that good? Do you thrive on the abuse? Are you that fucking lonely? Nobody likes you here, or cares about what you have to write, except in as much as to treat it as a rhetorical punching bag. Hell, I only look at it to double check it’s your garbage before removing it from my sight.

          Christ, and I keep telling myself not to respond to you, or Tony, or White Seagull’s lying idiocy. That’s not a great list to be in, by the way.

          1. Do exernalities suddenly not become externalities if China does it too? This is a dumb line of reasoning from you.

            And why do you think this place should be an echo-chamber?

            1. The partisan mindset can’t handle criticism.

              1. JOIN PART TIME JOB FOR USA Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do cx and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
                on this page…..VISIT HERE

              2. JOIN PART TIME JOB FOR USA Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do bgh and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
                on this page…..VISIT HERE

        2. Is it libertarian to ignore externalities?

          I don’t think you know what externalities means. When talking about your local lemonade stand or a home loan, externalities makes sense. When talking about global physics/economics, there are no externalities, every debt will be paid one way or another. The only externalities are comets slamming into the planet.

          1. Jeffy the clown thinks an “externality” is a magic license for the government to step in and balance the scales to achieve …. erm, “equity,” otherwise … we’re just begging for anarchy, or something.

            1. Do you enjoy completely inventing positions of the people you don’t like and stuffing it in their mouths?

              1. See, above for lying Jeffy’s “position I took but totally didn’t” denialism.

          2. The logic must be something along the lines of China will stop using electricity if America stops buying widgets from China.

            China could use more modern energy generation, they just don’t give a flying fuck about actual pollution let alone moronic ‘carbon pollution’. They use what’s easy because it’s easy, just like the U.S. did during their industrial expansion.

            I guess the Chinese climate bomb was already memory holed, huh. Or the retards were too busy chewing the carpet to notice that China gets paid not to produce things and that’s how they like it. If we stop paying, they start dumping.

            It’s even a CNN article!

      2. I mean, there is a difference between being a libertarian, and just being reflexively anti-government.

        Libertarians should rightfully be very skeptical and very critical of whatever government does.

        But at the end of the day, libertarians aren’t anarchists, and there are some things that even a libertarian government ought to do.

        1. libertarians aren’t anarchists

          Excepting the ones who are, of course.

          1. I swing

        2. Oh, don’t worry, they are only reflexively anti-government on their pet issues.

        3. Like centrally plan the economy because “externalities.”

          Your conception of a “libertarian” government seems to align curiously well with the progressive vision of government.

          Get the fuck out of here.

          1. Like centrally plan the economy in such a way that directs more of the production to China. Of course this means China pollutes even more, but who would have thought of that? Certainly not people who thought they could fix immigration issues with an open invitation to the world.

            The leftist idea of government is put people in charge of the money who have never actually had to make any. Nobody has ever solved problems by letting the folks who are making them make even more of them while cowering in the corner.

            1. If “green” energy was truly so efficient and groundbreaking, it would displace oil and natural gas without any need to be assisted by government. Incidentally, the one “green” energy that can actually achieve this – nuclear energy – is opposed by the left.

          2. Why don’t you tell us how much you want government central planning of immigration. Or government central planning of trade policy. Or government central planning of the Internet.

            1. Hmm…

              Methinks someone is pulling shit out of their ass again, lying Jeffy.

        4. Correction: libertarians aren’t *all* anarchists. There’s certainly some.

          I’d guess many Libertarians are minarchists, who reject government economic meddling of any sort as a valid use of government power.

          1. I’ve always thought libertarianism and anarchism to be distinct. That libertarianism is having a minimal state, while anarchism is about having no state. Is that wrong?

    2. Yeah. As a good rule, if the people set to be “harmed” by a tax or regulation instead support it…it is probable a really bad idea.

    3. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple works from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better BHG than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page….. Visit Here

  2. If you raise the cost of oil, people will use less of it, but if you raise the price of labor, you create jobs by some kind of magic thinking or something.

    1. Doesn’t it predict that 70% of Americans will receive a net rebate and only 30% will pay more for carbon based fuel? So, at the margins, more will be incentivized to avoid conservation than will be incentivized to reduce use.

      1. LOL. Like the “rebates” will continue to be paid.

      2. Hmmm…yes. I tend not to drive my car too much just because I don’t have to and it saves money for gas, maintenance and repairs. But if I’m gonna get a rebate I may start driving more.

    2. lol… Exactly.. And don’t forget the new narrative that “man” controls the weather. Heck; If that’s the case I’ll pay “man” $100 for year-round summers. That’ll give my crops 12-full months to eat up CO2 from the environment instead of only 6-months.

      But then again; None of this blind idiocy has anything to do with any of that does it? It’s all about Gov-Gods getting control of EVERYONE’S energy resources. Bow down to the ‘energy’ gods…. /s

  3. On the other hand, economists communists in general favor the idea of imposing a price on carbon emissions central planning as an efficient way to steer economic activity toward energy efficiency and the development of cheaper no-carbon energy supplies.

    Note: Language above may have been modified to reflect reality.

    1. But this is a completely different statement. Economists like taxing instead of central planning precisely because regulating and controlling usage directly is less efficient than upping the price of using a good and letting the market figure out how to start substituting the good out.

  4. Now do oxygen.

    1. Too much oxygen can definitely be bad. Raise the oxygen level too much and you get uncontrolled fires, as the paleosol record shows.

    2. Why, do you want to confuse White Knight?

  5. Because people making $25,000 a year are going to be able to trade in their 20 year old beater for a $35,000 electric car rather than pay the carbon tax.

    1. Serfs don’t need cars, Jerry. (Which sounds like a line from some Bizarro-version of Seinfeld) Everything you need will be provided to you. And you’ll be happy.

      You get it; I wonder why Bailey doesn’t?

      1. Because he is a fucking worm and thinks pandering to the Bolsheviks is going to secure him a nice and comfortable position as a propaganda minister in the great new society.

      2. Bailey is a tranny (transhumanist).
        There is not a more fundamentally progressive ideology than that.
        Indeed, it’s pretty much the simplest definition of progressivism: the attempt to create New Man through top-down central planning and by force.

  6. climate passivists are such dicks.

  7. “they wanted to work with the administration and pledged support for policies that would make it more expensive to emit the gases that contribute to climate change.”

    So they, and all the government flunkies, agreed not to exhale CO2 for the next 35 years?

  8. On the other hand, economists in general favor the idea of imposing a price on carbon emissions as an efficient way to steer economic activity toward energy efficiency and the development of cheaper no-carbon energy supplies. Carbon taxes, economists argue, should attract the support of free market conservatives.

    Carbon taxes cannot possibly be accurately or fairly applied therefore it tends to not attract the support of free market conservatives.

  9. $60 billion for green transit

    If we call it green, it’s green.

  10. Headline: Biden not to blame for rising diesel (or gas) prices

    Quote from article “For starters, the trend predates Biden. Diesel prices have
    steadily risen since the start of November, when Republican President Donald Trump was in office.

    (Aside) Hmmm. Now what exactly happened in November again?

    Conclusion. Pants on Fire!
    (Pants on Fire now powered by gaslighting, a renewable resource provided by the journolism industry.

    Link
    https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/mar/17/facebook-posts/biden-not-blame-rising-diesel-or-gas-prices/

    1. I love that they include the chart that shows the price spiking immediately after the election, then say it’s not Biden’s fault at all. Just bad luck, I guess!

  11. How simple minded do you have to be to think humans control climate cycles that have been happening for thousands of years? There is more abundant evidence for Bigfoot than this nonsense.

  12. I cannot and will not take Reason seriously until its writers begin to investigate the real motives (money and power) behind the “Climate Emergency”. There has never been a greater threat to liberty in my lifetime than the harmful measures being enacted, without debate, to allegedly save us from bad weather.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.