If Exxon and Shell love the idea of a Carbon Tax, it would have been passed by now. The reason why the republican party is the only major organization on this planet to deny climate change is because the oil company, among others, are vehemently opposed to being accountable for their energy byproduct.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Politics - Quarantine Thread
- Thread starter steve841
- Start date
- Status
And not everyone in a culprit and we do have realistic alternative when it comes to polluting the sky. You're telling a story full of holes, then coming up with a falsehood that's based on those stories, questioning people and making them play along.
It's intellectually dishonest at best.
Does this forum really not have an edit function.
Anyways, I'm not a regular on this forum, but I figure I should be since I own TSLA stock for the time being. A little surprised it dipped and stayed under 250 today.
It's intellectually dishonest at best.
Does this forum really not have an edit function.
Anyways, I'm not a regular on this forum, but I figure I should be since I own TSLA stock for the time being. A little surprised it dipped and stayed under 250 today.
BriansTesla
Old school meets new tech
Julian,
I may be dense but isn't the idea of a carbon tax to cause someone to use less fuel for example because it is more expensive? I know it may not be fairly applied and the tax money used inappropriately but is it not somewhat effective? People seem to drive less when fuel cost go up and buy SUV's when the cost goes down. I have always hoped our fuel prices in the US were more like in the EU.
I may be dense but isn't the idea of a carbon tax to cause someone to use less fuel for example because it is more expensive? I know it may not be fairly applied and the tax money used inappropriately but is it not somewhat effective? People seem to drive less when fuel cost go up and buy SUV's when the cost goes down. I have always hoped our fuel prices in the US were more like in the EU.
FYI - I am not interested in persuading anyone to vote one way or the other or to talk politics for its own sake.
I also find this topic irritating and tangential. The whole point of bringing it up was seeded by the WSJ hit piece on Musk.
2 key vulnerabilities:
Musk's Carbon tax advocacy. IMO (for the reasons explored) this is unnecessary, unhelpful and unpersuasive. There are much better and more persuasive real-world justifications for national leaders to agree to subsidies and tax breaks for EVs. Musk has picked a political fight here that he does not need to win and basically must not. Maybe he knows it and it its just a PR move - better to take the fight to the bad guys than have them bring it to him? Who knows apart from him on this score. All I can say is that on a first principles basis that this is the only thing Musk does in relation to Tesla that just does not add up on its own merits. Perhaps he is laying a bread crumb trail of false hope and meekness to the Oil Industry before slamming them with cascade AI EV adoption??? I don't know.
Misapprehension of political allies. This is a reason to feel cheerful and not fearful for TSLA if Trump makes it, which he probably will whatever anyone thinks or wants. There is nothing for any American to fear from American patriotism and certainly nothing to fear from any stakeholder in TSLA or any of Musk's American companies. I cannot see anything more positive for the environment than the success of Musk's companies or anything dirty on the the horizon that can compete with Musk's reinvention of the military industrial complex for the 21st Century (apart from politics) so that will all work out just fine. Musk will be fine enough with HRC except there will be a harder uphill battle with global instability, Russia treated as an enemy instad of a customer, higher taxation on Tesla, export trade barriers and more clinging to the petrodollar.
I would like to sign off on this side topic now. Also driving me nuts.
TSLA is behaving as expected. All is well in the world.
Last edited:
Watch this: Here’s the Climate Deal Everyone Really Wants
Here is Exxon's own blog post on the subject:
ExxonMobil and the carbon tax
According to this report Why Big Oil's crony bid to tax carbon will hurt your family
This is where it starts:
"......If these companies are ashamed of their naked rent seeking, they don't seem to show it. In their May letter, the six companies (BG Group, BP, Eni, Shell, Statoil and Total) admit a carbon tax would "help stimulate investments in the right low carbon technologies and the right resources at the right pace." Not surprisingly, they suggest their products are the "right" ones.
The simple fact is that a carbon tax would hit coal harder than natural gas. Coal is abundant, affordable and reliable, but since it also emits a lot of CO2 when burned, climate activists hate it. (The pro-carbon tax oil companies are apparently oblivious to the fact that climate activists also hate natural gas.)"
I would greatly appreciate not being referred to as intellectually dishonest. Intellectual honesty is offensive enough to many people without being accused of the exact opposite. Thank you.
Last edited:
Bingo.
The real cost of gasoline by some estimates is well above $8-$16 a gallon. Tesla will be heavily stifled if governments continue to ignore the importance of ridding the world of heavy fossil fuel use.
The idea is simple enough: pricing in pollution will provide even playing field and stop incentivizing pollution. Oil industry "wants" pollution tax only because they want to control the narrative. They knew of global warming sooner than anybody else, sponsored climate change deniers for as long as they could and now trying to get the best deal they can.
If taxing is not the the right solution - what is? Just like with ACA, one thing is to criticize, another is to provide solutions. Speaking of ACA - that's probably where pollution money should be going to - healthcare (and by that I don't mean private health insurance).
jeewee3000
Active Member
I agree with Julian that a carbon tax results in slower decrease in pollution rates, as the government won't fight hard to:
A: stop pollution;
B: drastically decrease their income;
A = B, that's Julian's point.
In other words it is unrealistic that the government would set up a system where they will come out as the loser in the end.
One thing I don't understand about Julian's point of view, is that he states increasing the taxes on fossil fuels would solve the problem. IMO this would have te exact same effect.
Musk just hopes (with his idea of carbon tax) that the consumer will adopt EV's faster 'cause it makes the purchase of EV's the rational (=cheaper) thing to do.
Such a complex discussion, too many factors.
A: stop pollution;
B: drastically decrease their income;
A = B, that's Julian's point.
In other words it is unrealistic that the government would set up a system where they will come out as the loser in the end.
One thing I don't understand about Julian's point of view, is that he states increasing the taxes on fossil fuels would solve the problem. IMO this would have te exact same effect.
Musk just hopes (with his idea of carbon tax) that the consumer will adopt EV's faster 'cause it makes the purchase of EV's the rational (=cheaper) thing to do.
Such a complex discussion, too many factors.
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
There is no B. The tax is supposed to be revenue neutral. This is the crux. How to make it a truly revenue neutral tax? I say, don't do it in the form of tax cuts, since they will always benefit different people and companies more or less (not equally). My view is make it a levy (rather than a tax), collect it, distribute it equally among citiziens. For example: The state collects $100 million in carbon pollution levy in the month of January, on Januar 31st every citizen gets his share of the collected levy in his/her account. Let's say that $152 dollars. The deposit is marked: "citizens share of carbon pollution levy". Every citizen, young and old, get the same $152 dollars. Do with it what you want. Some will use it toward carbon polluting goods and acitivities, but their dollars won't buy them as much anymore (because of the levy that has increased prices). If they use it on anything else on the other hand, they have real increased buying power. And if they use it to get an EV, insulate their home, install solar etc. they may even get a double-whammy effect: decrease their use of goods and services that are now taxed with the carbon pollution levy. This might allow some people, who would otherwise not have the means to go EV or become more energy efficient, to "invest" in these kinds of things. Some might go to the movies more, which is fine (doesn't help but doesn't hurt). Those that will get hurt are those highly dependent on whatever goods and services has gotten more expensive from the levy, but that's the point: to make it hurt.
In the way I'm describing it above the state in themselves neither gains nor loses money (hence revenue neutral) but dictate/steer the consumption and economic activity in society in the desired direction (away from fossil fuels).
No. Not Bingo.
No problem levying higher taxes on gasoline. Problem with that?
Thanks for throwing me a bone. I know that this is a topic that will upset people to hear.
It seems like there is no difference between a value added tax on fuel and a punishment tax on carbon emissions but there is.
To pick a biological analogy: A fuel tax puts the government in a position to share your meal with you at your table and to obsess about how bounteous its portion of your feast could become. There are some implied checks and balances here. If this guest is too greedy at the table and too unhelpful in your daily life you get weak and bring home less food for it to dine on. Eventually you might get sick of this guest and choose a different guest come election time. One that promises to be less greedy and more helpful. If this guest helps you to bring home more food in other ways and it isn't over greedy at the table there is a fine line and an optimum balance where you both get fat and happy. It's never perfect for everyone but at lest incentives are aligned. If the guest is a bit more greedy about the chocolate pudding and candy and a bit less greedy about the fruit and vegetables may well influence a better diet. If one day a fruit vendor comes up with something better than chocolate well everyone can share in the nice fruit too. Also rather than fight over the same table you and the guest can also cut down on Swiss chocolate imports and team up with the fruit vendor on a scheme to get really fat selling the Swiss and all of their former customers lots of fruit - All perfect.
A revenue neutral carbon emission tax on the other hand proposes a system of government that is less unhelpful in your daily life in return for inviting the guest to your bathroom with a lab coat and a spatula to test what you eliminate for evidence of indulging in chocolate and candy. Depending on what you ate at your meal table to bill you accordingly as a kind of punishment if it turns out to have been anything except fruit and vegetables. Simple solution to that. Because there was never any direct benefit in producing a chocolate and candy evidence-containing stool sample there are no checks and balances here, nothing of value to give up. For some people it's just a case of finding some really satisfying fruit and vegetables and the guest instantly starves -without any apparent consequences - apart from an imperative in the part of the guest to get greedier in its punishments on discovering evidence of chocolate and candy consumption in someone else's bathroom. Either that or start being more unhelpful in everyone's daily lives by raising income taxes and risk getting tossed out of all bathrooms come Election Day.
In this latter scenario the devious and foresightful fruit and vegetable vendor can picture cascade punishments imposed on the customers of his chocolate and candy store competitor and dreams how good that would be for him and the diets of all mankind. But he forgets that he is trading that for influence over all guests of this nature - and these guests can be most extremely unhelpful in daily life especially when coming up starving in one kind of bathroom on its daily bathroom inspection rounds before getting tucked into bed each night to the tune of the sweet temptations of flipping Willy Wonka. For example they may simply decide it is in the best interests of stability to limit shelf space in the supermarket for fruit and veg because it is just completely unreasonable to have nothing detectable in your stool sample as a means of tax evasion. Also just like spot checks at the Olympics for evidence of performance enhancing drugs, the incentive for corruption is completely off the charts. Just so, a Carbon Tax is not a tax for emissions per-se, it's a tax for getting caught at the wrong time in the wrong bathroom. The obvious risk with a government that is heavily lobbied and bankrolled by the oil and gas industry is that this group gets to choose the bathroom - as it HAS DONE with CARB in California and elsewhere with regards to Hydrogen: The Tail Pipe Carbon Emissions of hydrogen vehicles AND stationary hydrogen fuel cells that can potentially compete with solar and wind power generation at scale with battery storage is Zero at the Tailpipe and that is what CARB measures. Wrong bathroom altogether when fracking and methane hydrate generated Hydrogen yields 46% more carbon emissions per KWh of fuel energy content than gasoline - and the fugitive GHG emissions of fracking are far worse than official figures - and the gigaton fugitive emissions potential of meddling with Methane Hydrates on the sea floor which HAS COMMENCED in Japan is just begging for an extinction level event reminiscent of the Clathrate Gun most likely at the root cause of the Permian near-total extinction of life on Earth. That's the bottom line right there - this is why an entire roster of oil and gas companies are gung ho with platitudes for a carbon tax and why Hydrogen is staggeringly more dangerous than people generally realize - Evidently Elon Musk included I am sorry to say with the greatest of respect. Can anyone spell Greenpeace! And will someone please show this to Elon!
Note: The analogy of a carbon emissions tax to alcohol and cigarette taxes is flawed. These are analogies to an elevated fuel tax because they are charged when the consumer perceives that the benefit of the purchase is worth it including the tax. Even here the government and the consumer is at the same meal table.
Last edited:
The sovereign fund is heavily invested in London real estate, for example. And they already have a heavy tax schedule.[/QUOTE]
Indeed. Also Norway's Statoil is helping to turn the US into a bomb site by fracking on US soil while Norway keeps their groundwater and natural environment pristine with a total fracking ban despite identified onshore reserves.
That along with saving up for the end of oil with diversified investments of the kind you mention they are just that bit smarter in serving their own national best interests than elsewhere in the world.
At a national level Selling oil and using renewables is called profit. Buying Oil and shunning renewables is called loss. If you don't have oil to sell, using renewables instead of buying oil is called loss reduction. Exporting renewable electricity and renewable technology products to help others to save on oil is called profit too.
Annoying pseudoscientific hogwash - and you can stop trolling me with the dislike button too.
The maximum total amount of input energy in human biomas is the calorie content of your refrigerator minus your human metabolism times efficiency of biomas energy extraction. Now go figure how far and at what speed you can push your SUV per can of baked beans to get this into a sense of proportion.
You will find that putting a little hydro electric generator on your toilet and flushing it twice per case of need will offset human biomas if not entirely then almost.
Grrrr.
P.S. Waste stream management is really important but confusing it with energy as though it will somehow move the needle let alone neutralize the giant threat of fossil fuel dependency is unhelpful.
Last edited:
The data in JHM's link is good. Naturally I was not referring to that. I was referring to JHM's vote trolling and mischaracterizatuon of the contents of the link.
If I was excessively thin skinned I would not be able to deal with some of the topics of late at all. It's just extremely wearing to see people that you had hoped to be able to respect repeatedly hitting dislike in response an honest assessment of a difficult topic as though living in a haze of BS was somehow more appealing.
As has been said in numerous contexts the truth will set you free. Never has that been more aposite than when contemplating fossil fuel dependency.
Every single miserable pitfall in the battle to deal with this nightmare comes down to falling for or reaching for some BS or other be it hydrogen or carbon tax or whatever else that sounds great but makes no sense. BS like Sauron's ring is the weapon of the enemy and must be destroyed despite all temptation to put it on and use it.
Not for my sake - for everyone's sake.
MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
Julian you have used the dislike button 47 times, jhm has only used it 9 times.
Except that the energy used to pump the water to the treatment plant, through the filtration system and to the house will make it a net loss.
Last edited:
@jhm et al.
Look. Carbon Tax, the bottom line:
Despite all best of intentions, shifting taxation from fuel inputs to emissions outputs is a fast track to legislation for methane generated Hydrogen and with it Hydrogen Fuel Cell displacement of wind, solar, hydro, nuclear and anything else that is genuinely emissions free and puts Hydrogen instead of electricity at the head of the economic food chain when it comes to powering vehicles including pure electrics.
This means fracking and methane hydrates until the end of human civilisation which would be quite rapid.
Why? SMR of methane to produce hydrogen is the fossil fuel industry's most carbon intensive activity. King of the hill, can't be beat. 16.58 Kg CO2e per Kg of Hydrogen with the same total energy as a fuel as a gallon of gas that comes to 11.3Kg between extraction and consumption by the same metrics.
By mass it's even worse. 1.1% of hydrogen production in 2013 as a percentage of the weight of crude oil extraction was responsible for 10% of total vehicle emissions or 829 Million Tonnes attributable to Hydrogen alone or 3% of all man made emissions that year from all activities from cement and transport to heat, light and industry.
This is Before the risks associated with direct methane emissions to the atmosphere when used as a fuel or as a feed stock for hydrogen, one of which in particular practically guarantees human extinction: Methane Hydrate Extraction.
This also happens to be the bottom line of Japan's interest in promoting a hydrogen economy and the bottom line rationale for the Toyota Mirai. Methane Hydrates are the "Natural Resource" besides water and biomass and solar and wind and "The Fuel for the Next 100 years" according to Toyota's advertising - because that is exactly how much Methane Hydrate Japan assesses that it has in its territorial waters that it dreams will free it from being dependent on foreign oil and gas - including from their perspective foreign Natural Gas from the USA - making Hydrogen the ultimate stupidity for the USA to encourage with subsidies and credits from any and every angle.
Now I hate that this is the bottom line of a carbon tax but surely it is far more hateful to be in the dark about this until the freaking Atlantic or Pacific is in your living room and the food store is shut because all the food is extinct! At least this way one might have a hope of doing something about it compared to being left in the dark and conned blind until it's too late!
Look. Carbon Tax, the bottom line:
Despite all best of intentions, shifting taxation from fuel inputs to emissions outputs is a fast track to legislation for methane generated Hydrogen and with it Hydrogen Fuel Cell displacement of wind, solar, hydro, nuclear and anything else that is genuinely emissions free and puts Hydrogen instead of electricity at the head of the economic food chain when it comes to powering vehicles including pure electrics.
This means fracking and methane hydrates until the end of human civilisation which would be quite rapid.
Why? SMR of methane to produce hydrogen is the fossil fuel industry's most carbon intensive activity. King of the hill, can't be beat. 16.58 Kg CO2e per Kg of Hydrogen with the same total energy as a fuel as a gallon of gas that comes to 11.3Kg between extraction and consumption by the same metrics.
By mass it's even worse. 1.1% of hydrogen production in 2013 as a percentage of the weight of crude oil extraction was responsible for 10% of total vehicle emissions or 829 Million Tonnes attributable to Hydrogen alone or 3% of all man made emissions that year from all activities from cement and transport to heat, light and industry.
This is Before the risks associated with direct methane emissions to the atmosphere when used as a fuel or as a feed stock for hydrogen, one of which in particular practically guarantees human extinction: Methane Hydrate Extraction.
This also happens to be the bottom line of Japan's interest in promoting a hydrogen economy and the bottom line rationale for the Toyota Mirai. Methane Hydrates are the "Natural Resource" besides water and biomass and solar and wind and "The Fuel for the Next 100 years" according to Toyota's advertising - because that is exactly how much Methane Hydrate Japan assesses that it has in its territorial waters that it dreams will free it from being dependent on foreign oil and gas - including from their perspective foreign Natural Gas from the USA - making Hydrogen the ultimate stupidity for the USA to encourage with subsidies and credits from any and every angle.
Now I hate that this is the bottom line of a carbon tax but surely it is far more hateful to be in the dark about this until the freaking Atlantic or Pacific is in your living room and the food store is shut because all the food is extinct! At least this way one might have a hope of doing something about it compared to being left in the dark and conned blind until it's too late!
NeverFollow
Active Member
"A tow-truck driver from South Carolina refused service to a disabled woman after seeing Bernie Sanders campaign stickers on her car."
Tow-truck driver abandons disabled Bernie Sanders supporter
Tow truck owner said he refused service to woman because she supports Bernie Sanders
I can't believe it, especially in the case of a driver displaying a Disabled Placard.
Suppose it was in middle of the night in a rainy day.
Is there any ethic or any "Good Samaritan laws" (that would) "offer legal protection to people who give reasonable assistance to those who are, or who they believe to be, injured, ill, in peril, or otherwise incapacitated."
Good Samaritan law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good Samaritans Law & Legal Definition
http://www.daneurope.org/c/document...8f3-a745-480b-9549-d9fc8bbbd535&groupId=10103
I wonder how this driver contacted this towing company. If AAA or some other road assistance companies were involved, who would be liable if anything had happen to this disabled lady after the tow truck driver had left her alone?
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits". Albert Einstein
Tow-truck driver abandons disabled Bernie Sanders supporter
Tow truck owner said he refused service to woman because she supports Bernie Sanders
I can't believe it, especially in the case of a driver displaying a Disabled Placard.
Suppose it was in middle of the night in a rainy day.
Is there any ethic or any "Good Samaritan laws" (that would) "offer legal protection to people who give reasonable assistance to those who are, or who they believe to be, injured, ill, in peril, or otherwise incapacitated."
Good Samaritan law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good Samaritans Law & Legal Definition
http://www.daneurope.org/c/document...8f3-a745-480b-9549-d9fc8bbbd535&groupId=10103
I wonder how this driver contacted this towing company. If AAA or some other road assistance companies were involved, who would be liable if anything had happen to this disabled lady after the tow truck driver had left her alone?
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits". Albert Einstein
I'm one of them.
There are others who think it is okay to kill their unborn children and
Still others who think any loves ok, regardless of
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
And others think their beliefs mean it's OK to shoot people in a nightclub...
- Status
Similar threads
