PDA

View Full Version : Carbon Tax Now!



George.
06-02-2010, 02:14 PM
Go Big O!


"The time has come, once and for all, for this nation to fully embrace a clean energy future. That means continuing our unprecedented effort to make everything from our homes and businesses to our cars and trucks more energy efficient. It means tapping into our natural gas reserves, and moving ahead with our plan to expand our nation's fleet of nuclear power plants. And it means rolling back billions of dollars in tax breaks to oil companies so we can prioritize investments in clean energy research and development."

Obama warns that "the only way the transition to clean energy will succeed is if the private sector is fully invested in this future -- if capital comes off the sidelines and the ingenuity of our entrepreneurs is unleashed," according to the excerpts. "And the only way to do that is by finally putting a price on carbon pollution."

TomF
06-02-2010, 02:21 PM
This is the moment - he'll never have a greater opportunity than when the Gulf spill is compounding the (real) issue of emissions.

Still, the guy's balls are hard as brass, if he's serious.

Phillip Allen
06-02-2010, 02:27 PM
kain't wait to hear about "clean" coal (yet, again)

Milo Christensen
06-02-2010, 02:58 PM
Phillip - it's not clean coal anymore, it's no new coal - O's policies will cause any "new" coal plant to go bankrupt. (http://forum.woodenboat.com/www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ)

LeeG
06-02-2010, 03:06 PM
carbon tax? HORRORS!

the more we burn the richer we are

Dan McCosh
06-02-2010, 03:55 PM
Well, it's pretty much a way to tax pretty much everything, all at once.

delecta
06-02-2010, 04:03 PM
Cap and trade makes absolutely no sense, it would bankrupt America if passed. On the bright side he doesn't have enough time to get it passed before the mid term elections and then he won't have the votes.

I think BO should concentrate on stopping the leak and maybe if he gets a moment between tee off times to address our borders.

Cap and tax will not happen.

Captain Blight
06-02-2010, 04:44 PM
Cap and trade makes absolutely no sense, it would bankrupt America if passed. On the bright side he doesn't have enough time to get it passed before the mid term elections and then he won't have the votes.

I think BO should concentrate on stopping the leak and maybe if he gets a moment between tee off times to address our borders.

Cap and tax will not happen.
Saved to my hard drive so I can pull this post back out in November and laugh and laugh and laugh. Also, Mr Obama doesn't golf, he shoots hoops. Also, he's not an engineer, he's the President, what do you want the guy to do, plug the leak with his left big toe?

SHEEESH

LeeG
06-02-2010, 04:48 PM
get serious, ha! BP is denying us oil!!!! We Want it ALL!!!!!

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/david-strahan-americans-should-be-thanking-bp-1988049.html

The fact that BP was drilling for Macondo – a tiny field under a mile of water containing less than 12 hours' global consumption – tells us all we need to know about the state of oil depletion. Deepwater production – anything under more than 500 metres of sea water, far too deep for divers to work should anything go wrong – has quadrupled from less than 2 million barrels per day (mb/d) in 2000 to 8 mb/d today, precisely because onshore and shallow offshore supplies are running down. The industry only drills at such extreme depths because there are very few alternatives – the Canadian tar sands and Iraq are equally unpalatable – and it is a clear sign of impending peak oil.

Ironically one impact of the BP spill, the US moratorium on deepwater drilling, is likely to hasten and worsen the effects of the global production peak. One analyst forecasts the ban could deprive the world of an additional one million barrels per day from 2016. City forecasts of $175 per barrel by mid-decade may now prove conservative. So, how is any of this good news?

First, it could have been so much worse. Had BP suffered a similar accident while drilling for Tiber, a three-billion-barrel field it discovered in the Gulf of Mexico last year under two miles of water, reservoir pressures and oil volumes would have been far higher, and there would be many fewer remotely operated submarines capable of working at this depth. Likewise, had such a spill occurred in the remote Arctic, galvanising a speedy response would have been still harder and impacts yet more devastating. Now at least regulations will be tightened, making such accidents less likely.

More important, the spill may finally spur Americans, who make up 5 per cent of the world's population but guzzle 25 per cent of the oil supply, to get serious about cutting their consumption.

switters
06-02-2010, 04:48 PM
Saved to my hard drive so I can pull this post back out in November and laugh and laugh and laugh. Also, Mr Obama doesn't golf, he shoots hoops. Also, he's not an engineer, he's the President, what do you want the guy to do, plug the leak with his left big toe?

SHEEESH

hey cap'n while I don't disagree with the majority of that post, you may want to google two words, obama + golf.

George Jung
06-02-2010, 05:47 PM
hoisted on his putter.....

delecta
06-02-2010, 06:09 PM
Saved to my hard drive so I can pull this post back out in November and laugh and laugh and laugh. Also, Mr Obama doesn't golf, he shoots hoops. Also, he's not an engineer, he's the President, what do you want the guy to do, plug the leak with his left big toe?

SHEEESH

Yup, you tuck that thought right away and I have a great idea where you can place it! PM me for further instructions.

So is that a racist reply? You don't think that half black men play golf? Just "shoot hoops"? hmmmmm

I hear he plays more golf then Tiger Woods, played more golf then GWB did in 8 years about 6 months ago. You know what the worst part is?

He sucks more are being president then he does at playing golf. :D

Bob Adams
06-02-2010, 06:16 PM
get serious, ha! BP is denying us oil!!!! We Want it ALL!!!!!

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/david-strahan-americans-should-be-thanking-bp-1988049.html

The fact that BP was drilling for Macondo a tiny field under a mile of water containing less than 12 hours' global consumption tells us all we need to know about the state of oil depletion. Deepwater production anything under more than 500 metres of sea water, far too deep for divers to work should anything go wrong has quadrupled from less than 2 million barrels per day (mb/d) in 2000 to 8 mb/d today, precisely because onshore and shallow offshore supplies are running down. The industry only drills at such extreme depths because there are very few alternatives the Canadian tar sands and Iraq are equally unpalatable and it is a clear sign of impending peak oil.

Ironically one impact of the BP spill, the US moratorium on deepwater drilling, is likely to hasten and worsen the effects of the global production peak. One analyst forecasts the ban could deprive the world of an additional one million barrels per day from 2016. City forecasts of $175 per barrel by mid-decade may now prove conservative. So, how is any of this good news?

First, it could have been so much worse. Had BP suffered a similar accident while drilling for Tiber, a three-billion-barrel field it discovered in the Gulf of Mexico last year under two miles of water, reservoir pressures and oil volumes would have been far higher, and there would be many fewer remotely operated submarines capable of working at this depth. Likewise, had such a spill occurred in the remote Arctic, galvanising a speedy response would have been still harder and impacts yet more devastating. Now at least regulations will be tightened, making such accidents less likely.

More important, the spill may finally spur Americans, who make up 5 per cent of the world's population but guzzle 25 per cent of the oil supply, to get serious about cutting their consumption.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/Like_a_monkey_with_a_minature_cymbal.jpg/220px-Like_a_monkey_with_a_minature_cymbal.jpg

George.
06-03-2010, 05:05 AM
Well, it's pretty much a way to tax pretty much everything, all at once.

Except for stuff that doesn't use much fossil fuels. It exists, believe it or not.

Other than that, just make it revenue-neutral by cutting other taxes.

George.
06-03-2010, 05:06 AM
Cap and trade makes absolutely no sense,

True. That is why I am calling for a carbon tax.



it would bankrupt America if passed.

Bull. It might bankrupt a few of the oil men who control your mind, though.

LeeG
06-03-2010, 05:32 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/Like_a_monkey_with_a_minature_cymbal.jpg/220px-Like_a_monkey_with_a_minature_cymbal.jpg

http://www.getoutdoors.com/goblog/uploads/monkey_man_Chandre_Oraon.jpg

you brute

Nicholas Scheuer
06-03-2010, 05:46 AM
The neanderthals among us will insist on cheap gasoline for their SUV's even as they cry about the black gunk on the Gulf Shores.

They want to burn every last gallon at $1.89/gal untill it's gone, thenthey can blame Obama for running out of oil, or "not drilling the secret government reserves", or not letting Big Oil do the job, or letting oil sludge get into the swamps.

Even Bobby Jindal, the guy who is always crying for "less government", is now crying for "MORE HELP FROM WASHINGTON".

Louisiana made their bed a long time ago.

Moby Nick

Andrew Craig-Bennett
06-03-2010, 05:55 AM
Emissions trading ("Cap and trade" in the USA) has never made any sense; the thing is riddled with holes and would benefit no one outside Wall Street and Canary Wharf.

I have supprted a carbon tax for a long time, but it will never be enacted in the States, a nation which cannot even tax automobile gasoline properly.

LeeG
06-03-2010, 06:29 AM
Emissions trading ("Cap and trade" in the USA) has never made any sense; the thing is riddled with holes and would benefit no one outside Wall Street and Canary Wharf.

I have supprted a carbon tax for a long time, but it will never be enacted in the States, a nation which cannot even tax automobile gasoline properly.


Reading about our gas tax history it looks like auto and oil industry pressure under the guise of conservative politics encourage maximum consumption and minimal taxing.

Bob Adams
06-03-2010, 08:30 AM
http://www.getoutdoors.com/goblog/uploads/monkey_man_Chandre_Oraon.jpg

you brute

OK, but you're so damned ugly!;)

blindbrook
06-03-2010, 09:05 AM
Go Big O!
Do you know the rough date of this quote? I would like to put the quote in perspective because one of my frustrations with the President is he seems to say a lot and it's sometimes hard to know what is really important to him. He recently endorsed more offshore drilling before changing his mind after the spill. As a taker of more than $1mm from oil companies, he blamed the spill on the Republican party this week- all helpful and constructive.
What we need, rather than bumper car reactions, is real leadersdhip towards a a rational energy policy consistant with the quote above, I just don't know whether the quote represents usual political blather or a real commitment.

paul oman
06-03-2010, 10:11 AM
We exhale carbon dioxide and fart methane. You want your body functioned taxed?

Bad time for stupid cap and trade/carbon tax. Experts say oil spill and its political results will raise gasoline to at least $5 a gallon this summer. Additional fed tax plans would add a few more dollars. Can you afford $8-$10 a gallon gas? Do you think there would be any democrats in congress or the white house, if folks needed $400 a month more to pay for their gasoline?

Boatsmith
06-03-2010, 10:36 AM
Seems to me that gas was $4/gal under GWB. The good news about that was people started thinking that maybe some change in our
consumption habits might be smart. But gas backs off to $3/gal and we are right back to selling bigger cars and trucks. Only a fool can think that gas is not going to continue to cost more all of the time. And what does our oil greed/need cost us in respect to our military
presence in the world.The writing has been on the wall for decades, we will run out of oil, we (the world) are upping our consumption levels daily. Why do we send so much money to
hugo
chavez and the sheiks. The more money we spend on oil, the more we are funding
islamic wackos. David

Bob Adams
06-03-2010, 10:59 AM
We (the USA) have reduced our consumption of gasoline, I fully expect that trend to continue. The sad part is, as a result, the oil companies shut down refineries to tighten supplies and raise prices. I see that as a smack in the face of everyone, including me, who have taken measures to conserve.

BrianW
06-03-2010, 11:06 AM
He recently endorsed more offshore drilling before changing his mind after the spill. As a taker of more than $1mm from oil companies, he blamed the spill on the Republican party this week...

Exactly. He's nuttier than a squirrel on the subject of oil drilling. First he promoted off-shore drilling, then he's against it. As if the thought of a spill had never crossed his mind.

Did you see the attempt here at diverting the attention to Palin?

Twas pathetic.

LeeG
06-03-2010, 03:20 PM
We (the USA) have reduced our consumption of gasoline, I fully expect that trend to continue. The sad part is, as a result, the oil companies shut down refineries to tighten supplies and raise prices. I see that as a smack in the face of everyone, including me, who have taken measures to conserve.

Conserve all you want but the idea that taking measures to increase efficiency and reduce use of oil will make the world price decline is missing the point big time. That worked in the 80's, this isn't the 80's.

LeeG
06-03-2010, 03:21 PM
Did you see the attempt here at diverting the attention to Palin?

Twas pathetic.

she's hot

Venchka
06-03-2010, 03:39 PM
Stock up on candles. Buy a bicycle while you can still afford one.
Enjoy building your boats with hand tools by candlelight. You better live close to water. You won't be trailering that boat.
The good news: There won't be cable TV or internet to divert your attention or bring you news.
Stock up on woolies. We wouldn't want you to freeze in the dark.
Have a great day.

paul oman
06-03-2010, 05:42 PM
Oil companies aren't shutting down refineries - states and gov not letting them build them. If you don't allow power plants, refineries, drilling, power lines etc. to be built in your states (i.e. California) - whose fault when the lights go dim?

Bob Adams
06-03-2010, 05:46 PM
Oil companies aren't shutting down refineries - states and gov not letting them build them. If you don't allow power plants, refineries, drilling, power lines etc. to be built in your states (i.e. California) - whose fault when the lights go dim?

Go read a few trade publications, thay have and are doing exactly that. I'll see if I can find a link
Here's one article, took 20 seconds to find:
More refinery shutdowns needed for margins to improve

By Sheela Tobben

Sunoco's plans to indefinitely shut for economic reasons its 145,000 b/d Eagle Point refinery in Westville, New Jersey, near Philadelphia, did not come as a major surprise to most in the gasoline market.
But they add it would take many more similar shutdowns, not only on the US Atlantic Coast but also down on the US Gulf Coast, before such moves would generate any tangible effect on US refining margins.

Large swathes of the industry do admit that gasoline-centered refineries -- which make up the bulk of US plants -- are bearing the brunt of current weak margin situation.
Most of such refineries remain stuck swimming in negative margins that descended upon then several months ago. Traders say margins have improved a tad this week, but remain insufficient to cover refiners' production costs.
And while some have resorted to bringing forward turnarounds of gasoline making units, cutting runs or shut units for an extended period of time to allay the bleak situation, few have made moves quite as bold, even if not surprising, as Sunoco, say sources.
In fact some have played down the "boldness" of Sunoco's move, announced by the company a week ago, to nothing more than a run cut, considering the Eagle Point refinery is integrated with its larger Philadelphia refining system.
In any case, most traders say Sunoco's move removes only a drop from the bucket brimming with gasoline.
Never mind that gasoline stocks in the US remain well within the range of levels seen over the last five years.
In fact, stock levels have been on a downtrend for several years.
According to the Energy Information Administration, finished gasoline stocks for the week ending October 2 stood at 86.9 million barrels, down sharply from where we started at in January at 95.9 million barrels. At the start of 2004, stocks stood at 148.2 million barrels.
So why then are US refiners fussing about bringing down stock levels as a means of shoring up prices and therefore improving margins? Couldn't it be that the real problem is demand lost as the recession continues to take a exponential toll on US consumers.
But demand data -- the EIA's product supplied -- which is suppose to represent US demands, seems a bit of a quagmire, traders say.
Going by just that data, it would appear that demand is healthy for gasoline. According to the EIA, product supplied for finished motor gasoline stood at 9.3 million b/d, down 14,000 b/d from earlier this year. At the start of 2004, this stood at 8.69 million b/d.
Yet at the rack level, trade sources say, sales have been slow and lacking in luster distinctly from years before, jiving with how a recessionary environment would be.
Perhaps refiners are responding to where it counts most, their sales, and where and when numbers are down its time to cut back or wrap it up.

sdowney717
06-03-2010, 06:43 PM
Bad time for stupid cap and trade/carbon tax. Experts say oil spill and its political results will raise gasoline to at least $5 a gallon this summer. Additional fed tax plans would add a few more dollars. Can you afford $8-$10 a gallon gas? Do you think there would be any democrats in congress or the white house, if folks needed $400 a month more to pay for their gasoline?

That is why Obama is appealing to emotional cries about carbon ruining the childrens future. The people who believe that the future of life is at stake dont care if oil goes that high. To them that would be great because it will slow consumption and less 'poisonous' co2 released, heating up the hothouse planet. Also force development of all electric cars and only way to get that is building a lot of nuclear plants. then you get to worry about peak uranium. I think we should build breeder reactors, in a way, they make more fuel than they consume, and there would be so much electric power, so cheap for all.
Breeder reactors can have their fuel 'poisoned' so it cant be used to build bombs.

sdowney717
06-03-2010, 06:45 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_breeder_reactor


The fast breeder or fast breeder reactor (FBR) is a fast neutron reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_neutron_reactor) designed to breed fuel by producing more fissile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fissile) material than it consumes. The FBR is one possible type of breeder reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor).
Hundred fold increase in power and therefore supply last a lot longer.

The fuel is totally being wasted in a conventional nuclear reactor!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium


Breeding

Main article: Breeder reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor)
A breeder reactor produces more nuclear fuel than it consumes and thus can extend the uranium supply. It typically turns the dominant isotope in natural uranium, uranium-238, into plutonium-239, another nuclear fuel that can also be used in nuclear weapons. This does not allow an infinite supply but allows a hundredfold increase in the amount of energy to be produced per mass unit of uranium. This is because U-238, which constitute 99.3 of natural uranium, is not used in conventional reactors which instead use U-235 which only represent 0.7% of natural uranium.[84] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium#cite_note-83)
There are two types of breeders: Fast breeders and thermal breeders.

PeterSibley
06-03-2010, 06:51 PM
and exactly how long has the fast breeder myth been going ?Just another 10 ,20 ,50 years ,a few more billions for research and we'll do it !! Power too cheap to meter ?

LeeG
06-03-2010, 06:57 PM
Bob, so you want to force a company to maintain a losing operation?

sdowney717
06-03-2010, 07:08 PM
and exactly how long has the fast breeder myth been going It was partially not developed, stifled, prevented research discouraged for fear of plutonium for nuclear bombs easily falling into terrorists and other nation states hands.

Bob Adams
06-03-2010, 07:18 PM
Bob, so you want to force a company to maintain a losing operation?

Reread. IMPROVE MARGINS. You know, anti trust, price fixing, Enron style fake shortages. All to raise the price, I knew you would defend it.

LeeG
06-03-2010, 07:37 PM
Reread. IMPROVE MARGINS. You know, anti trust, price fixing, Enron style fake shortages. All to raise the price, I knew you would defend it.

I guess you want to run a business that has weak margins? Where do you get the idea that gasoline is overpriced to begin with?

Bob Adams
06-03-2010, 07:40 PM
I'm not going to argue with the one trick pony. Good Night.

LeeG
06-03-2010, 07:49 PM
you do sound persecuted

PeterSibley
06-03-2010, 08:14 PM
It was partially not developed, stifled, prevented research discouraged for fear of plutonium for nuclear bombs easily falling into terrorists and other nation states hands.

Stifled , really ? Amazing, a technology that could put the US in the lead technologically stifled ...yeah , right !:rolleyes:

and this terrorism excuse is very new , up until recently it was just East and West ,damn Reds and the Just .

LeeG
06-03-2010, 08:39 PM
don't forget the super deep wells the US gov't won't do to get the abiotic oil no one has found.