• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Big Oil Supporting a Carbon Tax?

aberrant85

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
594
Reaction score
209
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/b...anies-prepared-to-pay-price-on-carbon.html?hp

WASHINGTON — More than two dozen of the nation’s biggest corporations, including the five major oil companies, are planning their future growth on the expectation that the government will force them to pay a price for carbon pollution as a way to control global warming.

The development is a striking departure from conservative orthodoxy and a reflection of growing divisions between the Republican Party and its business supporters.

A new report by the environmental data company CDP has found that at least 29 companies, some with close ties to Republicans, including ExxonMobil, Walmart and American Electric Power, are incorporating a price on carbon into their long-term financial plans.

Both supporters and opponents of action to fight global warming say the development is significant because businesses that chart a financial course to make money in a carbon-constrained future could be more inclined to support policies that address climate change.

But unlike the five big oil companies — ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, BP and Shell, all major contributors to the Republican party — Koch Industries, a conglomerate that has played a major role in pushing Republicans away from action on climate change, is ramping up an already-aggressive campaign against climate policy — specifically against any tax or price on carbon. Owned by the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, the company includes oil refiners and the paper-goods company Georgia-Pacific.

What does this mean? Does this suggest that big business is moving away from its Republican ties, or that climate change will eventually become accepted within the GOP? Is this simply companies engaging in rational self interest, preparing for the future that is inevitably coming?

Personally I welcome this attitude.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/b...anies-prepared-to-pay-price-on-carbon.html?hp



What does this mean? Does this suggest that big business is moving away from its Republican ties, or that climate change will eventually become accepted within the GOP? Is this simply companies engaging in rational self interest, preparing for the future that is inevitably coming?

Personally I welcome this attitude.

I don't think it necessarily portends any such shift. They are just being smart by planning - what is it they say "Failing to plan = planning to fail."
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/b...anies-prepared-to-pay-price-on-carbon.html?hp



What does this mean? Does this suggest that big business is moving away from its Republican ties, or that climate change will eventually become accepted within the GOP? Is this simply companies engaging in rational self interest, preparing for the future that is inevitably coming?

Personally I welcome this attitude.

"The expectation that the government will force them to pay a price for carbon pollution" is not the same as supporting the idea that the government will force them to pay a price for carbon pollution.


They're just reading the handwriting on t he wall, that's all.
 
It probably means al gore has finally got enough big oil investors in his billion dollar carbon market exchange he's been promoting for the good of the planet (i mean his wallet). Big oil like many industries are about big dollars, and if they can collect big dollars from the masses to pay for the carbons they gladly will.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/b...anies-prepared-to-pay-price-on-carbon.html?hp



What does this mean? Does this suggest that big business is moving away from its Republican ties, or that climate change will eventually become accepted within the GOP? Is this simply companies engaging in rational self interest, preparing for the future that is inevitably coming?

Personally I welcome this attitude.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/b...anies-prepared-to-pay-price-on-carbon.html?hp



What does this mean? Does this suggest that big business is moving away from its Republican ties, or that climate change will eventually become accepted within the GOP? Is this simply companies engaging in rational self interest, preparing for the future that is inevitably coming?

Personally I welcome this attitude.

It means they assume the inevitable, and that is all. The leftists in this country wouldn't dare take on China's polluting policies. You'll never see them over there.
 
What does this mean? Does this suggest that big business is moving away from its Republican ties, or that climate change will eventually become accepted within the GOP? Is this simply companies engaging in rational self interest, preparing for the future that is inevitably coming?

Personally I welcome this attitude.

It depends on the company. Their exposure is mostly in energy/fuel consumption. For a company like Walmart, it could mean more natural lighting, lower ceilings; solar panels, ICF "lego block" construction, creating foyers that mitigate heating and cooling loss and the like. For an electric producer it could mean more solar on their grid; for Exxon it could mean changes to their distribution network to reduce fuel consumption--like using more rail or relocating distribution centers. Just depends on the cost-benefit of doing these sorts of things. A carbon tax is less to a business about social responsibility and more to a business about a rising cost. In reality, this could be thinking as much about us having passed the peak oil window as it is carbon taxing.
 
It depends on the company. Their exposure is mostly in energy/fuel consumption. For a company like Walmart, it could mean more natural lighting, lower ceilings; solar panels, ICF "lego block" construction, creating foyers that mitigate heating and cooling loss and the like. For an electric producer it could mean more solar on their grid; for Exxon it could mean changes to their distribution network to reduce fuel consumption--like using more rail or relocating distribution centers. Just depends on the cost-benefit of doing these sorts of things. A carbon tax is less to a business about social responsibility and more to a business about a rising cost. In reality, this could be thinking as much about us having passed the peak oil window as it is carbon taxing.

Or, they could simply get into the business of trading carbon credits. What they pay in carbon taxes, then, they'd get back by being a part of another lucrative market. It's a win- win (except, of course, for the poor schmuck paying five bucks a gallon at the pump).
 
Or, they could simply get into the business of trading carbon credits. What they pay in carbon taxes, then, they'd get back by being a part of another lucrative market. It's a win- win (except, of course, for the poor schmuck paying five bucks a gallon at the pump).

I will see that in my lifetime with or without the carbon credits. The $85/barrel production costs are just going to go up. The days of cheap easily got oil are going the way of pet rocks, unicorns, and liberal sacrifice.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/b...anies-prepared-to-pay-price-on-carbon.html?hp



What does this mean? Does this suggest that big business is moving away from its Republican ties, or that climate change will eventually become accepted within the GOP? Is this simply companies engaging in rational self interest, preparing for the future that is inevitably coming?

Personally I welcome this attitude.

They're making plans that will allow them to survive government stupidity.
 
I will see that in my lifetime with or without the carbon credits. The $85/barrel production costs are just going to go up. The days of cheap easily got oil are going the way of pet rocks, unicorns, and liberal sacrifice.

No doubt that's true. Gas went close to five bucks here a couple of years ago already. Some places in still is higher than that. For some reason, the 395 corridor, going from LA to Reno, NV. has some of the most expensive and some of the cheapest gas in the area.
 
It means that they're all multi-national corporation that are devising models to allow them to operate in countries that have the foolish carbon credit system established. A system that unfortunately may one day be adopted by the U.S. Its planning, that is all.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/b...anies-prepared-to-pay-price-on-carbon.html?hp



What does this mean? Does this suggest that big business is moving away from its Republican ties, or that climate change will eventually become accepted within the GOP? Is this simply companies engaging in rational self interest, preparing for the future that is inevitably coming?

Personally I welcome this attitude.



Global warming alarmism has been a huge windfall for the oil companies. That you are seeing it for the first time does not mean this attitude is new.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/b...anies-prepared-to-pay-price-on-carbon.html?hp



What does this mean? Does this suggest that big business is moving away from its Republican ties, or that climate change will eventually become accepted within the GOP? Is this simply companies engaging in rational self interest, preparing for the future that is inevitably coming?

Personally I welcome this attitude.

I wonder what ubber lefty Coral Davenport, the author of this anti-GOP rhetoric, thinks about Tesla making more from selling Carbon Off-set Credits, than from making cars? It would appear her creds are a bit tainted, when the Carbon Scam befuddles her.

Tesla’s First-Ever Profit Came Thanks To Selling Zero Emission Credits To Competitors, But It Insists It’s Not Dependent On Bartering CO2 Offsets

Tesla

Just ask any manufacturing business owner in California about factoring Carbon cost into future business plans, and one will understand what a hack Davenport is to try and attach this appropriate planning to anything related to a political party.
 
Back
Top Bottom