User login

The Idaho Statesman is pleased to offer this opportunity to share information and observations about what's in the news. Some comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate but ask that you remain on topic. Comments that are profane, personal attacks or otherwise inappropriate are subject to removal. To register a complaint about another user's conduct, please send an e-mail to onlinenews@idahostatesman.com.

Exxon Mobil CEO calls for carbon tax

Submitted by Rocky Barker on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 1:53pm.

The CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp says the way to reduce carbon dioxide is a carbon tax.

Rex Tillerson obviously doesn’t want any new taxes. And its not like he’s saying we should buy less of his products.

But Tillerson syas that if he had to choose between a carbon tax and a cap and treading program to reduce greenhouse gases, he prefers the direct, straight-forward carbon tax, first proposed by Al Gore, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Last year Rep. John Dingell of Michigan introduced a bill for a carbon tax. It would impose a 50 cents per gallon tax on gasoline, a $50-per-ton tax on coal, petroleum and natural gas. He also would address the third rail in tax policy the mortgage interest rate deduction, but only on giant houses.

People with homes 3,000 to 3,199 square feet in size would be eligible for only 85 percent of the mortgage interest deduction.. Homes of 3,600 to 3,799 square feet would lose 60 percent of the deduction, homes of 4,000 to 4,199 square feet would lose 90 percent and homes larger than 4,200 square feet would get no deductions.

This is tough medicine. But a carbon tax appears to be better for Idaho than a cap and trade program. Why?

For one, the proceeds go back to the treasury, not the traders, their attorneys and lobbyists. It can be used to shift tax burden from somewhere else. Some cap and trade proposals do the same thing.

Idaho already uses less fossil fuels than most other places mostly because of hydropower. A carbon tax gives the state a head start.

One reason is nuclear power. The Idaho National Laboratory is the Department of Energy’s center for new reactor program development.

Idaho Republican Sen. Mike Crapo has not yet supported either cap and treade nor carbon tax but he said he prefers the carbon tax approach over the cap and trade bills.

You might remember last year when gas was more than $4 conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote that Congress would be wise to raise gas taxes by $2 to help reduce consumption and put the money into lowering payroll taxes instead of lining the pockets foreign oil producers.

Krauthammer is no fan of taxes but he, like a growing number of people on both sides of the isle, see the sucking of wealth from the pockets of Americans into the treasuries of people like Venezuela President Hugo Chavez as an even greater threat immediately than they see climate change.

Gas prices are expected to rise again soon. Don’t be surprised if President-elect Barack Obama and Congress take a serious look at the issue before we start sending our money to our enemies again.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

Rocky Barker's blog
Login or register to post comments

Choosing between a rock and a rock

Submitted by BobZybach on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 3:12pm.

Tillerson is quoted as saying:

"But Tillerson says that if he had to choose between a carbon tax and a cap and treading program to reduce greenhouse gases, he prefers the direct, straight-forward carbon tax, first proposed by Al Gore."

I guess if I had to choose between having my bowels eaten out by fire ants, or being reamed repeatedly with a rough stick by Algore, I might choose the latter over the former, myself.

What kind of news is that? Who put Tillerson up to that "choice" anyway? Both options suck and are basically birds of the same feather (or finger) in the first place.

Even if Tillerson isn't fired for being a spineless nitwit (assuming this is an accurate quote), he shouldn't be cited in the media for displaying those qualities. It's not news if it's just a dumb opinion; it's exploitation.

Let me get this straight

Submitted by RockyBarker on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 4:22pm.

The CEO of the largest corporation in the world, the biggest seller of petroleum products, a major force in our economy gives a speech in Washington suggesting his preference for dealing with what will clearly be one of the major decisions of the next five years and that's not news. Bob is that a scientific pronouncement or an unbiased analysis?

Since I posted it I obviously disagree with your judgment on the news value of Tillerson's speech.

My bias in this is that Tillerson's choice is not now the political choice of most environmentalist who favor the cap and trade approach. Yet free market economists who don't believe in climate change like you, said if they were convinced we needed to reduce carbon, the tax would be the best approach. I tend to buy their arguments but they could be wrong.

I tend to give more credibility to people who say the right path to go is a different way than the one that benefits them the most or fits their traditional view of the world.

He is the CEO of EXXON MOBIL. NEXT!!!!!

Submitted by foreignoregonian on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 3:22pm.

----------
I don't get math. Too much reading involved.

Rex prefers neither

Submitted by slipstream on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 4:17pm.

Political whores and elite media want more taxes on gasoline and cap and trade. You want to keep money away from foriegn producers, start developing more North American sites.

Nothing against domestic production

Submitted by RockyBarker on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 4:25pm.

But even if we increase domestic oil it encourages us to keep addicted to oil so we have to go back to the pushers like Putin, Iran and Chavez. Oil is a world market and just because we produce a little more won't keep us from restoring Russia and Iran's ailing economies when demand rises.

I'd be about ready to bully Russia back/Chavez is lightweight

Submitted by foreignoregonian on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 10:30pm.

----------
I don't get math. Too much reading involved.

What's more amazing is the

Submitted by nitrodan on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 4:25pm.

What's more amazing is the planet is currently cooling and man caused global warming is a farce soon to be proven as a farce. But so many have drank the Kool Aid that crazy destructive policies are going to be implemented anyways. Enviros successfully trashed nuclear power which would have gone a long ways towards energy independance and a reduction in alleged pollutants (C02) But now absent of that and any alternatives they are going to punish the average American with higher gas prices and higher energy bills all to stop a problem that isn't even real. Now climate changers are saying that the reason we're "cooling" is BECAUSE of global warming. ROFLMAO, If you want to fight pollution I applaud that but crippling an ailing economy because Al Gore made a movie is stupid. Have you ever listened to Al Gore? He's a frickin moron. See "The Emporer's New Clothes" for further clarification.

Reading material for global warming alarmists and fearmongers

Submitted by nitrodan on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 4:34pm.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

Well said case

Submitted by RockyBarker on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 4:49pm.

Nitrodan, good link. I've had many links to scientists making the opposing case but this weatherman lays out the plausible alternative well.

His only problem is blaming the high price of gas on climate change advocacy. The high price of gas is a supply and demand issue and until the economy tanked the demand was high. The search for new sources of oil right now has dried up, not because of environmental issues but becuase of the market. I got that from BLM Director Jim Caswell, who supports more drilling.

The high cost of fuel this

Submitted by BeyondGreen on Sun, 01/11/2009 - 11:29am.

The high cost of fuel this past year did serious damage to our economy and society. After a brief reprieve gas prices are inching back up again. Our nation should not allow other nations to have such power over us and our economy . We have so much available to us in the way of technology and free sources of energy. WE seriously need to get on with becoming an energy independent nation. We are spending billions upon billions in bail out dollars. Why not spend some of those billions in getting alternative energy projects set up. We could create clean cheap energy, millions of badly needed new green jobs and lessen our dependence on foreign oil all in one fell swoop. I just read an eye opening book by Jeff Wilson called The Manhattan Project of 2009. It would cost the equivalent of 60 cents per gallon to drive and charge an electric car.If all gasoline cars, trucks, and SUV's instead had plug-in electric drive trains, the amount of electricity needed to replace gasoline is about equal to the estimated wind energy potential of the state of North Dakota. Why don't we use some of the billions in bail out money to bail us out of our dependence on foreign oil? This past year the high cost of fuel so seriously damaged our economy and society that the ripple effects will be felt for years to come. www.themanhattanprojectof2009.com

Crude oil hits $35...lets start a war

Submitted by slipstream on Sun, 01/11/2009 - 5:32pm.

Have a nice day and.. death to america.

Oh, hush. A few teensy weensy A-bombs couldn't hurt?

Submitted by foreignoregonian on Mon, 01/12/2009 - 6:47pm.

----------
To read is wonderful. To comprehend art. Falling back to whatever you believed in is NORMAL.

Voices.IdahoStatesman.com

Navigation