Guest essay by Eric Worrall
President Obama has proposed a $10 per barrel carbon tax to fund renewable energy, and to “encourage” people to stop using oil.
From the Whitehouse Statement;
For too long, bipartisan support for innovative and expansive transportation investment has not been accompanied by a long-term plan for paying for it. We need a sustainable funding solution that takes into account the integrated, interdependent nature of our transportation system. Travelers choose between walking, biking, driving, flying, and taking the train; and companies choose between trucks, barges, airplanes and rail lines. So to meet our needs in the future, we have to make significant investments across all modes of transportation. And our transportation system is heavily dependent on oil. That is why we are proposing to fund these investments through a new $10 per barrel fee on oil paid by oil companies, which would be gradually phased in over five years. The fee raises the funding necessary to make these new investments, while also providing for the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund to ensure we maintain the infrastructure we have. By placing a fee on oil, the President’s plan creates a clear incentive for private sector innovation to reduce our reliance on oil and at the same time invests in clean energy technologies that will power our future.
Why does the green version of “encouragement” always seem to involve beating ordinary people with price hikes until they comply?
If the President really wants to encourage green energy, why doesn’t he announce a tax holiday for profits made from green innovations? I doubt there would be any worthwhile innovations; making renewables affordable is an intractable problem. But at least a tax holiday wouldn’t hurt anyone. A tax holiday would stimulate interest and investment, while allowing ordinary people to continue to enjoy low oil prices.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Given the apparent largess the Green Blob suggest that the oil industry is in receipt of, you know, those ongoing and huge subsidies, it’s a simple matter of reducing these by $10 a barrel. No problem. Certainly no need for a tax. Why hasn’t anyone suggested this to El Presidente?
It is a myth that the oil and gas get huge subsidies in the US. The left distort the facts by reporting the consumer subsidies given by other Countries like Venezuela providing cheap gas for votes. The left quote items as subsidies which are legal IRS tax deductions that are available to every other business that operates in the US and overseas
Besides the cost of the Lease the Federal government already collect 12.5% royalties on production on production from Federal land.
Also every gallon of gasoline is taxed 18 cents and diesel 24 centsin the US. Don’t tell me that all that goes toward roads because it is not!
Finally the oil and gas companies are the largest contributor to the US treasurry after income tax.
Where will that revenue come from after they are put out of business or mor HQ overseas as many other industries have already done.
Motor fuel is already the most taxed necessity in the US.
Catcracking, true. I think Manfred was using sarc…
It is a myth that the oil and gas get huge subsidies in the US.
The idea being to charge 20$ in stupid fees and give back 2$ and call it a “subsidy”. Sound democrat economics. Get with the program. Or else.
Or relocate overseas to a low tax environment since 50% of their profits come from overseas anyway.
US already has one of the highest corporate tax rates. .
The thought has occurred to me. But I am working class.
The rich can and do vote with their feet. Remember when they bumped up the UK marginal rate from 40% to 50%? Half of the millionaires took a bunk and the UK lost a barrelful of revenue. When they relented and took it back to 45%, some of them came back. (Not enough to break even, of course.)
The CBO is forced to calculate in such a way that a tax cut always results in reduced revenue. In their fantasy world, a 20%-off sale results in a loss of 20% in profits. It does not appear to occur to these flatheads that — just maybe — the extra sales will result in (gasp) net profit. Even the supply-siders have to kow-tow and make like they will “make up” for the “loss” by “closing loopholes”.
If I was offered a job there, I wouldn’t take it, as I prefer to remain marginally sane.
Democrats and Obama showing us how they intend on taxing the poor to death (literally) while hiding it within the cloak of saving the planet.. Drive the cost of living so high that the elderly and poor are denied basic life necessities like food, heat and medicines…
You cant fix STUPID! Tax and spend democrats…
You cant fix STUPID! Tax and spend democrats…
Sure you can. Stupid was on the ropes for a while, there. But they fixed stupid. Now stupid is bigger and better than ever.
No F’n Way. Vote Cruz!
Obama is totally controlled by the real rulers of the planet. This legacy seeking idiot does what he is told. His best friend is not Moochelle, it’s his Teleprompters. Without them, he sounds like a blithering idiot. Which he is.
If you voted for this a++clown, give yourself a big kick in the a++.
How many extra people will die in cold states because of additional fuel poverty?
Part of President Obama’s announcement is cash to help people in the North East install solar cells and wind turbines, to replace heating oil with renewables…
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/04/fact-sheet-president-obamas-21st-century-clean-transportation-system
(last paragraph)
Solar will really work great in the North East with it’s abundant sun in the winter and lack of snow cover and of course will not provide any liquid fuel for auto’s
The challenge to provide electricity and transportation fuels is currently two different forms of energy and should probably not be mixed as to the solution, unless one believes that a magic viable battery will suddenly appear out of nowhere and we can afford to spend billions and billions of tax dollars on a electrical charging system on thousands of miles of highways especially in rural areas. It will not be cheap or readily accomplished without lots of pain.
North East install solar cells and wind turbines, to replace heating oil with renewables
Just the thought of that makes me shudder. Despite wonderfully warm winter this year, I still remember the winter before that, and I can’t help thinking of what would have happened if we were using solar panels to heat our house during all those snowstorms…
The new cheap electricity in the North Eastern states will come from Canada which Canadians will gladly pay for.
ELECTRICITY WILL NECESSARILY GO THROUGH THE ROOF! THE KING HIMSELF SAID!
Obama can’t get out of office fast enough. I wish there were grounds to impeach him.
There are probably plenty of grounds for that. Unfortunately republican majority is sufficiently gutless to actually do it.
+1 Udar you are exactly right.
There are plenty of grounds, but (a) the Senate would need a two-thirds majority to convict and remove from office; (b) he has less than a year left; (c) the Republicans would not dare impeach “The First ‘Black’ President” (never mind that he is half Kenyan, half Euro-American). So it won’t happen. /Mr Lynn
What a clown.
“If the President really wants to encourage green energy, why doesn’t he announce a tax holiday for profits made from green innovations? ”
As Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds would say, “Insufficient opportunity for graft”.
UNCLE!
THRUSH
If this is correct, the guy is more clueless than I suspected. This is just not going to happen.
A tax on oil/gasoline to fund roads? Seems like a good idea to me. Sort of a logical/non-GOPer idea.
In California the law is clear: annual car registration fees are to be used for road infrastructure.
So what happened? The Legislature ‘borrows’ the money, never repays it, and the roads are full of potholes, bridges are crumbling, etc.
What makes you think the same thing wouldn’t happen at the federal level?
isn’t there already tax for that? Federal tax of 0.18/gal plus whatever state tax on top of that? Directly paid by users of the said roads?
Tax on crude means my heating my house in the winter so my family doesn’t freeze to death is going to be used to fund road repairs. How logical is that?
right. and look at the roads.
and db, you are right, politicians are politicians….but it is _so_ logical to use a fuel taxes to pay for road repair and infrastructure, even you must see that. And, for the most part, the more gas you use (think SUVs and trucks), the more damage you do to the roads. And the interstates are mainly destroyed by 18 wheelers, not cars or even big SUVs.
@trafamadore
Were you born thick or did someone hit you in the head with a brick today? db et al pointed out that these taxes are already supposed to be used for road infrastructure repair/improvement but the funds are currently diverted to other purposes. Increasing taxes of this sort will not miraculously wind up with their being used for their supposed purpose.
DJ,
My point went right over his head: no matter what they say, the gov’t just wants the loot. It will go for its intended purpose, until the public looks away. Then it will be diverted.
When the income tax was first proposed, the government promised that only the top 3% of wage earners would have to pay it, and the tax rate would never exceed 1% of income. How’d that work out?
California is not the only state where this is taking place.
Don’t need road signs to let you know you are in Michigan because all of the sudden the roads are bad.
The crooks that want to tax you know they can use that money on all sorts of things, traf…EXCEPT what they told you they’d spend it on.
Don’t tell me you’re so brainwashed by the mainstream media you haven’t figured that out yet.
Vote Cruz and get the government straightened out for a change. Or have you wondered why all the Establishment/Santa Claus groups hate and fear him?
Such a clueless troll you are, traffy. That is what the gas tax is for. Oh, but wait, the electric and hybrid cars get a free ride on that one, don’t they? High time they paid their fair share.
So do the bicyclists.
Obama Slogan: “Vote for Change” Guess you get what you vote for. The only question is: “What side is he on?”
When did investment equal another tax?
Of course it’s a tax. The government has no way to raise money except by taxes or fees (or conceivably by selling abandoned assets). How those tax monies are used is another matter. You can call it ‘investment’ if you want; road repairs are generally the prerogative of the States.
/Mr Lynn
…and those “abandoned assets” were once paid for by…. yes, you guess it, TAXES.
Investment is progressive speak for tax and graft.
Anybody good with math? How many barrels of oil does it take to fly this man to his golf games? How about a $1,000,000,000 tax per lie for office holders and office seekers? Poof! National debt vanishes.
$100 per lie should do it.
One flogging in a public square .
20 lashes for a first offence.
After that, 100 lashes.
Lies should leave visible scars on the office holders that tell them.
JustAnOldGuy
He is a democrat politician. One of two things would happen, assuming you could even count all of his lies.
1. You could not find enough money in the budget to pay for all of his lies.
2. He is a democrat politician, he’d pay it by government credit card.
Governments already get massive tax revenue from fuel levies on gasoline.
Nobody has thought about how to replace this government revenue when we all change to electric cars. Currently this tax is about 40% of gasoline cost in Australia.
Wait for the protests when electric cars have to pay for road costs!!
They’re already talking about that in Washington State. The move is to require a transponder in every vehicle, and you pay per mile. So it won’t matter what sort of fuel you use. State Gov’t is already worried about the loss in revenue due to better gas mileage, or no gas mileage.
Better get ear plugs. The wailing, gnashing of teeth, and screams from Big Green will be epic.
In New Zealand the tax on fuel is call road user charges (RUC) in the 60’s or 70’s, I don’t recall anymore. Was implemented to improve road infrastructure and safety. What happened in reality is that almost every year RUC’s went up and most of the revenue raised went into a consolidated fund. When more fuel efficient cars came about, RUC’s went up. And so on…
One wonders how much more damage Obama’s rule by decree regime can inflict on the US economy and the people before he gets his well deserved big “A”?
When you going to start exporting 4X to the U.S. again?
Been outa here for quite a while Tom. It did start here back in the 1850s, but the Queenslanders are now the custodians of XXXX (like most Castlemainians they can’t write either hence XXXX).
There are better brews from Aus that are better than XXXX IMO. James Boag and Coopers for instance.
But XXXX had the best commercials.
Is it possible that the glut in oil was deliberately created not only to punish Russia for grabbing the Crimean peninsula but to drive the price of oil to the point where a $10 tax seemed like a good deal? When it rises later, the tax will be built in and hard to see. People will be used to it.
What is interesting of course is to follow the money. Who will get this manna from oil? The very people who plan to run the oil companies out of business, right? Why not rather tax the oil and give it to people who are poor in the form of income tax breaks, removal of state and local taxes, education chits and other things that list up the bottom – float all ships?
The amount involved isn’t that much I guess. Hardly worth collecting. Can be the international oil companies be made tax collectors on behalf of the federal government?
Crispin: See British Columbia Carbon Tax. A broke government implemented a Carbon Tax to pay for their social programs – a politically expedient left coast approach.
“investment has not been accompanied by a long-term plan for paying for it.”
Funny how he never thinks this way when he is discussing the federal government spending.Course only to a parasite is “investment” forcibly taking other peoples money and throwing it to corrupt cronies.
The responsibility of paying your bill is only important when saving the planet?
The only legacy Obama will leave is the legacy of lies and destruction.
Tax and spend, spend and tax. It never changes. Methinks the shooting is going to start sooner than later.
This $10 USD per barrel ain’t going to fly – no way – don’t you USA people worry…
I hope the GOP republicans highlight this crazy idea soon…
Hillary would want it to be $15/barrel and Bernie would want it to be $20 or more per barrel…
And when oil prices go over $100 USD per barrel, do you think they will reduce it or eliminate it – Hell No…
Anyway, oil companies aren’t stoopid. They’ll just stop using barrels to avoid the tax!
Actually Bernie would have the government nationalize all the U.S. oil companies.
Back of envelope, this adds $0.32 per gallon of gas/diesel, that’s a +150% increase in the Fed Excise tax.
It also adds to the cost of all those good things made from oil like plastics thereby ensuring that our industries cannot compete with the rest of the world. Since the feed stocks from crude-oil are used to make the massive amount of plastic in our cars will also increase in cost only if manufactured in the US. Foreign cars will be cheaper and US auto manufacturers out of business.
President’s overall goal accomplished.
The logic is all wrong. When funding is needed for a new bridge or highway, it is often raised by placing a toll on the use of that bridge or highway. It is not raised by placing a toll on existing infrastructure. The funders are confident the expenditure can be recouped because the new bridge or highway will be an attractive alternative that people will be happy to pay for.
Obama and other climate alarmists keep telling us renewable energy will not only be green, it will be a financially attractive source of power. Particularly as it is ‘free’ and infinite, whereas fossil fuels will become more expensive as we reach peak oil, coal, gas etc.
So to fund renewable energy he should apply a toll to the users of renewable energy because surely, like the new bridge, they will find it a lot more attractive in the long run?
Since when have they ever used logic?
Except tolls can have an unexpected consequence. Tolls in the Lower Mainland of BC have gotten to a point where businesses and people are relocating away from areas with tolls as the cost is significant, especially if you have to cross a toll structure several times a day. But perhaps that is good. The toll causes people and business to relocate to less dense areas, more telecommuting and working from home saving wear and tear on the infrastructure (although increasing the pay back period on the structures due to lower use.) The law of unintended consequences.
Well. That’s going to help the oil industry then isn’t it?
It’s very clever actually. It will send billions to the unions to go lean on their shovels on the highways and bridges, and line the pockets of his green friends.
What’s not to like?
w.
The foreman phoned the engineer “We are out on the job but someone forgot the shovels. What should we do?”
The engineer replied “I guess you will just have to lean on each other.”
The billions will be for high speed rail boondoggles, not working roads.
Willis. I don’t even see people with shovels just orange cones. The cone business must be great.
Why don’t all of the greens/global warmongers just stop using oil and anything and everything derived from oil right now? Because they are fricking hypocrites. Every last one of them.
@Jimmy Haigh, 8:09 pm,( + many btw and as all of us realize) Even if they would only try it for a week they might (big might) at least wake up for a few minutes.
But then they would all fall asleep “at the wheel” all over again while they would be waiting for the government to “rescue” them!.
Little do they realize that in case of emergencies ( Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and so on) it is not the “government” that “saves” them. FEMA tends to be the last to show up. Every time it is a large group of volunteers, neighbors and many other people that show up without being asked and that just do the right thing! And most of those never ever get on the front page of the news!
Try evacuating from a hurricane threat in an electric vehicle!
Jimmy,
You are right, the president must have the biggest carbon footprint in the US and maybe the world as he flies in Airforce 1 on a whim all over the country including a separate flight for his dog or his wife when they decide not to fly to the same place together.
I’m surprised someone has not published his huge, unnecessary carbon footprint.
Add to his trips several C-17’s carrying his official helicopters (includes decoys).
Kubler: And all those bullet resistant black SUV’s.