President Obama Proposes $10 per Barrel Carbon Tax

obama head

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.

Read more: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/04/fact-sheet-president-obamas-21st-century-clean-transportation-system

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.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
298 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom in Florida
February 5, 2016 2:09 pm

Make sure you remember the difference between deficit reduction and debt reduction. Deficits are the annual difference between revenue and expenditures. So when you have a $500 billion deficit and it gets reduced to $400 billion, that qualifies as deficit reduction. But it still increases the debt.

Catcracking
Reply to  Tom in Florida
February 6, 2016 6:54 am

Excellent point. The President routinely takes advantage of the difference between the two words to deceive everyone. He even used that tactic in the State of the Union speech and a bunch of Dumbocrats cheered. First he ran up a huge deficit then claimed he was reducing it every year.
Sad

u.k(us)
February 5, 2016 2:11 pm

What happened to “evanmjones” ??
He was on quite the roll there for awhile.
Recharging the batteries 🙂

Evan Jones
Editor
February 5, 2016 4:21 pm

Off to work. It requires a bit of fossil fuel to recharge those batteries. Then I go home and do peer-review level science until I conk out. Having the time of my life.
I am currently deconstructing Hubbard & Lin (2006) to support our paper on siting. At this point it’s about five-papers-in-one. It’s surprising how little goes into a lot of these scientific papers. And how little verification of results actually occurs.

Jim
February 5, 2016 8:12 pm

After 8 year of no economic growth and a major recession on the way, teamstupid wants the USA to go full Obama… You should never go full Obama.

Catcracking
Reply to  Jim
February 6, 2016 7:36 pm

Not even a smidgen!

Russell
February 6, 2016 8:09 am

This proposal would trickle down and be a $10 per barrel tax on motorists—or 20 to 25 cents per gallon on refined fuels,” said Patrick DeHaan, senior petroleum analyst at GasBuddy.com. “To me it’s clear: this is not something oil companies are going to absorb.”

Catcracking
Reply to  Russell
February 6, 2016 7:44 pm

If the tax is on a barrel of crude, it is not only on auto fuel, but also on heating oil, all plastic and other products that are made from oil, including propane, butane, etc. Interesting since ethanol uses a lot of fossil fuel in manufacture and shipping, the cost increase will extend into numerous biofuels also.
I doubt the Administration can grasp the consequences in including a likely deep recession since it will also put US industry at a competitive disadvantage..

February 6, 2016 5:19 pm

$10.00 tax on per barrel of oil is a stupid idea first. 2nd it will hurt the poor most. 3rd it will not pass the house and senate. If it did pass, it will only increase as time goes by $11-$12-$13-$14-$15 and on and on…

Neo
February 9, 2016 8:19 pm

To show just how serious he is about this, President Barack Obama has decided to ground Air Force One
.. fat chance

1 3 4 5