10 ms·

Exxon is probably pushing this because it will help their business. The #1 "victim" of a carbon tax is coal, which accounts for about 30% of our energy product

Exxon is probably pushing this because it will help their business. The #1 "victim" of a carbon tax is coal, which accounts for about 30% of our energy production. A carbon tax will redistribute this production to other sources, mainly natural gas (which emits 42% less carbon). Exxon does a lot of natural gas extraction, and virtually nothing with coal. Exxon is also working on carbon sequestration technology. Which becomes a much more profitable business if there is a real carbon tax. And as far as oil goes - a carbon tax has comparatively little effect on gas prices. $30/ton would be about 27 cents per gallon [1]. [1] https://www.uscleanenergyfund.com/articles/carbon-tax-simulator/ https://www.uscleanenergyfund.com/articles/carbon-tax-simula... (disclaimer - I made this) EDIT - After RT-entire-FA, I see they got to this point. But I think they are overcomplicating things with points #1,2,4,5. It's just good business for Exxon.

robertcope 10y ago
27 cents a gallon is quite a lot.
- pjc50 10y ago
  Hasn't US petrol prices seesawed from $4 to $2 fairly recently? Of course, over here in the UK it's £1.10/liter, which is about $6.
- pkulak 10y ago
  Gas prices vary by that amount just from state to state.
  - lmkg 10y ago
    And that variance is also considered "a lot."
- VLM 10y ago
  And that will just be the start.
- hyperbovine 10y ago
  Compared to inundating Manhattan? Perspective.
- astrodust 10y ago
  No it isn't. US gas prices are comically low compared to virtually every other country on the planet. The exceptions are countries with stupidly low gas prices like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. If this tax was applied it wouldn't push America into European levels of pricing. It wouldn't even nudge it into Canadian pricing levels.
k26dr 10y ago
I'm fine with Exxon benefitting from a carbon tax. They have the political clout to push a bill like this through Congress, and it benefits the country as a whole to have carbon legislation in place. Seems like a win-win to me.
- talmand 10y ago
  If a corporation, especially a multi-national, benefits from a tax, I would question the benefit to society from that tax. Not to say that society would not benefit, but it does make me wonder.
  - epistasis 10y ago
    I think that it's a bad thing that "multi-national corporation" has become synonymous with "bad agent" or even "evil." Much of our society is multi-national corporations, so when we have a biased view of them we may end up cutting off our nose to spite our face. And in popular culture, if we end up with people opposed to a carbon tax just because Exxon wants a carbon tax too, well it doesn't more nose-less than that.
    - stonogo 10y ago
      > I think that it's a bad thing that "multi-national corporation" has become synonymous with "bad agent" or even "evil." Until the aims of multinational corporations are aligned with the aims of society at large, they will continue to be considered untrustworthy.
      - nickff 10y ago
        Society doesn't have aims, people do. Your unstated assumption that you views represent everyone else's is incorrect, and I am sure that my aims are very different from yours.
        stonogo 10y ago
        That assumption was unstated because I wasn't making it.
mason240 10y ago
I wouldn't call a 10-15% increase in the price of gas "little effect."
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
  OTOH, most carbon capture schemes need a carbon price about triple of that to break even (IIRC).
- strommen 10y ago
  It's nowhere near enough to meaningfully affect demand. The EIA estimates[1] that gasoline has to get 25-50% more expensive to reduce demand by even 1%. [1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=19191 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=19191
  - epistasis 10y ago
    The article linked to an Economist article on British Columbia's $30/ton carbon tax, where it seemed to have a much more significant effect: >BC’s fuel consumption is also down. Over the past six years, the per-person consumption of fuels has dropped by 16% (although declines levelled off after the last tax increase in 2012). During that same period, per-person consumption in the rest of Canada rose by 3%. “Each year the evidence becomes stronger and stronger that the carbon tax is driving environmental gains,” says Stewart Elgie, an economics professor at University of Ottawa and head of Sustainable Prosperity, a pro-green think-tank. At the same time, BC’s economy has kept pace with the rest of the country. http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2014/07/british-columbias-carbon-tax http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2014/07/british-... I'm not sure I trust future projections much from the EIA; they are extremely conservative in terms of being unable to imagine non-fossil fuel energy. They've been consistently wrong on renewable technology as well: http://cleantechnica.com/2016/05/15/us-eia-responds-cleantechnica-lettercriticism-energy-forecasts/ http://cleantechnica.com/2016/05/15/us-eia-responds-cleantec... I don't mean to diminish the excellent work they do. But for projections like this they must necessarily embody lots of opinion, and there's a good chance that their opinions embody the slow-change mindset of the energy industry.
  - 10y ago

robertcope 10y ago

27 cents a gallon is quite a lot.

pjc50 10y ago
Hasn't US petrol prices seesawed from $4 to $2 fairly recently? Of course, over here in the UK it's £1.10/liter, which is about $6.
pkulak 10y ago
Gas prices vary by that amount just from state to state.
- lmkg 10y ago
  And that variance is also considered "a lot."
VLM 10y ago
And that will just be the start.
hyperbovine 10y ago
Compared to inundating Manhattan? Perspective.
astrodust 10y ago
No it isn't. US gas prices are comically low compared to virtually every other country on the planet. The exceptions are countries with stupidly low gas prices like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. If this tax was applied it wouldn't push America into European levels of pricing. It wouldn't even nudge it into Canadian pricing levels.

k26dr 10y ago

I'm fine with Exxon benefitting from a carbon tax. They have the political clout to push a bill like this through Congress, and it benefits the country as a whole to have carbon legislation in place. Seems like a win-win to me.

talmand 10y ago
If a corporation, especially a multi-national, benefits from a tax, I would question the benefit to society from that tax. Not to say that society would not benefit, but it does make me wonder.
- epistasis 10y ago
  I think that it's a bad thing that "multi-national corporation" has become synonymous with "bad agent" or even "evil." Much of our society is multi-national corporations, so when we have a biased view of them we may end up cutting off our nose to spite our face. And in popular culture, if we end up with people opposed to a carbon tax just because Exxon wants a carbon tax too, well it doesn't more nose-less than that.
  - stonogo 10y ago
    > I think that it's a bad thing that "multi-national corporation" has become synonymous with "bad agent" or even "evil." Until the aims of multinational corporations are aligned with the aims of society at large, they will continue to be considered untrustworthy.
    - nickff 10y ago
      Society doesn't have aims, people do. Your unstated assumption that you views represent everyone else's is incorrect, and I am sure that my aims are very different from yours.
      - stonogo 10y ago
        That assumption was unstated because I wasn't making it.

mason240 10y ago

I wouldn't call a 10-15% increase in the price of gas "little effect."

semi-extrinsic 10y ago
OTOH, most carbon capture schemes need a carbon price about triple of that to break even (IIRC).
strommen 10y ago
It's nowhere near enough to meaningfully affect demand. The EIA estimates[1] that gasoline has to get 25-50% more expensive to reduce demand by even 1%. [1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=19191 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=19191
- epistasis 10y ago
  The article linked to an Economist article on British Columbia's $30/ton carbon tax, where it seemed to have a much more significant effect: >BC’s fuel consumption is also down. Over the past six years, the per-person consumption of fuels has dropped by 16% (although declines levelled off after the last tax increase in 2012). During that same period, per-person consumption in the rest of Canada rose by 3%. “Each year the evidence becomes stronger and stronger that the carbon tax is driving environmental gains,” says Stewart Elgie, an economics professor at University of Ottawa and head of Sustainable Prosperity, a pro-green think-tank. At the same time, BC’s economy has kept pace with the rest of the country. http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2014/07/british-columbias-carbon-tax http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2014/07/british-... I'm not sure I trust future projections much from the EIA; they are extremely conservative in terms of being unable to imagine non-fossil fuel energy. They've been consistently wrong on renewable technology as well: http://cleantechnica.com/2016/05/15/us-eia-responds-cleantechnica-lettercriticism-energy-forecasts/ http://cleantechnica.com/2016/05/15/us-eia-responds-cleantec... I don't mean to diminish the excellent work they do. But for projections like this they must necessarily embody lots of opinion, and there's a good chance that their opinions embody the slow-change mindset of the energy industry.
- 10y ago