Exon calls for Carbon tax

[D-Mack]

Re: Exon calls for Carbon tax

I really do need to pay more attention to US politics...:p

For Immediate Release:

Thursday, January 8, 2009

STRENGTHEN THE COUNTRY’S ECONOMY AND BOLSTER AMERICA’S ENERGY INDUSTRY

Washington, D.C.—As President-elect Obama prepares an economic stimulus bill to address the current challenges facing the American people, Indiana Congressman Steve Buyer believes there is an opportunity to strengthen our country’s energy portfolio and bolster the American energy industry. Congressman Steve Buyer today sent a letter to President-elect Obama asking him to include funding in the stimulus to invest in American-made energy and America’s energy infrastructure.

“America must take steps to prepare for peak oil—when the world’s supply of crude oil peaks in volume, invest in American-made energy, and improve our energy infrastructure. I communicated these concerns to President-elect Obama in my second letter to him outlining proposals to the economic stimulus package,” said Buyer. “In prioritizing our country’s need for a secure and domestic energy supply, we will stimulate the economy of today while ensuring the prosperity of tomorrow.”...

...“Today, America is 63 percent dependent on foreign sources of energy, and we grow more dependent by the year. We need to bridge ourselves to the renewable and alternative energy future in which we all want to live in,” commented Buyer...

...“As a nation we need to secure our energy supply as well as secure American jobs. When we import energy, we export jobs. As a result of our dependence on foreign energy sources, we have lost around three million manufacturing jobs since 2000, this is not acceptable,” added Buyer. ...

It's a big theater..

Imagine you get real independence with fusion power or every house is heated by geothermal power.. can't have that.

Mr. Bush's declaration in his State of the Union address that the nation is "addicted to oil" drew attention to the magnitude of the nation's energy challenge. His focus on alternative energy also marks a new direction for the administration, which has lost key battles over Arctic oil drilling.

This week, the president visited the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado, where 32 workers had been laid off. Two days before Mr. Bush's visit, the Energy Department announced that $5 million in funding had been restored to rehire the staff.

...

Big cuts


The proposed budget would kill funding for hydropower and geothermal technology research. It would also slash numerous energy efficiency programs that could reduce demand and, by extension, lower commodity prices.

...
http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/bus/....1da706f1.html

[bill]

Re: Exon calls for Carbon tax

Never is a long time, so who knows what Exxon will do in time.

They would start with uranium fuel:
Timing is everything.

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=get...fier=ADA184032

Abstract : The Exxon Nuclear low-enriched uranium fuel fabrication plant in Richland, Washington

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/...3.83-5667.html

Some background on the corporate structure of Exxon is important to an understanding of the dispute. At the time the contract was entered into between TVA and Exxon Nuclear, then known as Jersey Nuclear Company, Standard Oil of New Jersey, now known as Exxon, was a parent company of Jersey Nuclear. Exxon remains the parent company of Exxon Nuclear. Jersey Nuclear was incorporated to develop a market for uranium fuel, which was to be fabricated from uranium concentrates mined by another Standard Oil of New Jersey subsidiary, a minerals division, which has undergone several name changes and reorganizations within the parent company and is now known as Exxon Minerals. The TVA contract to purchase 1,200,000 pounds of uranium fuel was awarded to Exxon Nuclear following an involved bidding process. Special Conditions 3 and 16 were included in the bid agreement and the contract to insure a continuing supply of uranium to TVA despite fluctuations in production costs. Exxon Nuclear performed fully according to the contract, and supplied uranium fuel to TVA for a number of years.

http://www.patentgenius.com/assignee...ompanyInc.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C1A960948260

Published: December 24, 1986
The Exxon Corporation, which earlier this month announced the sale of two of its large assets, said it would sell its Exxon Nuclear subsidiary to West Germany's Kraftwerk Union A.G. The companies, which announced the sale in a joint statement, declined to disclose a price. The deal is expected to be completed before the end of the year to take advantage of more favorable tax laws, an Exxon spokesman said.
Exxon Nuclear, founded by the world's largest oil company in 1969, designs, manufactures and markets pressurized and boiling-water reactor fuels and provides related services for electric utilities. Exxon would not release figures on the subsidiary's earnings. In recent weeks, the company has announced the sale of its Reliance Electric Company subsidiary and of its interest in the Exxon Building in New York.

http://www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cppr/y...res/116757.pdf

The cost of reprocessing nuclear fuels was established based on
data from four sources available in the early 1980s: (1) the Allied-General Nuclear Services Plant at
Barnwell, South Carolina, as well as the conceptual designs of facilities by (2) Exxon Nuclear Company,

(3) E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, and (4) Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

[santafe2]

Re: Exon calls for Carbon tax

I suppose the difference is that I've never viewed gold as a commodity. Over several decades of private investing, much of it in energy and other commodities because that is where my professional knowledge lies, I never owned any gold until 2003. That probably puts me in the gold-as-a-currency-camp?

You're right, gold can be viewed as both currency and a commodity. I tend to think of it as a commodity that acts as a surrogate currency or a hedge against currency inflation. It tends to move with commodities and move against currency value. Over the last year, it's acted more like a currency than a commodity.

I don't understand what you mean by the last sentence [timeline comment]? Do you mean that silicon has the potential to become the most political commodity in 10-12 years as oil fades? Or it will only be a political commodity for 10-12 years [surely there is no shortage of the raw materials in the earth's crust to make usable grade silicon, is there?

The political value of silicon will fade within 10-12 years. Nanotechnology will lower the requirement for silicon by a factor of 100. New manufacturing methods will eliminate the need for multi-billion dollar facilities. This time line could move out to 20 years but not farther than that.

[GRG55]

Re: Exon calls for Carbon tax

...The political value of silicon will fade within 10-12 years. Nanotechnology will lower the requirement for silicon by a factor of 100. New manufacturing methods will eliminate the need for multi-billion dollar facilities. This time line could move out to 20 years but not farther than that.

Thanks for the clarification.

Let's hope that the "Great Powers" don't become so attached to this new "political commodity" that they feel as compelled to move their armies, invade countries, and overthrow "unfriendly" governments with the same zeal they exhibited over oil in the last 100 years.

[santafe2]

Re: Exon calls for Carbon tax

Sounds like the MSM is already out there helping spread a variation of santafe2's "oil bad, solar good" message. And just as EJ/iTulip warned us to look for [quite a while back], the VCs [in this case Kleiner Perkins] are right there pitching in .

Does the country need a big gas tax?

Even though energy prices are cheap, many say a straight-up tax on oil and coal is the best way to stop global warming and move the country to cleaner fuels.

When I left the software industry for the renewable energy industry five years ago I felt that the fossil fuel industry had a chance to become the new tobacco industry. It will really tip when there is more money to be made vilifying fossil fuels than extolling their virtues. We live in a political world.

[c1ue]

Re: Exon calls for Carbon tax

I'm sorry, but I don't see silicon as being any type of strategic resource.

It is SAND after all.

Sure, the machines used to process it into more useful form are much more availability limited, but keep in mind that a state of the art fab only costs a couple of billion bucks - and not all of it at once.

And you only need one for an entire country - maybe 2 for China, unlike nuclear power plants or what not.

Even the 'expertise' needed to run it is easily bought; with the present downturn the service companies (i.e. makers of machinery, suppliers, etc etc) are all desperate enough that you can rent entire divisions for a year or more.

The reason the smaller nations like Malaysia and Israel haven't been quite able to get it right is because they are trying to do it on the cheap - trying to build fabs to sell at older technology nodes and sell output cheaper than the already depreciated capital equipment of existing makers. This is a mistake - the right way is to either go specialty or attack the near follower high end right away.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Exon calls for Carbon tax

I'm sorry, but I don't see silicon as being any type of strategic resource.

It is SAND after all.

Computer wafers are highly refined and expensively manufactured sand. So, yes, the raw material, sand, is not a limited resource, to say the least.

But the high cost of investing in the facilities needed to turn sand into computer chips results in inefficiencies, such as you notice.

To my mind, this is a good example of a major cause of humanity's economic problems. We have the capacity to produce way more of any particular item than we could ever use, using a tiny fraction of civilization's resources. Filling all the Wal*Mart stores with their allotment of electronic, computer and video equipment involves huge, decade investments in massive manufacturing, transportation, logistics and warehousing capacity by thousands of companies around the world.

That capacity does what it does very well. But there are limits to which that capacity can adapt to changing conditions, and limits to how well humans can anticipate the future and co-ordinate with each other to ideally size, purpose and finance such facilities.

Enormous economic, political, resource consumption, production capacity, and consumption imbalances result from the difficulties that human civilization is having while trying to figure out how to use its new found capabilities.

[santafe2]

Re: Exon calls for Carbon tax

Computer wafers are highly refined and expensively manufactured sand. So, yes, the raw material, sand, is not a limited resource, to say the least.

But the high cost of investing in the facilities needed to turn sand into computer chips results in inefficiencies, such as you notice.

To my mind, this is a good example of a major cause of humanity's economic problems. We have the capacity to produce way more of any particular item than we could ever use, using a tiny fraction of civilization's resources. Filling all the Wal*Mart stores with their allotment of electronic, computer and video equipment involves huge, decade investments in massive manufacturing, transportation, logistics and warehousing capacity by thousands of companies around the world.

That capacity does what it does very well. But there are limits to which that capacity can adapt to changing conditions, and limits to how well humans can anticipate the future and co-ordinate with each other to ideally size, purpose and finance such facilities.

Enormous economic, political, resource consumption, production capacity, and consumption imbalances result from the difficulties that human civilization is having while trying to figure out how to use its new found capabilities.

Thanks for detailing the point I was making but as C1ue points out...I might have taken a little license with the strategery idea...

[Yaowarat]

Re: Exon calls for Carbon tax

Anyone interested in the science, history, and politics of the global warming scam ought to see this documentary:

Channel 4 Britain
The Great Global Warming Swindle

http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij...tary_Film.aspx

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...d-1297558.html

Your thoughts gang?
Mike

[Roughneck]

Re: Exon calls for Carbon tax

The cap and trade system is a scam. Designed to make Al gore and his green buddies rich by brokering these trades. I have a friend who owns rural property and emits no carbon emissions.He was approached to sell his "carbon credits". The idea being that companies that do emit would buy his credits. Now, this will not lower the amount of emissions only make industry pay to produce the same amount of emissions.Of course the people brokering the deals make big commissions. The idea is if you tax carbon emissions you will reduce them.However, my local power company passes fuel costs straight to consumers.So the carbon tax will just be passed on as a cost of doing business.By charging consumers directly for the tax,as Exxon proposes you eliminate the need for companies to pass on the costs through the price of their products.The greenies don't like this because it eliminates the middle man making commissions brokering credit swaps. Also people will be less inclined to support a direct tax they see than an indirect tax passed on in the price of a product.

[D-Mack]

Re: Exon calls for Carbon tax

Maybe Paulson could help

Treasury Department Can Help Fight Global Warming, Says Paulson
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
By Josiah Ryan, Staff Writer



Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (Associated Press)
(CNSNews.com) – The U.S. Treasury and other finance ministries around the world should play a major role in fixing climate change, outgoing Bush administration Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said Monday at an event sponsored by the environmental group Resources For the Future. The discussion was titled, "How Markets Can Help Address Climate Change and Other Major Environmental Problems."

Paulson, who once served as chairman of the Nature Conservancy and co-chair of the environmental group Asia-Pacific Council, has long been involved in fighting global warming.

“I will be actually surprised and disappointed if the Office of Treasury isn’t a leader -- probably the leader -- in the government in terms of having more resources and knowledge than any other place,” said Paulson, referring to research on alternative energy and climate change.

“We need to play a major role going forward, and I think that other finance ministries around the world will need to play a major role,” he said. “Again, I see it as essential that finance ministries or departments of treasuries have people in place who understand not just the economics but also conservation and the environment.”

In August 2008, under Paulson’s watch, the Treasury Department launched the Office of Energy and Environment, which was given the responsibility of developing low carbon technologies in developing economies, as well as allocating funds for the U.S. Tropical Forest Conservation Act.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/conten...x?RsrcID=41863

[santafe2]

Re: Exon calls for Carbon tax

Anyone interested in the science, history, and politics of the global warming scam ought to see this documentary:

Channel 4 Britain
The Great Global Warming Swindle

http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij/blancostemrecht /The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle_Documentary_Film. aspx

The earth had worked out it's issues with, and measurement of, CO2 over the last few million years. As humans, we contribute much less than the majority of CO2, but we do contribute a new and significant source. Coincident with our ascendance over the last few hundred years CO2 in the atmosphere has moved up about 50% and it's unlikely our planet will resolve our additional CO2 contribution without reaction. The only scam I see is the one perpetrated by those who deny a general trend toward warming. That is, too much CO2 which acts as a blanket.

This video has nothing to do with the science of global warming. It's pure polemic. It defends its position by politicising science. I despise this thinking. If you're a scientist or you've a concrete argument as to how the additional CO2 we've contributied will not cause warming, please present it here. I think your position is complete crap as do the great majority of the world's scientists.

[c1ue]

Re: Exon calls for Carbon tax

SF,

Were you under the influence of something when you wrote the above post?

The earth? Or the world? Not sure how inanimate objects measure anything.

As for the great majority of scientists - this point has been repeatedly attacked.

While many scientists do agree there is warming, it is a far cry from them agreeing it is man made. And an even further cry that it is CO2 caused.

The numbers publicly contesting the man-made, CO2 caused global warming are increasing, not decreasing.

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...ada5df&k=65311

A 99-per-cent majority believes the climate is changing. But 45 per cent blame both human and natural influences, and 68 per cent disagree with the popular statement that "the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled."

The divisions showed up in a canvass of more than 51,000 specialists licensed to practice the highly educated occupations by the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta.
"We're not surprised at all," APEGGA executive director Neil Windsor said today. "There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of."
The only agreement among professionals is "we should do everything we can" to understand climate, adapt structures such as buildings and bridges to change and reduce human contributions to harmful trends, Windsor said.

The survey received 1,077 replies or a sample rated as an accurate portrait of the occupational groups' views to within three percentage points 19 times out of 20, APEGGA reported.

Hardly an overwhelming majority supporting MMGW - not that consensus means jack anyway.

Or are all the Canadians pawns of the Establishment? GRG?

[D-Mack]

Re: Exon calls for Carbon tax

The earth had worked out it's issues with, and measurement of, CO2 over the last few million years. As humans, we contribute much less than the majority of CO2, but we do contribute a new and significant source. Coincident with our ascendance over the last few hundred years CO2 in the atmosphere has moved up about 50% and it's unlikely our planet will resolve our additional CO2 contribution without reaction. The only scam I see is the one perpetrated by those who deny a general trend toward warming. That is, too much CO2 which acts as a blanket.

This video has nothing to do with the science of global warming. It's pure polemic. It defends its position by politicising science. I despise this thinking. If you're a scientist or you've a concrete argument as to how the additional CO2 we've contributied will not cause warming, please present it here. I think your position is complete crap as do the great majority of the world's scientists.

I have problems even with normal publications giving co2 too much credit

The figures, published by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on its website, also confirm that carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, is accumulating in the atmosphere faster than expected.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen....climatechange

[GRG55]

Re: Exon calls for Carbon tax

Or are all the Canadians pawns of the Establishment? GRG?

Never underestimate the power of the Establishment over the people's thought processes in our little socialist haven north of the 49th...

Seriously, mankind often prefers to believe it understands more about something than we actually do. We know little about how the human body really works, seemingly having made many more advances to treat disease [and sometimes only its symptoms] than to prevent it in the first place.

We don't even seem to understand how our global financial system actually works, having apparently created with our own hands a monster that High-Priest Paulson [and many of his international shaman counterparts] now claim will devour all of us if suitable sacrifice is not offered up, promptly and repeatedly...and so far without any obvious signs of gratitude from the dragon itself. Are we really that much more intelligent than the Mayans?

Climate change has been debated vigorously, and at length, on a number of iTulip threads, as it continues to be in forums and legislatures around the world. An entire industry seems to have sprung up around this issue, with more than a few people now making durable careers out of it [unlike those poor chicken-little souls who rode the Y2K debacle to sudden career death]. I marvel at those on the polar extremes of this debate who can state with unbridled certainty that there is or isn't a problem, and that we can/cannot alter the outcome by changing our behaviour.

Although pointing to science to support a position is a favoured tactic on all sides, at this point in time the debate has devolved to something that appears more political than scientific. Reason enough in my view to maintain a Janus-like posture along with a healthy scepticism of positions at the extremes on either side.