Quote Of The Day
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Energy, Money, Quotes
“We don’t believe it makes sense to significantly subsidize the production and use of sources of energy (like oil and gas) that are dramatically going to add to our climate change (problem). We don’t think that’s good economic policy and we think changing those incentives is good for the country.”
- Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner talking to the Senate Finance Committee
Here’s more…
The Obama administration’s budget would levy an excise tax on oil and natural gas produced in the Gulf of Mexico, raising $5.3 billion in revenue from 2011 to 2019.This new 13 percent tax on all oil and gas production in the Gulf would only affect those companies enjoying a loophole that allows them to avoid paying royalties on the energy supplies they drill. Companies already paying royalties would get a tax credit.
Obama’s budget would also place a $4 per acre annual fee on energy leases in the Gulf that are designated as nonproducing. The budget proposal projects the fee would generate $1.2 billion from 2010 to 2019.
And now I welcome the arguments that this amounts to socialism.
Have at it…
This entry was posted on Thursday, March 5th, 2009 and is filed under Energy, Money, Quotes. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 5th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Hmm:
Gee, nice one. Socialism, schmoecialism.
I’ll tell you what it amounts to: it amounts to substantially higher energy costs for Americans.
One can construct a defensible argument for such policies as you describe primarily on a moral basis. And that’s fine, if that’s your bag. But what is much harder is to construct any argument for such policies on the basis of fiscal wisdom.
American can, if we wish, make a commitment to favoring what are currently less viable and more costly alternative forms of energy prior to the point where the mass market adopts them for the common reason of cost efficiency. If we do this, it will cost all of us a lot of money, and it will reduce American productivity at a time when other nations are already challenging us.
Here’s the thing: it boils down to the”early adopter” paradigm, which we should all be familiar with. A plasma TV cost 10 grand a decade ago, now its shrunk to less than 10% of that. We know how it works for electric gadgets. Less well acknowledged but equally obvious is the premium price America pays for pharmaceuticals in order to be the first ones to get this stuff at ultra-premium prices.
The same thing will certainly hold for alternative sources of energy. Again, let me stress that I have no objection if Americans themselves make the choice to be early adopters for moral reasons. I simply wish to make it crystal clear that our nation will collectively pay a substantial price for this choice.
I have no respect for carefully constructed yet misleading arguments that suggest we will create moral benefits for the entire globe _AND_ realize fiscal benefits from privileging alternative sources of energy. Early adopters always get poned. Period. That can’t be dismissed.
Possibly this effort will marginally hasten the day when all of us enjoy energy that results in substantially less harm to our environment. My point is that by making drastic policy changes now in order to make this happen. America is volunteering to pay the majority of the bill for it.
My personal opinion is that its not necessary or prudent for America to volunteer for this job.
March 5th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Hmm,
Wow, nice one. Socialism, schmoecialism.
I’ll tell you what it amounts to: it amounts to substantially higher energy costs for Americans.
One can construct a defensible argument for such policies as you describe primarily on a moral basis. And that’s fine, if that’s your bag. But what is much harder is to construct any argument for such policies on the basis of fiscal wisdom.
American can, if we wish, make a commitment to favoring what are currently less viable and more costly alternative forms of energy prior to the point where the mass market adopts them for the common reason of cost efficiency. If we do this, it will cost all of us a lot of money, and it will reduce American productivity at a time when other nations are already challenging us.
Here’s the thing: it boils down to the”early adopter” paradigm, which we should all be familiar with. A plasma TV cost 10 grand a decade ago, now its shrunk to less than 10% of that. We know how it works for electric gadgets. Less well acknowledged but equally obvious is the premium price America pays for pharmaceuticals in order to be the first ones to get this stuff at ultra-premium prices.
The same thing will certainly hold for alternative sources of energy. Again, let me stress that I have no objection if Americans themselves make the choice to be early adopters for moral reasons. I simply wish to make it crystal clear that our nation will collectively pay a substantial price for this choice.
I have no respect for carefully constructed yet misleading arguments that suggest we will create moral benefits for the entire globe _AND_ realize fiscal benefits from privileging alternative sources of energy. Early adopters always get poned. Period. That can’t be dismissed.
Possibly this effort will marginally hasten the day when all of us enjoy energy that results in substantially less harm to our environment. My point is that by making drastic policy changes now in order to make this happen. America is volunteering to pay the majority of the bill for it.
My personal opinion is that its not necessary or prudent for America to volunteer for this job.
March 5th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Hmm:
Nice one. Socialism, schmoecialism. What’s socialism got to do with it beyond a name and a pigeonhole.
I’ll tell you what it amounts to: it amounts to substantially higher energy costs for Americans.
One can construct a defensible argument for such policies as you describe primarily on a moral basis. And that’s fine, if that’s your bag. But what is much harder is to construct any argument for such policies on the basis of fiscal wisdom.
American can, if we wish, make a commitment to favoring what are currently less viable and more costly alternative forms of energy prior to the point where the mass market adopts them for the common reason of cost efficiency. If we do this, it will cost all of us a lot of money, and it will reduce American productivity at a time when other nations are already challenging us.
Here’s the thing: it boils down to the”early adopter” paradigm, which we should all be familiar with. A plasma TV cost 10 grand a decade ago, now its shrunk to less than 10% of that. We know how it works for electric gadgets. Less well acknowledged but equally obvious is the premium price America pays for pharmaceuticals in order to be the first ones to get this stuff at ultra-premium prices.
The same thing will certainly hold for alternative sources of energy. Again, let me stress that I have no objection if Americans themselves make the choice to be early adopters for moral reasons. I simply wish to make it crystal clear that our nation will collectively pay a substantial price for this choice.
I have no respect for carefully constructed yet misleading arguments that suggest we will create moral benefits for the entire globe _AND_ realize fiscal benefits from privileging alternative sources of energy. Early adopters always get poned. Period. That can’t be dismissed.
Possibly this effort will marginally hasten the day when all of us enjoy energy that results in substantially less harm to our environment. My point is that by making drastic policy changes now in order to make this happen. America is volunteering to pay the majority of the bill for it.
My personal opinion is that its not necessary or prudent for America to volunteer for this job.
March 5th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Well I know it means we pay way more for energy. Socialism or not, it doesn’t seem like a good idea.
March 5th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
And now I welcome the arguments that this amounts to socialism.
It’s pure socialism, it’s just garden-variety douchebag asshatery.
*Idea!* When you’re in a serious recession, punish people who produce things and create jobs! That way it’ll suck equally for everybody!
Win!
March 6th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Let me get this straight — how were we “subsidizing” oil and gas before? Were we giving oil exploration and drilling equipment to Exxon and Shell for free? Were we giving them free cash for drilling?
I’m not sure I understand the context here.
If we’re now going to add additional costs to do the same work to change incentives, that to me seems to be a top-down approach to governing, which seems like either socialism or fascist (two sides of the same coin).