“A carbon tax should be made revenue neutral via tax offsets in other areas.” [Bloomberg]
7 thoughts on “Exxon for carbon tax with conditions”
Comments are closed.
“A carbon tax should be made revenue neutral via tax offsets in other areas.” [Bloomberg]
Comments are closed.
… as long as the corporate welfare flows Exxon’s way.
People hoping to see energy policy leadership from Exxon were not hoping for this.
What’s the point? The whole reason for the tax is to make energy more expensive so that people will use less (supposedly, although I suspect it’s just to control them better).
Zactly. We don’t have a revenue problem: we have a spending problem.
(Another) Pandora’s Box is about to be opened, and another Constitution power explicitly reserved for the Congress is about to be handed over to federal bureaucrats who are unelected and fire-proof. In tis particular case, it would be left to bureaucrats to define what counts as “carbon.” How could anything go wrong? If successful, Spineless Republicans are to blame because Democrats are expected to promote this stuff.
If I have the figures right, revenue is 16% of GDP and expenditures are 25% of GDP. Revenue neutral makes no sense at all.
“Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) is part of a growing coalition backing a carbon tax as an alternative to costly regulation, giving newfound prominence to an idea once anathema in Washington.”
So we will get a carbon tax AND costly regulation.