Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner wants to take away tax breaks for oil and gas companies because they contribute to global warming.
Reuters reported that Geithner told the Senate Finance Committee on March 4 that,
“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.”
I’m not for the government subsidizing anyone, but Geithner’s statement indicates that the Obama administration is starting its long-promised attack on the oil and gas industry. Their tax breaks apparently are first. Are profits next? Since last summer, Obama has been saying that he would impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies.
A recent study by CRA International commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute concluded that a windfall profits tax likely would:
- Cause a net loss of up to 490,000 U.S. jobs by 2030.
- Reduce U.S. gross domestic product by roughly 1 percent, or $240 billion by 2030.
- Increase U.S. imports of crude oil by up to 18 percent in 2030 and reduce U.S. domestic production of crude oil by up to 26 percent in the same year.
Al Gore’s Repower America activist group has asked its members to sign a petition urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to grant the state of California a waiver to set carbon dioxide emissions limits for motor vehicles.
CEI’s Marlo Lewis explains here why granting the California waiver is a bad idea.
Now that you know enough to oppose the waiver, please take a moment to submit your comments to the EPA. Here’s how according to the EPA Federal Register notice:
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0173, by one of the following methods:
- http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions
for submitting comments.
- E-mail: email@example.com.
- Fax: (202) 566-9744.
- Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West (Air
Docket), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Room B108, Mail Code 6102T,
Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0173. Please include a total of two copies.
Your thoughtful comments will surely be more impressive to the EPA than an empty-headed petition signed by Al Gore’s zombies.
Carbon Control News reported this morning that,
A special California budget commission tasked with proposing new sources of revenue for the state is scheduled to discuss next week a broad new carbon tax that would likely be aimed at major energy and fuels providers, and which could potentially raise billions of dollars annually to help the state meet its growing budget shortfall.
The proposal is already being attacked by major industry groups in the state, which argue are currently facing multiple carbon fees and taxes under the state’s sweeping climate change regulatory program currently being implemented under the 2006 state law, AB 32…
The coalition—the AB 32 Implementation Group—argues that the state is already implementing a number of greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations and programs under AB 32 that will… add up to $50,000 to the cost of a new home, … cost between $1,000 and $3,000 per car, and [add] a new $500-million-a-year water charge.”
Click here for the AB 32 memo to the Commission.
Californians should direct their concerns to Mark Iberle, Staff Director for the Commission on the 21st Century Economy. You can phone the Commission at (916) 322-2263.
The New York Times reported this morning that,
In a new program centered on Earth Day, eBay is becoming the latest company to promote its green credentials…
Yes, said Alan Marks, senior vice president for global communications at eBay. Its business model encourages reselling old items rather than throwing them out, and buying used merchandise rather than making new stuff reduces carbon emissions that go along with production.
But the real greens weren’t fooled. Michael Brune of the Rainforest Action Network told the Times:
“A lot of the things sold on eBay are new merchandise, and last time I checked the Postal Service still used fossil fuels for all of their planes and their trucks, so it’s not sustainable,” he said, referring to how eBay sellers ship items. “It’s fair to say that buying used goods on eBay is better for the environment, but let’s not get carried away and say this is the greenest thing since recycled paper.”
EBay’s new green website is ebaygreenteam.com. It reads,
By giving used toasters and toys a longer life and keeping sweaters and cellphones out of landfills, they’re making a big difference for the planet.
Way to go Meg Whitman. Who wouldn’t want to help to sell America down the green river to keep sweaters and a cell phones out of landfills?
The Obama administration is driving a stake into the heart of the U.S. nuclear power industry by cutting-off funding for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage program in President Obama’s budget proposal.
The Washington Post reported this morning that,
Yucca Mountain is not an option.
Yucca Mountain opponent Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) called Obama’s action,
“… our most significant victory to date in our battle to protect Nevada from becoming the country’s toxic wasteland.”
Now, nuclear power plants will have to continue to store spent fuel on-site in hopes of someday being able to reprocess spent fuel like the French do.
But will the anti-nuclear greens permit that to happen? When will the nuclear power industry realize that the greens are not its friends?
If we can’t store nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, can we at least dump the greens there? According to EPA standards for Yucca Mountain, humanity would be safe from the greens for at least one million years.