$50 Billion Divestiture From Fossil Fuel

[mjz]

Originally Posted by SongwriterFan

By claiming that you're for "change" because you're worried about CO2 displacing out the O2 you breathe? Riiiiiiiiiiight.

I'm sorry for you that you cannot read.
You have my deepest sympathies.
max

[harmonics101]

We can put a price on clean air just like we can put a price on the national debt, but nothing will happen with either of them

H

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by mjz

Imagine if your industry paid real mineral rights and updated royalty fees for the oil it pulled from our public/federal land.

It does pay the royalties negotiated with the land-owners (even the gov't). Sorry if you don't like what YOU agreed upon (since the gov't is "us" according to you ).

Imagine if the tax credits given to your industry were rolled back.

Let's list these tax credits that everybody seems to rail on about.

I'll start . . . . .

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by Otterhound

Exactly what change is coming ? Bore me with details , please .
I want to learn !

EVERY change that happens is "global climate change" caused by CO2. Get with the program!

[Teleman52]

Originally Posted by mjz

Exactly what was said about SO2 and NxO.
But the trading/tax incentive worked as planned.

Max

I can't directly give an answer to this because in truth, When this was happening I was not old enough to know all the details, but

Wouldn't that be because s02 and nxo pollutants is really only a problem with the corporations and industries that were taxed?

The average person doesn't pollute s02 or nox into the air, am I wrong here?

However the average person DOES have a rather large carbon footprint. In the carbon scenario, corporations are not the sole pollutants. So simply taxing corporations is not a sollution but rather a small step.

So I don't think you can compare the two issues

I don't see how you can claim that I am being irrational or unreasonable right now btw, I'm completely assuming that humans are the main cause of climate change (which I truly don't believe, but accept as a possibility) here and trying to figure out exactly what is being proposed as a solution. I haven't seen any other propositions besides taxation and tax breaks which I don't think would be enough

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by mjz

Immediate expensing of exploration and development costs ($200 to $255 million),

Our tax accounts will be thrilled to learn that they can now immediately expense all of our development costs. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Besides . . "we" did all these things. So that includes YOU. So what are you complaining about

[seannx]

Originally Posted by harmonics101

We can put a price on clean air just like we can put a price on the national debt, but nothing will happen with either of them

H

It may appear that way, but a price was put on clean air in California, in the form of emission control standards, requirements for cleaner burning fuel, and improvements in vehicle efficiency. All of that cost manufacturers money, which we consumers probably paid. But compared to the 70's science fiction worthy sunsets, and dense smog that filled the LA skies back then, it's way better now.

[duff beer]

Originally Posted by mjz

I won't pretend to know the scientific-- ese of CO2 and it's affects on our atmosphere -- but I can relate something that seems pretty simple to me.

Legally CO2 is a pollutant and I know you contend that is wrong. But CO2 also is a pollutant by the most commonsense dictionary definitions if you consider concentrations.




Yeah, I know -- CO2 is a natural component of our atmosphere. But surely you can recognize that too much of any one component in a balanced ecosystem can be bad. Like if you had no oxygen but just CO2 would that suffice for existence? No, it wouldn't. How about a little? How much CO2 is okay? You wanna find out?

CO2 is an asphyixiant (sp??) gas. It replaces oxygen.

The amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere can be and has been studied by looking at ice dams. You can assess the Taylor Dome Ice, The Mauna Loa, and the Law Dome Ice core studies yourself. Lots about them on-line.

They certainly indicate a large spike the last 150 years. Whether or not this proves an anthropolgic cause I won't contend. But what they do show is that as CO2 levels have gone up -- O2 levels have gone down. Which makes sense -- CO2 is an asphyyixiant gas.

So I feel totally comfortable classifying CO2 as a pollutant since it displaces the very substance we need to exist -- O2. And this definition of pollutant has zero to do with Global Climate Change. So again -- I don't think one need embrace CO2 as the cause of Global Climate Change to embrace the fact that a balanced atmosphere is a good thing and too much CO2 classifies it as a pollutant.

But you seem hung up on the politics of it all -- unless I am reading you wrong. I'm talking about Fossil Fuels as poor investments. I ythink it's really telling that the Rockefelleers are divesting.

I think you may agree that no matter what your political opinion -- majority opinion is feeling an awful lot like it did in the late 80s when discussing Acid Rain. And more than a few business models are embracing technologies that are aimed at replacing part of it.

We are at the cusp of major change. Whether you believe it's for the wrong or right reasons probably makes little difference to the fact that said change is upon us.


max

CO2 was declared a pollutant so that it could be legislated and TAXED.

People with respiratory problems are given gas that is 95 percent oxygen and 5% (50,000 ppm) carbon dioxide. CO2 levels ranging from 1% to as high as 10% (100,000 ppm) are used for treating people who have been asphyxiated. Current CO2 levels are 400 ppm or 0.04%. In the past it has been as high as 0.45% (4500 ppm) and life flourished. Every living organism exhales CO2. Plants need it to survive...and so do humans.

Facts about CO2:

http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/...O2&Health.html

[Davis Webb]

Climate change due to rising CO2 is indisputable. The issue was resolved decades ago but North Americans are slow to learn and even slower to change.

Much has to change to protect the planet. Alternative sources, more livable cities which let you walk and bike to work, renewable resources that do not require transportation, the list goes on.

Its not impossible to solve this problem, but we are late to the game. We have already reached a point where reversing these changes will take decades, if possible at all.


More scientific literacy is the key, rather than parsing the internet for proofs.

[seannx]

From the OP's first post...

Originally Posted by mjz

http://america.aljazeera.com/article...ivestment.html

I question whether this an effort to fight climate change or because the market perceives fossil fuel will become less and less profitable.

So politics over climate change aside (whether carbon is causing it or not) -- Is Fossil Fuel growing more and more unattractive as an investment and future economic engine? Are we at the beginning of the end?

Meanwhile.... http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/def...igafactory.pdf

max

Please don't make this thread about climate change (no, yes, or why), instead of the future of Fossil Fuel as an investment and economic engine.

[mjz]

Originally Posted by duff beer

CO2 was declared a pollutant so that it could be legislated and TAXED.

Legislated and taxed to attempt to pay for it's true cost.
Blah, blah, blah ----- round and round and round we go.
Invest where you see fit.

max

[Davis Webb]

Originally Posted by seannx

From the OP's first post...



Please don't make this thread about climate change (no, yes, or why), instead of the future of Fossil Fuel as an investment and economic engine.

Well that is absurd. If it was a happy, abundant fuel that did not break us at the bank, producing a trickle down price gouge on all transported foods, a commodity that only a few Ewlings can produce and profit from, we would not have this discussion.

Instead its expensive to produce.
Profits only a very few.
Blockades all competition.
Pollutes
Its extraction creates an ecological nightmare.
Its limited.
It gives extraordinary powers to nations which are morally corrupt.
And employs a miniscule part of the population.

IN short, it stinks. So the future of this hideous corporate monopoly is obvious, its got to go.

To separate this into a speculation about its future, is like discussing the pros and con's of Mussolini's wardrobe.

[Otterhound]

Originally Posted by SongwriterFan

EVERY change that happens is "global climate change" caused by CO2. Get with the program!

Sorry .
I tend to do this around passive/aggressive authoritarian posting .
I keep trying to change , but the climate in my mind does not permit change because of the lack of CO2 .
Nuke the Smurfs
Club the baby seals
Drown the whales and free your freon .

[duff beer]

Originally Posted by Davis Webb

Climate change due to rising CO2 is indisputable. The issue was resolved decades ago but North Americans are slow to learn and even slower to change.

You are 100% wrong.

Those who blame CO2 and ignore all other the factors that drive climate are really the ones who are slow to learn and even slower to change. CO2 used to be 10 times today's levels in the past and the temperature was cooler. How is that possible?

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by SongwriterFan

Let's list these tax credits that everybody seems to rail on about.

I'll start . . . . .

OK lets



I don't know seems even some normally right leaning thinkers are starting to realize the reality.
Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...#ixzz3EKgj3URz


Exerpt:
Reuters estimates that Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and ExxonMobil paid effective federal tax rates of 19 percent, 18 percent, and 13 percent, respectively, in 2011. Reuters noted that this is “a far cry from the 35 percent top corporate tax rate.”

The oil and gas industry has been the largest beneficiary of federal financial support in the energy sector. An analysis by the Nuclear Energy Institute found that it benefited from nearly 60 percent of all federal energy support between 1950 and 2010, including receiving half of the money from energy tax breaks. Meanwhile, the wind and solar energy industries received only 9 percent of total federal benefits.




http://harvardmagazine.com/2014/01/the-fix-in-fossil-fuels

Excerpt:

THE UNITED STATES is wasting more than $4 billion a year by giving oil and gas companies tax breaks that do not benefit consumers or the economy, says Joseph Aldy, assistant professor of public policy at the Kennedy School of Government and a former special assistant to the president for energy and environment. This special treatment for the fossil-fuel industry, he points out, adds to the national debt and maintains the country’s dependence on a finite natural resource that produces greenhouse gases.