Obama May Levy Carbon Tax to Cut U.S. Deficit, HSBC Says

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
13,127
3,031
258
Sunnydale
#1
By Mathew Carr - Nov 7, 2012 9:05 AM MT
Barack Obama may consider introducing a tax on carbon emissions to help cut the U.S. budget deficit after winning a second term as president, according to HSBC Holdings Plc.

A tax starting at $20 a metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent and rising at about 6 percent a year could raise $154 billion by 2021, Nick Robins, an analyst at the bank in London, said today in an e-mailed research note, citing Congressional Research Service estimates. “Applied to the Congressional Budget Office’s 2012 baseline, this would halve the fiscal deficit by 2022,” Robins said.

Hurricane Sandy sparked discussion on climate protection in the election after presidential candidates focused on other debates, HSBC said. A continued Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives means Obama’s scope for action will be limited, Robins said. Cap-and-trade legislation stalled in the U.S. Senate after narrowly passing the house in 2009.

North American discharges fell 1.3 percent last year amid slowing economic growth. In China, the world’s biggest emitter, greenhouse gases from fuel use rose more than 9 percent in 2011, according to BP Plc (BP/) statistics published on June 13.

“Cap-and-trade has been demonized” and Obama probably won’t seek to install such a program in his second term, Richard Sandor, founder of the world’s biggest carbon trading exchange in Europe, said today at the presentation in London of his book titled Good Derivatives.
New carbon trading programs in California, China and Brazil may encourage U.S. lawmakers to introduce greenhouse gas trading by about 2020, Sandor said.
‘Moral Authority’

“We’ve lost our moral authority in the U.S.,” he said. “You haven’t here in Europe.”
Prices in the European Union carbon market, the world’s biggest by traded volume, dropped to a four-year low in April on surging supply and flagging demand.

Obama and the U.S. Congress should consider a carbon tax to help meet the government’s looming need for revenue, according to the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions in Arlington, Virginia.

The tax would not necessarily add to the economy’s total tax burden, according to Elliot Diringer, executive vice president of the research group. Such a tax may free up space for reductions in company taxes that dissuade employment, for example, Diringer said in an interview from Arlington.

“We have lots of need for new revenue to address our challenges,” which include priorities for conservatives such as extending tax cuts, avoiding deep defense cuts, reducing the corporate tax rate, reforming tax territoriality, and deficit reduction, the group said today in an e-mailed statement.
“While Sandy’s lessons are still fresh, the president should be clear about the urgency of cutting carbon emissions and strengthening critical infrastructure to protect Americans against the rising costs of climate change,” the group said yesterday in a separate statement.

To contact the reporter on this story: Mathew Carr in London at m.carr@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Lars Paulsson at lpaulsson@bloomberg.net
A tax will stop something that has been going on ever since the earth formed. When the price of everything goes up, they will blame the evil corporations and we need more regulations and taxes to teach those evil corporations a lesson.

Obama to weigh energy boom, climate change in 2nd term


Wed Nov 7, 2012 3:19pm EST

* Climate change, storm concerns could push EPA rules ahead

* Natural gas exports decision looms

* Divided Congress means carbon tax, other legislation unlikely

By Roberta Rampton and Timothy Gardner

WASHINGTON, Nov 7 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama will face a two-fold challenge in energy policy in his second term: make good on his promise to act on climate change, while at the same time foster growth in oil and gas production that has spurred jobs and manufacturing.

That could mean a revival of regulations for producing and burning natural gas, coal and oil that had been on hold during the election, and possibly some new rules for hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," the water and chemical-intensive technique used to extract gas and oil from deep within shale beds.
With a "status quo" divided Congress focused on pressing debt and deficit issues, analysts expect Obama to use administrative tools to work toward his election-night vow on climate change.

"If the president focuses on dealing with our climate and security problems by addressing consumption and at the same time helps facilitate oil and gas production, I think he has a win-win on his hands," said Michael Levi, an energy policy analyst with the Council on Foreign Relations.

"And that's roughly what he's been trying to do, so it would not be a big departure," Levi said in an interview.

CLIMATE BACK ON AGENDA
Obama began his first term trying to work with Congress on a climate bill that aimed to curb emissions of greenhouse gases.

That effort failed, and his Environmental Protection Agency embarked instead on crafting an ambitious series of rules aimed chiefly at pollution from coal-burning power plants.
Obama slowed regulation of fossil fuels during his campaign against Republican challenger Mitt Romney, who ran on expanding drilling and letting states dominate oil and gas regulation.

After the devastation caused last week by Hurricane Sandy, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg endorsed Obama and made it clear he expected the administration to elevate action on climate change.
"Climate is back on the agenda, and I think Bloomberg especially is going to hold the president to some sort of action," said Andrew Holland, an energy policy analyst with the American Security Project think-tank.

Obama steered clear of the issue during the election, but mentioned climate change in Tuesday's victory speech as one of a trio of challenges facing the country.
"We want our children to live in an America that isn't burdened by debt, that isn't weakened by inequality, that isn't threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet," Obama said.

CARBON TAX TOUGH SELL

Now that the election is over, regulations proposed and studies undertaken by Obama's agencies will return to the forefront.

"It's going to be a rougher second term for oil and gas given the way the environmental debate is going and the diminished incentive Obama has to protect oil and gas after his last election is behind him," said Robert McNally, a White House energy adviser during the George W. Bush administration who now heads the Rapidan Group, a consulting firm.
Environmentalists are also increasingly lobbying centrist Democrats like Obama to tighten federal water and air regulations on fracking operations.

The EPA is set to release initial results this year of a study on fracking's effects on groundwater supplies. Separately, the Department of the Interior is expected to finalize draft rules later this year on fracking on public lands.

The administration also faces a tough call on whether the United States should allow more exports of its newfound shale oil and gas bounty. Critics have warned that too many exports risk triggering a spike in fuel costs for consumers and undermining a domestic manufacturing recovery.
With many scientists blaming climate change for fueling stronger weather events like the deadly Superstorm Sandy, some green groups have said Congress should look at passing a carbon tax.

That could raise significant revenue for the debt-ridden federal government, but many Republicans would reject supporting anything resembling a tax, said Scott Segal, a partner at Bracewell & Guiliani, a law and lobbying firm.

Still, the idea of a tax that could raise $144 billion in revenue by 2020 will receive a lot of discussion and study, Segal said on a conference call on Wednesday.
I love the idea that laws, regulations, and taxes can stop hurricanes.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#3
The President doesn't levy taxes, Congress does.
 

MrAbovePar

En Taro Anthony
Mar 14, 2005
13,780
3,173
678
Covington. La
#10
The EPA levies fines. That's where this is going.
Sadly that's the way things go. One way or the other, we pay for it. Just like how they say taxes are the lowest they've been yet people pay on average 40% of their money to the gov't in one form or another.
 

Cunt Smasher

Caligula Jr.
Aug 26, 2005
13,568
4,135
628
#11
I'm honestly confused, if they need more revenue, why create more regulation and bureaucracy, just raise taxes. The greenies scare the crap out of me, they're worse than jihadists, and justify all kinds of heinous shit under the guise of saving the planet.
Anybody read recently how rich algore is from carbon credits and whatnot?
 

MrAbovePar

En Taro Anthony
Mar 14, 2005
13,780
3,173
678
Covington. La
#12
I'm honestly confused, if they need more revenue, why create more regulation and bureaucracy, just raise taxes. The greenies scare the crap out of me, they're worse than jihadists, and justify all kinds of heinous shit under the guise of saving the planet.
Anybody read recently how rich algore is from carbon credits and whatnot?
Because taxes require congressional approval and are easy to quantify. Regulatory fees are harder to nail down specifically who gets them and how much to the degree that can be put on a bumper sticker.

You go "regulations cost business lots of money each year" and people go "huh" but you say "the corporate tax rate is x%" well then you have a panic on your hands.
 

Cunt Smasher

Caligula Jr.
Aug 26, 2005
13,568
4,135
628
#13
Because taxes require congressional approval and are easy to quantify. Regulatory fees are harder to nail down specifically who gets them and how much to the degree that can be put on a bumper sticker.

You go "regulations cost business lots of money each year" and people go "huh" but you say "the corporate tax rate is x%" well then you have a panic on your hands.
Makes sense, thanks. Not to bash, but very easy in that scenario to give out waivers too.
 

Ballbuster1

In The Danger Zone...
Wackbag Staff
Aug 26, 2002
103,710
16,896
919
Your house, behind the couch
#14
The EPA levies fines. That's where this is going.
Exactly and in the end we'll pay for it.
Companies won't eat the losses.
They'll increase their prices for goods and services
or start trimming the workforce to make up for it.

The govt doesn't need more money. It needs to
stop spending and wasting what it collects.
 

Neckbeard

I'm Team Piggy!
Donator
Oct 26, 2011
24,929
15,342
303
#15
Oh, so now he cares about the deficit? Obama cares about two things. This is the real conspiracy to worry about, not the prison planet nonsense.
1. Cloward.
2. Piven.

Destroy capitalism and social democracy by burdening the system with a criminal and parasite underclass that then forms your voting coalition and then the "proletariat" for a revolution in America.
Eventually the idea of capitalism and work for yourself and your family would be replaced by an all-encompassing welfare state for the poor (means tested welfare) and then the exclusive welfare state for "the poor" would be replaced by a Communistic system of a "guaranteed income."

This idea was published as the Great Society programs were passing in 1966. The title was "The Weight Of The Poor: A Strategy To End Poverty"
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/03/24-4

Crucial to this strategy is getting enough people on welfare, who do not pay taxes, who will never give up current benefits and always vote for candidates who will give more to the welfare system and expand it.
This idea is the "voting coalition" part.

This reasoning is why democracy and representative republics always fail into a sort of lower class mob mentality with an elite, monied aristocracy giving away goodies and planning the economy.

Aristotle noted it. Alexis de Tocqueville noted this about 200 years ago about America.

“ The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."

I think America is past the sell-by date.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#16
Ever notice how quiet the libtards get every time Cloward and Piven are brought up?