Lobotero’s Info Ink

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee vented their fury over high gasoline prices at executives of the nation’s five largest oil companies on Wednesday, grilling the oilmen over their multimillion-dollar pay packages and warning them that Congress was intent on taking action that could include a new tax on so-called windfall profits

And the oil executives warned that government intervention might only make things worse. Instead, they called on Congress to allow more drilling and exploration for domestic oil, both in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and offshore in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.

“Does it trouble any of you when you see what you are doing to us, the profits that you are taking, the costs that you are imposing on working families, small businesses, truckers, farmers?”

The executives pushed back, suggesting that Democrats in Congress were at fault for not allowing more drilling and exploration for domestic oil and insisting that global economic conditions outside their control were mostly responsible for the high prices.

These executives did a good job of making it about the policies and programs and not about their obscene profits.  I have asked this question many times…..Let us say that there was more domestic drilling, how much would that bring down the cost of gas?  If it truly is out of their hands then why are there the soaring, seemingly unstoppable high profits?

I keep hearing the political pundits say that Hillary is just a tough political figure. I do not agree. IMO, she is just as arrogant as her husband. Her toughness is just an facade to her arrogance. Her feeling that she somehow has a birthright to the nomination. It is her destiny to be the Democratic nominee. The nomination is hers because she is a Clinton and because she wants it and that should be enough for the voter. Her attitude toward the voter is amazing. Her husband basically threatens the voters and she tries to swoon them with diatribes that are anything but true. Her speeches are about her, not about the people. She can bring change, she can lead, she can…….even at the commemoration of the King assassination was about her and her campaign. Sorry, but I do not believe in the “God given right” to be president.

Over the weekend a fire was started in a blush section outside of Seattle where homes wer costing mult-millions.  And since there has been some eco-terrorism in the area  and supposedly there was a banner founf written on a bed sheet that said ELF, Earth Liberation Front, was to blame for the fire.

Thinking…thinking…..let see housing sector is in the toilet……homes go unsold…..mortgages go un sold…bankruptcy looms…few can afford a home that cost millions…this all sounds more like an insyurance scam than an attack from ELF.  Because a signm was found on site that claims ELF did it, then it must be so…..how moronic.

Pewrsonally, I would look at the financial status of the developer.

One of the most pressing issues facing the candidates is global warming or climate change, whichever you prefer.  I want to talk about ways to stop or at least slow down the effects of said issue, at least from the Dem perspective.  I have listened to the candidates and their positions on helping the planet.  So far I am not too impressed with many of their views.  To me they are given too much time for the elimination of the harmful emissions.  IMO, the popular cap and trade that is being proposed by most candidates will not do the trick.

The leading candidates have the same plan, only with slightly different end goals.  That is a cap and trade system.  That is efforts to curtail emissions through fuel economy standards, biofuel mandates, or appliance standards may be well-meaning, but in my opinion, this is not the answer.  Clinton wants to cut oil consumption in half by 2025; Obama wants to a two-thirds reduction by 2050 and then there is Edwards who wants an 80% reduction of greenhouse gases by 2050.  All these are cap and trade approaches.

The program that I feel would be better in the control of the situation is an emissions tax.  But it is a TAX!  Yes it is and taxation seems to be an ugly word these days, but if taxation discourages consumption; for example, taxing carbon emissions discourages carbon consumption, why would this be a bad idea?  The less carbon emissions released into the atmosphere the better and more healthy the planet will be. 

There are five reasons why the emissions fee or carbon tax is better than the popular cap and trade.  These are the reasons put foward by carbontax.org

    * Carbon taxes will lend predictability to energy prices, whereas cap-and-trade systems will do little to mitigate the price volatility that historically has discouraged investments in less carbon-intensive electricity generation, carbon-reducing energy efficiency and carbon-replacing renewable energy.

    * Carbon taxes can be implemented much sooner than complex cap-and-trade systems. Because of the urgency of the climate crisis, we do not have the luxury of waiting while the myriad details of a cap-and-trade system are resolved through lengthy negotiations.

    * Carbon taxes are transparent and easily understandable, making them more likely to elicit the necessary public support than an opaque and difficult to understand cap-and-trade system.

    * Carbon taxes can be implemented with far less opportunity for manipulation by special interests, while a cap-and-trade system’s complexity opens it to exploitation by special interests and perverse incentives that can undermine public confidence and undercut its effectiveness.

    * Carbon tax revenues can be rebated to the public through dividends or tax-shifting, while the costs of cap-and-trade systems are likely to become a hidden tax as dollars flow to market participants, lawyers and consultants.

The costs passed on to each consumer might be noticeable, but need not excessive. An emission fee of $15/ton or a permit price of $15/ton would increase gasoline prices about 15 cents per gallon and residential electricity prices about ¾ of a cent per kilowatt-hour, according to Joe Aldy of the Progressive Policy Institute.   

The proposals of the “Big 3″ take too long to achieve the goal of cutting emissions and saving the planet for future generations.  Personally, since we all are contributors to the problem then we all should be part of the solution and the best solution is the emissions fee.