Democrats & Liberals Archives

Republicans Hate Carbon Tax

In theory, Republicans believe that the free market will solve all our problems. If we want to cut CO2 emissions to prevent catastrophic climate change all we need do is slap a carbon tax on organic fuels: coal, oil and gas. In practice, Republicans do whatever Big Business wants.

An energy bill is being debated in the Senate. Democrats are trying to supply incentives to developing renewable energy sources, which is why they want tax breaks for renewable energy sources. Republicans are concerned with Big Oil:

Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked a $32 billion package of tax breaks for renewable energy that would have been financed mostly by new taxes on major oil companies.

The Democrats were suggesting a carbon tax on oil, to be used to finance renewables. According to conservative principles, the carbon tax would reduce our use of oil, forcing people to develop and use other cleaner fuels. Sounds good. However, Republicans voted against it. If the tax breaks were for big corporations, maybe Republicans would have voted for it. But it was not. Imagine - some of the money would have gone to small struggling companies with brilliant ideas for new fuels! How can a Republican agree to that?

I must add here that when Republicans were in power in the last senate they passed an energy bill, sponsored by the fourth branch of government - the vice president, in his secret glory - that gave tax breaks to big energy companies that are defiling our atmospher with CO2.

Contrary to what they profess, Republicans hate the carbon tax because in real life it is a tax on big corporations - such as ExxonMobil, the biggest.

Posted by Paul Siegel at June 21, 2007 4:29 PM
Comment #223670

Wow, Paul, what a tangled web you weave.

First you say that “Republicans” (without making ANY distinction) hate the carbon tax. Well, Paul, as usual, you have generalized yourself out of the realm of reality. Not ALL Republicans hate the carbon tax. Sounds rather “knee jerk” and hysterical to me, actually.

Second, why on earth would we give tax breaks to the very largest of corporations? Why not cut them out of the mix and give the 32 billion dollars in tax breaks to the…as you put it…

“struggling companies with brilliant ideas for new fuels!”

If the big ExxonMobiles of the world won’t develop alternative fuels on their own, why give them a break? Screw ‘em. If they won’t develop new fuels on their own, then sooner or later they will go the way of the Dodo…and those “struggling companies with brilliant ideas for new fuels” will be the new ExxonMobiles…only with Hydrogen or some other fuel source.

Third, it seems odd to me that the American taxpayer ends up paying for those things that private companies should pay for. If ExxonMobile wants to remain a viable company in the future, let THEM pay for exploring new fuels…WITHOUT the tax breaks from the American tax payer.

Remember, the big oil companies make about 10 cents per gallon of gas, while 18.5 cents is pure tax.


Posted by: Jim T at June 21, 2007 5:41 PM
Comment #223671

Keep blaming & trying to TAX humans over global warming

Posted by: rahdigly at June 21, 2007 5:46 PM
Comment #223675

Cutting CO2 emissions won’t prevent catastrophic climate change since CO2 isn’t causing catastrophic climate change to begin with. CO2 is a nutrient, not a pollutant.
If we saddle out economy with a carbon tax the best thing that we could hope for would be a severe recession, rather than a depression.

Jim T,
The taxes on gasoline are closer to 60 cents than 18.5.

Posted by: traveller at June 21, 2007 6:17 PM
Comment #223677

Does YOUR car use gasoline?

Or is powered by a “brillant idea for new fuels” that exists on the drawing board in the office of a “struggling company?”

If the answer is that your car uses gasoline, then this was a tax on YOU, and YOU were the one who was going to pay for it.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at June 21, 2007 6:43 PM
Comment #223679

Has anyone noticed how the commodities market in basic foodstuffs such as corn, soybeans, wheat, etc. has been climbing thru the roof due to the idiotic politically correct man-made global warming nonsense of using food for fuel? Next will be meat products and milk. Conservative Democrats and Republicans know that another tax by whatever name is just more government interference and political robbery. Even liberals must understand in their haze that corporations do not pay taxes. We, their customers pay all their taxes when we buy their product. Get real…Please.

Posted by: Jim at June 21, 2007 7:03 PM
Comment #223692


Carbon tax is something I love. The Dem proposal was not a carbon tax. It was an attempt to punish an industry (oil) and subsidize others.

If you want a carbon tax, the biggest offender is coal anyway.

Neither Republicans nor Dems currently support a carbon tax and the only major figure to do so is Christopher Dodd. I give him credit for it, but it is going nowhere.

I agree that we should eliminate tax breaks for all industries. The Dem plan would just move the breaks from some and give more breaks and subsidies to others.

Remember that most problems started out as solutions and many of these were government solutions.

Posted by: Jack at June 21, 2007 8:25 PM
Comment #223694

Yeesh, reading these comments makes me despair for this country. At the very least, we should stop subsidizing coal and oil to the tune of many billions.

Posted by: Gerrold at June 21, 2007 8:33 PM
Comment #223706
the vice president, in his secret glory

Waxman decries Cheney security exemption

Posted by: womanmarine at June 21, 2007 9:41 PM
Comment #223718

Why don’t we just let the Carbon Tax go through, give it five years, let the capitalistic system make money off of Carbon Footprints, and then we can bring these posts back up when 1/2 a dozen companies are making ridiculous profits at the expense of ecologically conscious Americans.

Follow the money, idealisti ideas at this level will have a hard time finding the funding if there is no money to be made.

Posted by: Honest at June 21, 2007 11:26 PM
Comment #223719

The Dem proposal was to remove tax incentives for oil to alternate fuel developement. Pay-go.If these incentives were a help to oil developement surely they should help alternates.

Your 10 cents a gallon price structure is misleading. That is after blank refinery buys crude for whatever price blank drilling company chooses and they in tern sell it to blank distributing who sells it to blank retail outlets. Blank makes profits at every step.

Posted by: BillS at June 21, 2007 11:48 PM
Comment #223720

In all fairness we did pick up some Rep votes but still ,as Reid said, the GOP is still the “Grand Oil Party”.

Posted by: BillS at June 22, 2007 12:02 AM
Comment #223729

Traveler-Co2 restricts oxygen output from the oceans! An other large bodies of water.

Posted by: -DAVID- at June 22, 2007 1:59 AM
Comment #223741


It would be a lot more than 10 cents a gallon. I propose taxing carbon. To the extent a fuel contains carbon, it would be taxed. If you push the price of these products up, alternatives have room to develop. The price structure is a defacto subsidy, but it is better than one the government gives because it allows the people to use their intelligence to come up with innovative solutions.

Yes, somebody will profit. Good. Alternatives should be profitable. Not many people are willing to work for little or nothing. Not many investors will continue to invest if they think they will lose money. And even if they were willing, they would soon run out of money to invest.

Posted by: Jack at June 22, 2007 8:14 AM
Comment #223747


“Traveler-Co2 restricts oxygen output from the oceans! An other large bodies of water.”

I’ve never heard of that. Where did you read it?

Posted by: traveller at June 22, 2007 9:10 AM
Comment #223752

I am with you on the need for a carbon tax. Also some method to keep OPEC et al from dumping crude to undermine efforts at change,a necessary policy to attract substantial capital investment. I like the idea of a tarriff on imported oil. We have had this discussion. The political roadblock to these approaches is comming primarily from the GOP.I wish you and other thoughtful Reps Godspeed in moving your party in the right direction although I am not hopeful. There are very powerful interest globally with a fundemental interest in halting or slowing real change.

Posted by: bills at June 22, 2007 9:57 AM
Comment #223762

Oh Gee, Hillary and Barbra Boxer have a plan to squash the free speech of “conservative talk radio”. What a SURPRISE, the far left is all for squashing the rights of anyone who does not agree with them. Free speech to the politically correct only.

CARBON TAX….WHY? Because of a hyped up radical left wing environmental FRAUD designed to help the institute heavy taxes and a socialist takeover of the US by the far left “for the good of the world”?

No thanks. I don’t need your high taxes, I don’t need your socialist take over, I don’t need your rich politicians telling me I have to live a smaller life and I don’t need your squashing my free speech for the good of the left wing.

Posted by: Stephen at June 22, 2007 12:01 PM
Comment #223763

Peer Reviewed Scientist says….stop the Man caused global warming hype…”it’s the sun, stupid”.

Posted by: Stephen at June 22, 2007 12:03 PM
Comment #223765

What’s really interesting in this article, besides how handily he squashes the left wings junk science is that he brings in another element that very few of us realized play a big part in global warming, Cosmic Rays.

Did you catch the part where he says that we are just about due for another round of MASSIVE GLOBAL COOLING?????

The junk science hype by the far left is starting to fall. Scientists around the globe have DEBUNKED various parts of Gores global warming sideshow. Time and time again we see that nature has a cycle and that man has done very little to influence that cycle. That junk science is being promoted by the politically correct who reward those who go along with their political agenda and punish those who oppose it.

But the cat is out of the bag, the alarmism coming from the left is JUNK Science and politics….not an “undisputed fact of science”.

Posted by: Stephen at June 22, 2007 12:12 PM
Comment #223766


I’ve read your proposal before, and again, I think the problem for you is how high a tax it would take to do what you want it to do. You would probably need to double the current pump price per gallon to have any kind of significant impact on the marketplace. And that size of a tax increase simply won’t happen.

I base that on Europe; at double per gallon our price their companies are not rushing out alternative fuel solutions to the marketplace. And they have been at those high price points for some time. Not many alternative fuel/hybrids/electric cars in that marketplace; at $6/gal you are more likely looking at common rail turbo diesels burning ULSD.

The price break for most alternative solutions is likely above $10/gal IMO.

Posted by: George in SC at June 22, 2007 12:13 PM
Comment #223767

Wow, a great new energy bill. More Ethanol. I like that. After all, my wife and I are fairly well off, as you folks keep driving he price of food up, it doesn’t affect us at all.

Hey, I have a far left socialist idea. A food subsidy for the poor who are adversely affected by their stupid ethanol bill that takes food out of production and puts it into our SUV’s for fuel.

All so we can pay honor to a pile of junk science being pumped by the radical left who want higher and higher taxes and more socialists in control of the US.

LAUGH. What a pile of horse manure the left wing is feeding us. Taking food of the table of the poor and putting it into the rich mans SUV. Those socialists sure know how to run things.

Posted by: Stephen at June 22, 2007 12:16 PM
Comment #223770

Distinguished Scientist says Canada needs to prepare now for another mini ice age…global cooling is coming and their crop land is threated…puts no stock in Al Gores junk Science.

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.

Posted by: Stephen at June 22, 2007 12:21 PM
Comment #223772

Democrats pass bill to massively increase food prices for junk science hype about global warming. What a crock. Hope you like ten dollar a gallon milk and and and 20 dollar a pound hamburger.
But the legislation provides a bonanza to farmers and the ethanol industry. It requires ethanol production to grow to at least 36 billion gallon a year by 2022, a sevenfold increase of the amount of ethanol processed last year.
I guess we have to admit it, the radicalized far left won another one. With their junk science they have been able to harm American industry, drive our food costs up, hurt the poor and the middle class, and they are only getting started. The job losses, the food costs, the damage to industry….it’s only started.

They can’t stop until they massively “punish” the oil industry because New England liberal Rich people hate those Texas oil rich people. And it’s politically correct to punish the industry that provides our nation with cheap energy.

This is like their global cooling scam and their plastic diaper scam but worse, they finally got global buy-in by the masses to a radical environmental junk science ploy.

Posted by: Stephen at June 22, 2007 12:35 PM
Comment #223775

traveller- If you do not know about CO2? I think

you will retain this knowledge better if you look

this information up your self. Please, be my guest

an prove me wrong. You can also read a book called

Games People Play. This may help you with your


Posted by: -DAVID- at June 22, 2007 1:05 PM
Comment #223779
Democrats pass bill to massively increase food prices for junk science hype about global warming. What a crock. Hope you like ten dollar a gallon milk and and and 20 dollar a pound hamburger.

You’re saying the only reason for current prices is the tax breaks these companies get? You know.. we pay for that? What’s wrong with the freemarket? Why can’t oil and gasoline compete without being given our money to do so? And you guys call yourselves Republicans?

Posted by: Max at June 22, 2007 1:57 PM
Comment #223794

There must be some special site for the flat earthers to rant to each other. Perhaps a UFO blog can make room for them.In the meantime troll feeding is futile.Energy use and its effects are a serious problem for serious people.

Posted by: BillS at June 22, 2007 6:14 PM
Comment #223800

Everything I’ve found regarding outgassing of O2 from the oceans contradicts your claim. Can you back up your claim or is my suspicion that you pulled it from you butt true?

Posted by: traveller at June 22, 2007 6:48 PM
Comment #223806

What does a pop psychology book have to do with my refusal to join your cult?
What dilemma are you referring to?

Posted by: traveller at June 22, 2007 7:52 PM
Comment #223829

traveler-With the lack of civility you are showing
me, I would not consider your request with a
dignified answer.

Posted by: -DAVID- at June 22, 2007 10:46 PM
Comment #223845

Republicans are always going to hate anything,the Democrats put forward.Watch how the (He Haw wing) of the Democratic Party votes,on the Carbon Tax to.They very well could vote to stop the Carbon Tax,along with Republicans.

Posted by: the libertine at June 23, 2007 12:49 AM
Comment #223846

Any encouragement for celulosic ethanol production in the bill?Hope so. There really is something basically wrong with makeing gas out of food.Useing the entire corn stalk,wood chips,grass,muni yard waste,algae etc. shows promise.
On a political note this bill could likely change one or two solid red plains states bright blue.Farmers like everyone else will vote their self interest.The Rep strategist must be haveing fits. Back Big Oil and lose Kansas!

Posted by: BillS at June 23, 2007 12:54 AM
Comment #223877

This is a debate site. If you make an assertion of fact you’re expected to back it up with a citation. When you refuse you can expect people to challenge you. The people who participate here are a very demanding, intelligent group. If you don’t have the guts to face challenges to your statements you won’t last long.
I’ve challenged you to back up a claim I consider absurd. I’m already well versed in atmospheric CO2 and oceanic outgassing. Your statement contradicts the science I’m aware of. I challenged you to back up your statement. I don’t claim to know everything and if there is something I’ve missed I want to know it. Besides, I enjoy the debate. You responded to my challenge with a cop out. If you think I’ve been uncivil to you, you should go to the archives and see what’s been said to and about me by the GW cultists. As a proud Denier I face some slings and arrows, giving as good as I get. It isn’t uncivil, it’s debate. Will you debate or are you afraid? Is my suspicion that you just made up your claim about outgassing of O2 correct? Will you explain why you think pop psychology is relevent to this discussion? (I’m already familiar with the book you invited my to read) What dilemma do you think I’m facing?

Posted by: traveller at June 23, 2007 8:55 AM
Comment #223913


I agree, this is debate site with many intelligent people making intelligent debate.
Unfortunately, I do not consider your rude
response to me as intelligent an I will not feed
into nor condone your crude style of communication, an I will not reply to any of your

future correspondence.

Posted by: -DAVID- at June 23, 2007 4:38 PM
Comment #223968

That’s the response I expected.

Posted by: traveller at June 24, 2007 9:30 AM
Comment #223983

Same ugly truck on a different lot. It STILL won’t sell.

Posted by: tomd at June 24, 2007 5:13 PM
Comment #224016

The democrats are in power, the conversation is now about how to tax the people even more.

Hey, lets call it a “tax on big business”! LAUGH.

You think the taxes aren’t all paid for by all of us? It’s back to economics 101 for you.

Oh the righteousness of taxing “bad oil” “bad gasoline”. And lets convert all our farmland to ethanol. Hey, now we are going to need a NEW tax to help the poor by the food because we put all the foot into our gas tanks.

I’ve got an idea, lets IMPORT the ethanol. Cut down the rain forest and crow corn for American cars. Let the poor of the world go hungry, American liberals desire Ethanol.

Posted by: Stephenl at June 24, 2007 10:54 PM
Comment #224018


Lets talk sense here. You said: “In theory, Republicans believe that the free market will solve all our problems.”

Whose theory? Yours? That’s a straw man argument right from the get go. “Republicans” believe all sorts of things and no one probably believes that free markets ALONE will solve all our problems. You lead with a non sequitur and hang your entire case on it… just doesn’t hang.

As long as people are determined to bash straw man opponents no actual intelligent conversation of the issues can be held.

Your post was merely designed to bash those who do not agree with you.

I think part of your issue is your underlying and unstated decision to accept the junk science “man made global warming a disaster” hype. And from that you seem to also have they typical left wing, knee-jerk reaction that we need to tax ourselves in many different areas to “save the planet”. Or, perhaps you are in the crowd who feels America has it too good and needs to have a smaller piece of the pie and a smaller economy and to suffer a little more so other nations can take our wealth and have greater equality with us? And that pushing global warming hype is a great way to accomplish that goal?

And if you really are worried that the oceans are going to back up your toilet and flood your backyard….calm down, it’s not going to happen. IN fact, maybe you should start thinking about Global cooling and how you can use that to promote higher taxes? We now have some peer reviewed scientists declaring that a global cooling cycle is due to kick in, in about 15 years of the kind that created what was called the “mini ice-age”. And they are concerned that farm land in Canada will no longer be able to produce crops in that period.

I’m sure the left will be telling us that it’s pollution that creating global cooling and that we need higher taxes to warm the planet.

Posted by: Stephenl at June 24, 2007 11:05 PM
Comment #224061

No Stephenl,

They’re gonna tell us that it’s “climate change” now and it will be freezing in some places and boiling in others. Global warming didn’t sell when people challanged some places cooling, so they changed the name. Same ugly truck….My momma said “DON’T YOU BUYYY NO UGLY TRUCK”

Posted by: tomd at June 25, 2007 3:31 PM
Comment #261526

There is a company in N. America (I can’t mention the name or this comment won’t be permitted) that produces third generation photovoltaic film on a printing press at a cost of $0.30 a kilowatt. The production output is 400 megawatts annually. The Candu reactor by way of comparison produces about 800 megawatts annually and costs a fortune. Seems to me we have the energy of the sun in the palms of our hands yet progress is so slow.Is there something someone isn’t telling me?

Posted by: Ross Little at September 4, 2008 5:07 PM
Post a comment