Kinja reply list

Read More
id0ntkno88Hamilton Nolan
6/30/16 12:59pm
Rationality, in other words, compels institutions like Exxon or The Pentagon to try to intelligently address the danger of climate change. Whereas more minor idiots, frauds, and hustlers can try to ignore climate change or just try to get as much money as they can before it all goes to hell, a $385 billion company has nowhere to hide. Global catastrophe is bad for business. Therefore, carbon tax. ‘

This right here. I cannot comprehend why large corporations that exist in perpetuity would be so short sighted that they would rather make profits now in exchange for the destruction of the Earth (as we know it) not so later from now and consequently lose profits later.

Conversely, wouldn’t a $385 BILLION company have incentive to develop and control clean energy? They have the cash to burn in R&D, and they have the channels to get it into the hands of everyone the fastest. So if they can develop viable clean energy alternative, why not control that into the future?
Reply
- Read More
  Jenny from the Arrondissementid0ntkno88
  6/30/16 1:04pm
  I don’t know if it’s really that hard to understand when we consider that corporations are not holistic entities. Corporations are run and managed by people who profit dearly and directly from this myopic view. And they move from company to company every few years, where’s the incentive to care about the long-term viability of the company or even the industry?
  
  - signed, a cynical accountant.
  Reply
- Read More
  codeonthisid0ntkno88
  6/30/16 1:06pm
  that they would rather make profits now in exchange for the destruction of the Earth
  
  You know why they’re doing this. It’s right there. “Profits now, I’ll be dead later anyway”
  Reply
Read More
Quasar FunkHamilton Nolan
6/30/16 12:55pm
At this year’s Fourth of July celebrations, why not talk to your friends and acquaintances about the need for a carbon tax? I know I will.

Hey, Jim. Hot dog or hamburger? Can I get you a beer? Can I talk to you about a carbon tax being the only reasonable chance we have to avoid major worldwide catastrophe due to climate change?
Reply
- Read More
  Catie 43890Quasar Funk
  6/30/16 12:56pm
  “Fucking liberals”
  
  - Jim
  Reply
- Read More
  supersweetQuasar Funk
  6/30/16 12:57pm
  Hot dog & a beer please. Hold the global catastrophe please.
  Reply
Read More
BobbySeriousHamilton Nolan
6/30/16 12:58pm
“Top Exxon officials have been more vocal about their support for a carbon tax”

I am immediately suspicious of carbon taxes now.
Reply
- Read More
  GadgetmanwhoreBobbySerious
  6/30/16 1:02pm
  You can bet your ass Exxon will benefit from this. I haven’t thought about how yet but they will. There’s no way a multi billion dollar company is going to shoot itself in the foot.
  Reply
- Read More
  whatwouldscoobydoo?Gadgetmanwhore
  6/30/16 1:12pm
  Agreed, there are only 2 reason huge corporations do anything; 1) make more money, 2) spend less money.
  Reply
Read More
Vanguard KnightHamilton Nolan
6/30/16 12:59pm
They are trying to act like the good guys, while attempting to get the least painful tax they can manage.

They aren’t idiots they can see the writing on the wall, and that a carbon tax is coming. They are just trying to position themselves to get the least damaging one possible.
Reply
- Read More
  Hatless Suspect v5.0Vanguard Knight
  6/30/16 1:12pm
  And doesn’t coal get negatively impacted more. Who do you think benefits from that.
  
  Surprised Hamilton didn't go down that route.
  Reply
- Read More
  NicoHatless Suspect v5.0
  6/30/16 1:43pm
  He's got a real hard on for a carbon tax. Sometimes when you're that horny you don't notice how ugly the person you're about to get in bed with is.
  Reply
Read More
Jerry-NetherlandHamilton Nolan
6/30/16 12:57pm
Now a warning? Thanks, after thirty years fighting it, Exxon!

GIF

Reply
- Read More
  FizzyBlahJerry-Netherland
  6/30/16 1:00pm
  And it just got voted out of the Democratic platform.
  Reply
- Read More
  Jerry-NetherlandFizzyBlah
  6/30/16 1:12pm
  True, and as the platform (for what those are ever really worth) won’t be settled for two more weeks, I expect you’ll be writing the committee to register your concern. Meanwhile, there isn’t even an acknowledgment of Global Warming in the Republican platform (ever), nor from its nominee.
  
  http://www.motherjones.com/environment/20…
  Reply
Read More
CaptainButtersHamilton Nolan
6/30/16 1:08pm
You know you’re screwed when the devil starts crying
Reply
- Read More
  NicoCaptainButters
  6/30/16 1:48pm
  "Hold Me!"
  
  Reply
Read More
SoapBoxcarWillieHamilton Nolan
6/30/16 1:33pm
Not only is it good policy, but it will probably create another market for businesses like Exxon (and some new companies as well) to make money, which they will then pay taxes on. Not a bad deal.
Reply
- Read More
  You Know Nothing Jon SnowSoapBoxcarWillie
  6/30/16 2:05pm
  Exxon is already the largest nat gas producer in the world. They’ve seen the writing on the wall for years and have positioned themselves accordingly. It was a smart business move that coincidentally is good for the planet as well.
  Reply
Read More
Lee Adama's Moral CenterHamilton Nolan
6/30/16 1:25pm
Exxon is also the largest natural gas producer in the U.S. as a result of their $41B acquisition of XTO Energy in ‘09. Even though natural gas prices have remained low, Exxon has been doubling down in the last few years on natural gas by buying up small and midsize drillers who can’t operate at current prices. And if a carbon tax passes, it will benefit natural gas to the detriment of coal.* If they can use a carbon tax to accelerate the downfall of coal, it would go a long way toward paying off their multiyear natural gas buying spree.

That’s not to say a carbon tax is bad policy—it’s something we desperately need—but Exxon likely has other motives here besides trying to “intelligently address the dangers of climate change.” Exxon is positioned to weather a carbon tax far better than the other oil majors, and would likely see their relative position strengthened as a result of it.*

*In the short to medium term. In the long run, this will incentivize further investment in renewables to the detriment of all fossil fuels, but that is coming regardless and Exxon has been buying out renewable companies for years as well.
Reply
Read More
espo618Hamilton Nolan
6/30/16 1:31pm
At first glace I was really excited, because carbon tax! From Exxon! Then I saw “revenue neutral” and I was all like “fuck you” again. They are basically asking for their tax money to be under a different line item now that they can’t convince any new suckers that climate change is a hoax. They don’t want change, they just don’t want to look like the bad guy, at no cost to them of course. Maybe all those years lobbying against this and paying scientists to refute claims of climate change would have actually SAVED you money and progressed society when we still had the ability to curb our carbon footprint.
Reply
Read More
ReburnsABurningReturnsHamilton Nolan
6/30/16 1:06pm
This is rather less patriotic and heroic, since it would presumably not increase the company’s overall tax bill. But if revenue neutral is the only way we can get a carbon tax passed, then fuck it. We should still do it. Discouraging carbon emissions is worth a corporate tax cut.

Well, it might still increase their tax bill. A revenue neutral tax bill wouldn’t necessarily perfectly even out the net gains and losses from the same companies.

Not only that, anything that puts downward pressure on oil prices(read: not necessarily causing them to decline), which a tax would do, hurts their balance sheet.

But yeah, pragmatically speaking, trading lower corporate tax rates for a carbon tax makes sense. I’m not sure when Congress is going to be willing to consider a non-revenue neutral tax bill, but it won’t be any time in the next 2-4 years.
Reply