Obama’s Energy nominee: We need carbon tax to double or triple energy cost

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by JamesL, Mar 25, 2013.

  1. JamesL

    JamesL

    It's deja vu all over again:

    President Obama’s Energy secretary nominee regards a carbon tax as one of the simplest ways to move the energy industry towards clean technologies, though he notes that government would have to come up with a plan to mitigate the burden this tax places on poor people, who would pay the most.

    “Ultimately, it has to be cheaper to capture and store it than to release it and pay a price,” MIT professor and Energy nominee Ernest Moniz told the Switch Energy Project in an interview last year. “If we start really squeezing down on carbon dioxide over the next few decades, well, that could double; it could eventually triple. I think inevitably if we squeeze down on carbon, we squeeze up on the cost, it brings along with it a push toward efficiency; it brings along with it a push towards clean technologies in a conventional pollution sense; it brings along with it a push towards security. Because after all, the security issues revolve around carbon bearing fuels.”

    Moniz position is not far from that of Energy Secretary Steven Chu before he took a job in the Obama administration. “We have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” Chu said in 2008. Last year, gas hit $9 a gallon in Greece.

    But Chu renounced that goal in 2012. “I no longer share that view,” Chu told Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah. “When I became Secretary of Energy, I represented the United States government, and I think right now in this economic, very slow, return — these prices could very well affect the comeback of our economy,” he added.

    Moniz acknowledged that such a cost-raising mechanism is not very progressive. “I think it’s very important that any funds associated with that be recycled efficiently to productive uses and to address distributional questions, because some — the poor — may get hit harder than others,” he added. “So, it’s a lot of work to do there. But I think, in the end, if you take one simple thing, that’s the direction that I think we should go in.”


    <iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/38891855?autoplay=1&amp;api=1&amp;player_id=homevideo" width="400" height="300" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe>
     
  2. pspr

    pspr

    Another baby Al Gore with a cabinet post. As if Obama himself isn't bad enough. His cabinet posts are stuffed with ideologs. I don't think Congress has done it's job well vetting appointees but the Dems control such nonsense at the moment.
     
  3. Great vid, thanks:)
     
  4. Cuckoo. Cuckoo.

    Let's tank the entire economy to fix a non-existent global warming by CO2 issue.
     
  5. There is some funny editing going on here. Notice when the interviewer takes off his glasses. Suddenly they are on the table.
    They put that segment in to cover for fact that he now has his glasses off.

    This is just another example of the kind of shameful fraud that is rampant in the denier machine.

    He is NOT talking about energy prices doubling or tripling he is talking about the carbon tax doubling or tripling. Clever editing.

    Which fraud denier website funded by the Koch Bros did this POS come from? WattsUpWithDat?

    And you denier morons let yourselves get lead around like sheep by this shit without even suspecting a thing. Unbelievable.
     
  6. pspr

    pspr

    I hope you'll remember these tunes for next Christmas, FC. It's a nice collection.

    <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dpQXY4tWaoI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
     
  7. Doubling (or tripling) the cost of energy would crash the economy and dramatically increase poverty.
     
  8. pspr

    pspr

    That's exactly the Obama prescription for increasing the democrap voting block.
     
  9. you say that like it's a bad thing...
     
  10. What a surprise pspr is such a loyal Republican/denier that he doesn't even have the personal decency and moral backbone to admit an obvious fraud. It's OK if the fraud supports his dogma I guess. Sure proof that he values saving face over seeing the truth.

    Pathetic excuse for a human being.
     
    #10     Mar 26, 2013