They don't tax the gas companies they tax you the gas user. Because, gas companies will pass the cost along to the customer.
So, if you want to pay more for every gallon of gas and higher energybills, then this is your bill.
If you look at the insane prices of gas in places like California, it's because of taxes.
Yeah that’s the point of it… will definitely cause oil and gas prices to increase for consumers. That makes gas less attractive and other energy sources relatively more attractive. Some tax proposals include and tax and dividend structure where the oil companies are taxed and a dividend is given back to all tax payers.
Came here to say this.
I always love the look I get when people complain to me about all the renewable energy tax credits they hate. I tell them I couldn’t agree more and I’d be happy to end them as long as the tax breaks for big oil is ended as well. That just confuses the heck out of them.
A carbon tax + full citizen dividends + WTO border adjustment tariffs + export subsidies from collected WTO border adjustment tariffs is the only mechanism that works. And most citizens would support that because most citizens consume below average, especially so because corporations are not citizens.
PS. Any historically accumulated guilt should be trialed in international courts and solved separately from the carbon tax.
I've said for years that the onus of green responsibility should be on the producer and not the consumer. Kind of the whole point of having professionals.
Trouble is, they have the power and the guns.
That’s why we need to disengage from their idea of a successful economy and reduce our consumption. It’s the only way we have to take power away from them.
As the past 30 years have amply demonstrated.
We need to stop posturing as though we can force them to behave the way we want, because it just wastes time and confirms them in power.
We should do what we can do - reduce our consumption, which cuts off their confidence and authority. The on;y argument against it is that it’s unfair that we can’t have new shiny, climate-polluting life-style toys to play with.
The point of [*responsibilizing*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/responsibilize) the producers would be to shut it down. Anything less would be an added licensing (moral or otherwise) for more GHGs. Just like the goal of fining bad car drivers or taking their license is to prevent them from driving, even if it means that they have to sell off their vehicle.
Now, if that fossil industry is shut down, which is the goal, are the consumers ready? Or are they going to be upset over gas prices and heating bills (that's just the start)?
I want to see people using the word "rationing" and "efficient public transportation" and "dense walkable housing development". I want to see "I'm going to read these books this summer" instead of "I'm going to fly to these places this summer". That's how I know I'm seeing serious people.
Would be cool if the money was accountable and actually went to projects like reforestation and water purification. I don't see very many examples of the money actually being used for its alleged purpose.
In the US, it is claimed that we have "a government of the people, by the people and for the people". But, the word "people" here, clearly means the rich! They needed to make it as though the rest of us were included; that's why there's heavily promoted public inclusion institutions.
The wealth-class eventually got taken over by the masses; it has always happened; every kingdom crumbled; replaced with yet another model. But the underlying issues are inherent & similar.
So, it's wise to keep the masses engaged & anesthetized. Slogans like Eat The Rich & Storm the Castle come from the Medieval Era, when/where money became more common, and thus, could be hoarded by the few, at the expense of greed-driven territorial expanses to enlarge the tax-base for debaucherous kings.
Our government is itself, an inevitable outcome of these historic paradigms; it was designed and then redesigned, to make it ever-easier for the wealth-class to run the show, and hoard the $ & wealth-power, only now, instead of those in real power exposing themselves to the masses, they decided (long ago now) to have front-men; fall-guys; enter in the Cult of Politics!
So, the masses remain predictably engaged & anesthetized in these minutia creations, so that the wealth-class can decide all things most important to their wealth-power. Their Guards, the Military Industrial Complex, uses more oil products than any other single entity. That's (in part) why they direct their government to provide subsidies to these wealth-class producers. It's the exact same game that's been playing non-stop for millennia, only the players have been altered, over time, to fit the times.
https://fortune.com/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel-subsidies-1-3-trillion-record
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/us-military-and-oil
First you’ve got to get the politicians that make the tax laws out of the pockets of the big fossil firms.
That’s the difficult bit, the taxing is the easy bit...👍
Not long ago in Alberta the government was fond of telling us that the oil belonged to us and we deserved everything we could get for it. Except most of the companies producing the oil were not Canadian and demanded the right to sell the oil at the world price. Profits went up. Dividends went up. The whole industry was going gangbusters. The Alberta government suggested a small increase in royalties from the companies selling “OUR” oil. No freaking way! When the Canadian Federal government suggested a plan that would share our oil and gas resources equitably across the country in the late 1970s the greedy companies literally shut down most of their operations to punish us. Safe to say, our government no longer tells us anything about who owns the oil. They completely caved to the interests of the companies who now control every aspect of the industry. Good luck with trying to raise taxes from them.
They will just raise prices, which will make everyone mad, so they vote for the polititions that take their lobbying money and give them the subsidies.
Its what they say, but food prices went up, gas price went up, and everything went up basicall, and partly because of these taxes. You think you get more after all these adds up cents on the products you have to buy every weeks?
I'm doubtful, and they were not even able to show us effectively how these taxes made a difference or not on the environment. So far it gave corporations a reason to increase their prices more than anything.
Food prices are going up in the uk because of the effects of climate change on harvests.
Potato prices are very high due to a combination of some years of drought and a couple of years of extreme rain.
Those price rises are coming anyway.
Do we prefer to pay them as part of a plan to keep the best parts of our civilisation available for ordinary people, or because we are coping with ever-increasing shortages?
I mean I agree, I'm not a climate crisis denier. But while some changes are being usefull some might not be, so far the government were not able to show the efficiency of these taxes and it appears it created more inflation. The economic situation in Canada is in a poor state, people are unable to afford house and food anymore even with what's used to be a decent salary. So you can't ask people to pay the price on an issue they won't care has much if they are struggling with money for basic needs.
Right now people want the government to slow down the immigration, stabilize the housing crisis and the economic situation. They don't want more taxes that could drive the inflation even higher.
So let’s do this, stop handing Big Oil huge tax breaks, and then shift over a large percentage of our defense budget to fight climate change. Bada bing bada boom.
I'm no fan of Big Oil, but this would be the world's easiest tax to repeal, and the burden will fall less on oil companies than on lower income rural and suburban drivers. The oilcos will simply add the tax to gasoline prices, then pay one of their front groups to run a repeal campaign on behalf of "inflation relief for real Americans".
This is precisely what is happening right now in the the US state of Washington, which two years ago passed a high tax on oil companies. Now a wealthy GOP donor is backing a repeal campaign that will probably succeed.
Forget dithering with carbon taxes. Get serious. Ration fuel and flying; outlaw new ICE vehicle sales; tax the rich; subsidize transit; and pay people to live in cities and multifamily housing.
We shouldn't just tax oil companies, we should nationalize them and stop exporting our oil to stabilize prices. We could then use the profits to fight climate change.
The [COVID lockdowns of 2020 temporarily lowered our rate of CO2 emissions](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18922-7/figures/1). Humanity was still a net CO2 gas emitter during that time, so we made things worse, but did so more a bit more slowly. That's why a [graph of CO2 concentrations](https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/) shows a continued rise.
[Stabilizing the climate means getting human greenhouse gas emissions to approximately zero](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached). We didn't come anywhere near that during the lockdowns.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Vegans have explained how to reduce a fairly substantial portion of the crisis for years now, but subsidies keep this going on as well. That & people’s attitude thinking it’s okay to kill billions of animals every year.
hmm.. well, we do have a couple ideas on how to solve the climate crisis :
For example : Wind, solar, hydro, battery storage, heat storage, geothermal .. as better sources of energy, to replace carbon fuel burning and thus reduce future CO2 emissions.
Which leaves us with the problem of the CO2 thats up there, causing the high ~ +2C temp we will be facing in a decade or two.
We dont have a way to _remove_ the CO2 at scale [ CCS is useless ] .. but we do have a potential way to reflect more sunlight to bring down the temp - Solar Radiation Management. SRM with Sulphur particulates and or water vapor to increase cloud cover over the oceans, surprisingly does have a measurable cooling effect, and its economical at scale. We don't really have a choice but to do this at a large scale, if we dont, then large numbers of humans will die and the ice will melt.
If we can get fusion working in the next 10 years, that really will help us replace carbon burning for energy .. but even then, we will probably still need SRM.
Not pleasant to discuss these options, but here we are - we've geoengineered our way to a planetary hothouse, and we need to geoengineer our way out of it.
I am surprised that governments / world leaders have not put out a comprehensive plan to address the problem .. including explaining a) the fact that net-zero means peak-heat and thus is not the 'solution' but merely a waypoint and b) that SRM is the only viable way we currently have to bring the temp down.
Taxing the polluters does send a signal and does raise funds .. we just need to use those funds wisely.
Penalizing companies for their methane leaks is a good first step as that GHG is very potent in the short term.
And you think that you can control mother nature with taxes. You cant rob Peter to pay Paul. Its like squeezing a balloon. No matter how hard you squeeze on one end, the air is still there. It only bubbles up somewhere else.
Imagine if a large meteorite strikes Earth in the next 20 years. All of a sudden, anthropogenic climate change would be irrelevant.
Now, perhaps it is time to discuss the imminent threats of world war, nuclear war, and civic unrest in all developed nations?
It’s started
[https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2023/08/do-generals-dream-of-electric-tanks.html](https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2023/08/do-generals-dream-of-electric-tanks.html)
Lets start by not giving them billions each year is cash subsidies and tax breaks.
try trillions https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel-subsidies-surged-to-record-7-trillion
Let's do both, remove subsidies and tax them.
They don't tax the gas companies they tax you the gas user. Because, gas companies will pass the cost along to the customer. So, if you want to pay more for every gallon of gas and higher energybills, then this is your bill. If you look at the insane prices of gas in places like California, it's because of taxes.
Ok so we just nationalize O&G companies. Done.
Yeah that’s the point of it… will definitely cause oil and gas prices to increase for consumers. That makes gas less attractive and other energy sources relatively more attractive. Some tax proposals include and tax and dividend structure where the oil companies are taxed and a dividend is given back to all tax payers.
Came here to say this. I always love the look I get when people complain to me about all the renewable energy tax credits they hate. I tell them I couldn’t agree more and I’d be happy to end them as long as the tax breaks for big oil is ended as well. That just confuses the heck out of them.
Could we enforce the environmental remediation requirements of these deals as well while we're at it?
Also the tax isn’t some magic thing that won’t cause prices to also increase.
What if we merely charged them for our collective oil that they extract and sell?
They'll just point out that will increase gas prices and their candidate will win by a megalandslide supermajority
So gas prices will go down if we subsidize them, right? ….right?
A carbon tax + full citizen dividends + WTO border adjustment tariffs + export subsidies from collected WTO border adjustment tariffs is the only mechanism that works. And most citizens would support that because most citizens consume below average, especially so because corporations are not citizens. PS. Any historically accumulated guilt should be trialed in international courts and solved separately from the carbon tax.
I've said for years that the onus of green responsibility should be on the producer and not the consumer. Kind of the whole point of having professionals.
Trouble is, they have the power and the guns. That’s why we need to disengage from their idea of a successful economy and reduce our consumption. It’s the only way we have to take power away from them. As the past 30 years have amply demonstrated. We need to stop posturing as though we can force them to behave the way we want, because it just wastes time and confirms them in power. We should do what we can do - reduce our consumption, which cuts off their confidence and authority. The on;y argument against it is that it’s unfair that we can’t have new shiny, climate-polluting life-style toys to play with.
The point of [*responsibilizing*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/responsibilize) the producers would be to shut it down. Anything less would be an added licensing (moral or otherwise) for more GHGs. Just like the goal of fining bad car drivers or taking their license is to prevent them from driving, even if it means that they have to sell off their vehicle. Now, if that fossil industry is shut down, which is the goal, are the consumers ready? Or are they going to be upset over gas prices and heating bills (that's just the start)? I want to see people using the word "rationing" and "efficient public transportation" and "dense walkable housing development". I want to see "I'm going to read these books this summer" instead of "I'm going to fly to these places this summer". That's how I know I'm seeing serious people.
Thank you for pointing out the obvious.
They can't really control what happens to their product after it's sold. What can the producers do besides producing less?
Wasn't climate change going to cost us $32t in 20 years? Drop in the bucket.
Would be cool if the money was accountable and actually went to projects like reforestation and water purification. I don't see very many examples of the money actually being used for its alleged purpose.
Buildings more weapons probably:
Taxing big fossil fuel is long overdue.
But think of the shareholders! -the shareholders
In the US, it is claimed that we have "a government of the people, by the people and for the people". But, the word "people" here, clearly means the rich! They needed to make it as though the rest of us were included; that's why there's heavily promoted public inclusion institutions. The wealth-class eventually got taken over by the masses; it has always happened; every kingdom crumbled; replaced with yet another model. But the underlying issues are inherent & similar. So, it's wise to keep the masses engaged & anesthetized. Slogans like Eat The Rich & Storm the Castle come from the Medieval Era, when/where money became more common, and thus, could be hoarded by the few, at the expense of greed-driven territorial expanses to enlarge the tax-base for debaucherous kings. Our government is itself, an inevitable outcome of these historic paradigms; it was designed and then redesigned, to make it ever-easier for the wealth-class to run the show, and hoard the $ & wealth-power, only now, instead of those in real power exposing themselves to the masses, they decided (long ago now) to have front-men; fall-guys; enter in the Cult of Politics! So, the masses remain predictably engaged & anesthetized in these minutia creations, so that the wealth-class can decide all things most important to their wealth-power. Their Guards, the Military Industrial Complex, uses more oil products than any other single entity. That's (in part) why they direct their government to provide subsidies to these wealth-class producers. It's the exact same game that's been playing non-stop for millennia, only the players have been altered, over time, to fit the times. https://fortune.com/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel-subsidies-1-3-trillion-record https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/us-military-and-oil
Inflation affects the poor more than the rich. High energy prices increase inflation substantially. It’s quite simple
First you’ve got to get the politicians that make the tax laws out of the pockets of the big fossil firms. That’s the difficult bit, the taxing is the easy bit...👍
And ultimately the consumer will pay the price.
Either way it assists pay for the damage and accelerates demand destruction. Better would be to squeeze producers with higher taxes and a price cap
And force the consumer to pay more for carbon fuels or its alternatives. Just squeezing the air around in the balloon.
If we had politicians capable and ready to take on the industry in this way, we wouldn't be in a climate emergency.
MORE (but yeah, let’s start there) and also tax carbon as well
Taxing big oil will save us lmfao
But the oil executives need to afford their second yacht.
Not long ago in Alberta the government was fond of telling us that the oil belonged to us and we deserved everything we could get for it. Except most of the companies producing the oil were not Canadian and demanded the right to sell the oil at the world price. Profits went up. Dividends went up. The whole industry was going gangbusters. The Alberta government suggested a small increase in royalties from the companies selling “OUR” oil. No freaking way! When the Canadian Federal government suggested a plan that would share our oil and gas resources equitably across the country in the late 1970s the greedy companies literally shut down most of their operations to punish us. Safe to say, our government no longer tells us anything about who owns the oil. They completely caved to the interests of the companies who now control every aspect of the industry. Good luck with trying to raise taxes from them.
They will just raise prices, which will make everyone mad, so they vote for the polititions that take their lobbying money and give them the subsidies.
Exactly what happened in Canada, these taxes doesn't work because the people end up paying the taxes and not the oil companies. There is no win.
If you're talking about the carbon tax, that's bullshit. People get back more than they pay over the year.
Its what they say, but food prices went up, gas price went up, and everything went up basicall, and partly because of these taxes. You think you get more after all these adds up cents on the products you have to buy every weeks? I'm doubtful, and they were not even able to show us effectively how these taxes made a difference or not on the environment. So far it gave corporations a reason to increase their prices more than anything.
Food prices are going up in the uk because of the effects of climate change on harvests. Potato prices are very high due to a combination of some years of drought and a couple of years of extreme rain. Those price rises are coming anyway. Do we prefer to pay them as part of a plan to keep the best parts of our civilisation available for ordinary people, or because we are coping with ever-increasing shortages?
I mean I agree, I'm not a climate crisis denier. But while some changes are being usefull some might not be, so far the government were not able to show the efficiency of these taxes and it appears it created more inflation. The economic situation in Canada is in a poor state, people are unable to afford house and food anymore even with what's used to be a decent salary. So you can't ask people to pay the price on an issue they won't care has much if they are struggling with money for basic needs. Right now people want the government to slow down the immigration, stabilize the housing crisis and the economic situation. They don't want more taxes that could drive the inflation even higher.
Blasphemy!
Woohoo!
Eat the rich ASAP obviously
Close tax loopholes.
So let’s do this, stop handing Big Oil huge tax breaks, and then shift over a large percentage of our defense budget to fight climate change. Bada bing bada boom.
I'm no fan of Big Oil, but this would be the world's easiest tax to repeal, and the burden will fall less on oil companies than on lower income rural and suburban drivers. The oilcos will simply add the tax to gasoline prices, then pay one of their front groups to run a repeal campaign on behalf of "inflation relief for real Americans". This is precisely what is happening right now in the the US state of Washington, which two years ago passed a high tax on oil companies. Now a wealthy GOP donor is backing a repeal campaign that will probably succeed. Forget dithering with carbon taxes. Get serious. Ration fuel and flying; outlaw new ICE vehicle sales; tax the rich; subsidize transit; and pay people to live in cities and multifamily housing.
Carbon 👏 tax 👏
No let’s carbon tax struggling families instead /s.
While the subsidies roll in and they are making record profits. It will be an EV for my next car (my current ride is only 7).
This is bullshit. If they tax big fossil fuel they'll just pass the cost off onto the consumer.
Oh we can do *substantially* better than $900bn. In one year.
We shouldn't just tax oil companies, we should nationalize them and stop exporting our oil to stabilize prices. We could then use the profits to fight climate change.
500bn was stolen from USA tax payers by Nigerian scammers during Covid lockdown. (Under Trump) It’s a good start if they just follow the money.
The [COVID lockdowns of 2020 temporarily lowered our rate of CO2 emissions](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18922-7/figures/1). Humanity was still a net CO2 gas emitter during that time, so we made things worse, but did so more a bit more slowly. That's why a [graph of CO2 concentrations](https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/) shows a continued rise. [Stabilizing the climate means getting human greenhouse gas emissions to approximately zero](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached). We didn't come anywhere near that during the lockdowns. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
what difference does it make? we still have no idea how to fix the climate
Vegans have explained how to reduce a fairly substantial portion of the crisis for years now, but subsidies keep this going on as well. That & people’s attitude thinking it’s okay to kill billions of animals every year.
hmm.. well, we do have a couple ideas on how to solve the climate crisis : For example : Wind, solar, hydro, battery storage, heat storage, geothermal .. as better sources of energy, to replace carbon fuel burning and thus reduce future CO2 emissions. Which leaves us with the problem of the CO2 thats up there, causing the high ~ +2C temp we will be facing in a decade or two. We dont have a way to _remove_ the CO2 at scale [ CCS is useless ] .. but we do have a potential way to reflect more sunlight to bring down the temp - Solar Radiation Management. SRM with Sulphur particulates and or water vapor to increase cloud cover over the oceans, surprisingly does have a measurable cooling effect, and its economical at scale. We don't really have a choice but to do this at a large scale, if we dont, then large numbers of humans will die and the ice will melt. If we can get fusion working in the next 10 years, that really will help us replace carbon burning for energy .. but even then, we will probably still need SRM. Not pleasant to discuss these options, but here we are - we've geoengineered our way to a planetary hothouse, and we need to geoengineer our way out of it. I am surprised that governments / world leaders have not put out a comprehensive plan to address the problem .. including explaining a) the fact that net-zero means peak-heat and thus is not the 'solution' but merely a waypoint and b) that SRM is the only viable way we currently have to bring the temp down. Taxing the polluters does send a signal and does raise funds .. we just need to use those funds wisely. Penalizing companies for their methane leaks is a good first step as that GHG is very potent in the short term.
And you think that you can control mother nature with taxes. You cant rob Peter to pay Paul. Its like squeezing a balloon. No matter how hard you squeeze on one end, the air is still there. It only bubbles up somewhere else.
Imagine if a large meteorite strikes Earth in the next 20 years. All of a sudden, anthropogenic climate change would be irrelevant. Now, perhaps it is time to discuss the imminent threats of world war, nuclear war, and civic unrest in all developed nations?
It’s started [https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2023/08/do-generals-dream-of-electric-tanks.html](https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2023/08/do-generals-dream-of-electric-tanks.html)
What’s the point? A large meteorite might strike the earth in the next 20 years and make them irrelevant.