Skip to comments.Obama’s Energy nominee: We need carbon tax to double or triple energy cost
Posted on 03/25/2013 2:34:34 PM PDT by Nachum
President Obamas 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Yeah, I need that like I need a hole in my head.
They may give you one......
do we still need to paint our roof white if we buy a credit?
Those mo’fos- I am just enraged at all these taxes!!! Its not worth working.
Cheap energy is the life blood of an economy. It needs it in order to grow and thrive. These idiots think they must destroy this country in order to save it.
I thought his nominee for Energy is the female pres. of REI. Was she pulled? I am confused to say the least.
Naw, Dr Chu is gone.
This guy sounds certifiable.
I read just the other day that between gas and oil, the US has enough energy sources to last several hundred years.
And this guy is spouting windmill, solar, etc, all the stuff that never works as advertised in the real world.
Eff 'em and the horse they rode in on.
Sally Jewell at Interior?
A full blown Barf Alert PING!
Are we willing to sacrifice the keystone pipeline to avoid the carbon tax?
I know I am.
You say you want to double or triple energy cost?
You say you want a revolution?
No doubt they will eventually try.
A side-effect of heavily taxing carbon would vastly increased revenues to government. They would be recycled as redistribution, and they would have to be, because the economic downside of increased energy costs would be a much weaker economy and much higher unemployment. That increases government dependence, and tilts the vote towards the Dems voting the funds.
You have to admire the self-reinforcing beauty of it, in a perverse way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.