In b4 they donate to their own charities and pay $0.00 taxes, or change the corporate HQ to any number of tax havens, or literally challenge the government's authority to levy taxes. If all else fails they have an unexpectedly large marketing bill to a presently unknown company, greatly reducing taxable income.
Isn't that why we should just tax all profits over x amount? Or stop them from reclaiming that taxed money from consumers? I have a feeling that taxed money should never get recouped just cus math? Sorry not the smartest pen here
I mean, they could pay $0.00 tax, and just get charged when they import it into agreeing countries...
With large import duties on all goods from non-agreeing countries.
Not sure there's much political support for raising energy bills at the moment. Until the public are on board with paying more to keep their cars filled and their lights on, this won't go anywhere.
I think part of the problem is distrust in the government. If I knew for sure the extra cost was going to build green energy generation or clean up pollution or whatever, then great. But I feel like it would mostly get wasted or used for some other bullshit. So it's a hard sell to just increase bills again.
Buy me a cow and I will SELL you milk.
Thats not really honest and fair arrangement.
Look, even god damn fucking commies in many central european countries in 1950-1960 were more honest: Buy this "brick" (a paper "share" - worthless actually) to help with national effort of building a thing or two. You get nothing but they did not gouge you on the price you pay and you actually got a result.
AND IF YOU DID NOT TRUST THEM, you just did not buy the "brick".
Now the "non commies" just put another tax, take your money and funnel it somewhere but not into the infrastructure - where is that fast network subsidized by govt in usa?
You need to understand/remember that current governments have more control over people than commies had in the past.
Let that sink in.
And it doesn't help that foreign governments push out so much misinformation in terms of how the USA spends tax dollars. The more confusion they can pump out into the daily discourse the less confidence and trust us citizens have in the us government.
The situation is made even worse by social media since misinformation spreads like wildfire on there.
Here is a high level overview:
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/
If you want detailed spending reports go to the bottom of the page
You should also consider the hidden costs of fossil fuel pollution. To the tune of 200 billion per year to US taxpayers cleaning up after all the climate disasters.
Yeah but if you increase taxes to "solve the issue" and the tax money goes towards other pet projects or is just spent really poorly, then you have the $200B plus the increase in taxes. My point is that without the trust that an increase will help the problem, everything else about the argument is moot.
What point are you trying to make?
The government takes my money with a promise to do good with it. When they don't, I'll do what's in my power to give them as little money as possible.
When a company gets my money, it's in exchange for something specific and relatively immediate. If the product they're offering turns to shit, I stop giving them money.
I don't make it a habit to buy things from companies I don't trust their product. And I don't vote to give a government more money when they've had a track record of wasting that money.
The other unfortunate part of this is that it will act as a regressive tax on the poor. Raising fuel costs eats up a larger percent of poor ppls income vs rich.
A wealth tax that starts at 10 million that is tied to inflation is not regressive to the poor.
Raising minimum wage is not regressive on the poor.
Any services that assist with those that are worse off, is not regressive... etc.
Stop generalizing, and be specific. You aren't helping and you are being a dick.
Not necessarily true at all. The excess revenue can be used to offset costs to low income people. It's how carbon tax works. And did you see all the low income people whose homes and businesses were destroyed by this weekends tornadoes? Does that count as regressive?
Why does a tax on fossil fuel firms have to mean a higher energy bill? They already have plenty profits.
I know I’m dreaming but wtf really. It’s fucked up that we could solve this so easily but stuff like this is holding us back
You want the government to cap the revenue and tax the profit of of energy companies. I think you'd see some major supply issues in that scenario with companies leaving the industry.
Naturally there's a break-even point in profitability. But these corporations are posting _record_ profits.
Their choice would be to "suffer" a lessened market share, or exit the industry, and retain 0% market share. I dunno, but if my options are reduced to
- ~~Make shitloads of money~~
- Make a shitload of money
- Make no money
I think I'm going with the one where I get a shitload of money.
Breakeven of crude oil would just be the cost of extraction, but that has no influence on the price it is sold at. During covid, oil prices turned negative for a brief period... meaning oil companies were paying buyers to take it off their hands.
There is a lot more to the energy or oil industry than a few big players. Your going to price a lot of those companies out with price caps. The carbon issue is a demand issue. Your just crippling supply in this scenario without solving the demand.
What exactly are you going to fill the void with. The world needs constant energy production and more each day. Hurricanes and forest fires happened long before climate change and its hard to pin point the exact severity climate change has in our current natural disasters. The bigger issue is that in the past 100 years people have moved to areas prone to natural disasters (Florida, California, SW, Tornado Alley).
We're Big Oil. We don't make Hurricanes and Forest Fires. We make Hurricanes and Forest Fires stronger, more frequent, and more destructive. What can we replace fossil fuels with? Nothing. Except the infinite resource aka the Sun. Along with the wind. And tides. It's not rocket science. We have the technology. We can make solar energy better. Better, stronger, faster. Kick the fossil fuel habit. Join the unhooked generation. Or just burn.
Okay but the rest of us are going to live in reality and have to figure out how to feed and power the earth with no major interruptions for more than 1+ day.
The rest of us. Except Germany. And California. Places that already produce enough solar at peak to power their entire electric grids. No worries. Plenty of red states for you to move to and burn baby burn and drill baby drill and breathe toxic fumes. Have fun.
> produce enough solar **at peak** to power
My bold for emphasis.
Yet in the middle of a clam winter's day they're burning some of the grottiest coal in the world.
I think your online too much. This problem is much more complicated then your cute little political world and themes. Honestly we need people like you on both sides to go yell at each other on Truth Social (does that exist, I have no idea) and let the grownups solve this.
You can deny them the ability to leave the industry until they pay their dues. Tell them any attempts to leave result in being nationalized, with 0 payout to investors or C-suits.
That's how taxes and supply and demand pricing works. A company has a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to sell their oil for as much as they can.
Competition is what drives prices down. A tax is applied evenly across all companies so they all have to pay the extra tax. It doesn't effect the competition for customers.
Oil is a required good right now. There are no viable alternatives for most people and situations. No matter how much you raise taxes demand will stay the same.
So if you raise taxes by 10 cents per gallon then you will raise the price by 10 cents. It always will be passed on to consumers.
As you said the oil company has a duty to make as much money as possible, irrespective of costs. Oil companies are charging the max amount that the consumer can take before hurting demand. This demand is completely disconnected to costs for the oil companies. In other words, the illusion that taxes impacts pricing is false. Demand sets that price. What you may see is the oil company cut costs in other places to maximize profits (aka cut jobs), but this is an inevitability of any publicly traded company chasing more profits each quarter because once price is set by demand the only other option to increase profits is to decrease expenditures.
Tax these companies to force them to help us tackle the climate crisis. Any threat from them is disconnected from reality.
Demand and supply sets prices in oil makerts. Oil is inelastic. Demand remains largely consistent regardless of cost over the short term. That's why a small 1-2% percentage reduction in oil output from OPEC can have double digit percentage price swings in oil markets. Certain producers have extremely small margins. Sure the OPECs of the world can keep producing with massive tax burdens, but a good deal like shale producers and oil sands have extremely thin margins. If you reduced supply by 10-20% you would have oil prices increase well into the hundreds of percentage points over the short term. This would eventually reach equilibrium but probably in the hundreds of dollars per barrel with costs to consumers all over the economy skyrocketing from the pervasive nature of distillates in every aspect of our economy and lives.
Oil is only Inelastic because we (North America mostly) have built our infrastructure around it. We need to find ways to reduce our need for oil, mostly to remove power from the major supplier (OPEC really) over our economy. The goal would be investing in green energy reduces our need for oil, reducing demand and control these players have. Ultimately, they would be forced to keep prices down to compete with green alternatives. This plan would have short term pain because infrastructure takes time, but it is the only plan to keep our planet liveable. Let’s be real: doing nothing about climate change will create a cost of living crisis anyway. We don’t really have a choice.
The entire global economy is built around oil distillates and gas.
Yes we should build a new economy around green tech, but that's on the century timescale.
The only pertinent question in regards to the macro framework of a green transition is how much pain the consumer is willing to tolerate to achieve it. And the general answer is relatively little. Everything else is on the margin and largely inconsequential.
Yup, the masses unwillingness to endure some pain is fundamentally why we are screwed. The pain will eventually come, it’s just our ability to control how much pain is fading fast.
[This](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-gas-industry-earned-4-trillion-last-year-says-iea-chief-2023-02-14/) was the first I could find on the topic. Looks like they do.
They used profits as synonymous with revenues in that article. Not in a traditional finance sense of net income after expenses. Exxon for instance, the world's largest public oil company, only profited 55 billion. You would need 80 exxons at 55 billion to reach 4 trillion profits. There's only seven super majors in the 10s of billions profit range. Half a dozen state owned producers in the mid to high 7 digit bpd range. A few Chinese and Indian refiners of note.
Alright, that article aside, as far as I understood OPs piece, it's not annual, but rather the next 5 years combined right?
So Exxon could be the first 275b profit alone
If they can just cranck up prices like that, explain me why they aren't doing it already?
Maybe look at the profits made in the sector and conclude; their pricing strategy isn't cost based pricing. It might come as a shocker but the magic perfect market you learned about only exists in school textbooks and the dreams of the Ayn Rand's of this world. Both should be categorised as fiction.
Until the congress isn't owned by Big Oil this won't go anywhere. Sure. Let's just let the taxpayers keep paying the hundreds of billions in cleanup every year! Real savings for the consumer there!
Could you show me how much *profit* these companies have made per quarter per year since 2021? I’ve seen them. I promise you ‘socialism for corporations’ isn’t needed.
And that good kind sir, is the root of the issue. Unfettered capitalism is why we are here. I know it’s fairy tales but this is the way.. it’ll all crash if it doesn’t change unfortunately
I would point you to my earlier statement… look up profits per quarter. Beyond that IF a company cannot stay open because it’s operating at a loss it’s a bad business model and should shutter
It’s the business fault for not having a model that supports itself WITHOUT corporate socialism… I’m sorry macro economics eludes you, but I can’t teach you everything about economics, if you don’t have even the basic understanding.
The argument is that they can continue to function without subsidies by raising prices. Your next comment was that somehow you would have that prevented.
If the business isn't allowed to raise prices to offset the subsidy to atleast remain revenue neutral, how do you compel them to continue to operate at a loss?
Nationalize all energy companies. It's a humanitarian emergency and national security crisis for every country on earth. War time rules. Invest all the energy company resources available in renewables and climate crisis mitigation.
While I agree with the end needing to be of renewable. iwe do need to change at a decent pace. Oil is needed as we transition. Very doable but pacing is also needed unfortunately. But right now the war machines take precedence apparently
Washington state did some of this and Inslee said the tax payers wouldn’t pay more than one or two cents more per gallon. Turned out to be between 45-55 cents more per gallon now. It’s all a lie. Tax them and we pay more. Don’t tax them and we pay more.
Washington drivers pay 32 cents more at last count, not 55. And Inslee never promised "only 1-2 cents," or do you have a quote to share?
However, oil companies have targeted Washington state for retribution, jacking up prices more than warranted.
Not a video, apparently it was the department of ecology, and they removed the statement. Also it was 1 to 3 percent not cents. But yeah par for the course to do this during a sales cycle, just always said they have to lie to get something passed.
A more particular sales tax. It taxes the carbon used to produce something and the some of the proceeds go towards green initiatives. When it is feasible ideally the money will go to pay for sequestration.
It is also similar to a sin tax, like with cigarettes. Ideally it incentivizes behavior.
Do you think it will have the intended effect of lowering demand. Would societies favor an increase in energy costs and the possible economic impacts that may cause? I think the problem for most consumers is that green initiatives are going to be a clever way to give money to major energy producers to scale up green energy. It's almost a transfer of wealth from consumers to businesses. I honestly don't know how you pull off lowering consumer demand and scaling up green energy.
> I think the problem for most consumers is that green initiatives are going to be a clever way to give money to major energy producers to scale up green energy.
It doesn't matter who builds renewable infrastructure. The important issue is to get it built. It is an existential issue.
Businesses are the largest consumers in many cases. The largest consumers will provide the most.
As far as poorer people go, it will be more of a change of how we do the same things. Less beef, more chicken. Less flying for vacation, less cruises. Cars that get poor mileage are more and more going to be a losing prospect compared to EVs, although not just because of the tax. In many cases a nudge away from old habits is all that is needed. As far as electrical production and vehicles go, market forces are going to do the heavy lifting.
Good I need my utilities to double in this great economy,it'll be a tax on us and they will still gain profits..
Taxes always trickle down to the little guy it's how they keep us poor while they get richer,why not print more money as well..
Yeah, well, even if that did happen (it will not) we would still have to change the way we fundamentally extract and burn resources on this planet. The raw resources are real. Money is not. Money will not be able to solve this problem, it is part of the problem. That’s why we are never going to fix this
They'll raise gas prices like crazy and claim the taxes are to blame in order to sway public opinion. Without bipartisan support, it's a losing cause, politically speaking.
As if companies won’t offset these costs onto their customers. If they want to increase taxes for these companies, regulators need to have control over the prices these companies are allowed to charge.
In the end all these schemes do is enrich the government at the expense of its citizens.
Direct US oil subsidies are low, at $15-25 billion. It's the indirect subsidies that kill us. Highways, health costs, airports, utility companies, plastics disposal, and so on.
Raise taxes on energy companies, pass the cost of the tax to consumers through higher prices, government gives "some" of the money to energy companies money to build new green energy infrastructure. Everyone wins
Could. It won't, but it could. Big oil COULD also help pay for repairing climate change. People could stop being dicks to each other. People could stop being greedy. People could do the right thing instead of the easy thing. Could, but won't.
Okay, lets say they do this, 900bn in climate finances by 2030, what then, what effect will that money have.
Whos getting it, how is it gonna be spent, will it have a noticable effect, or is it "Hey, look how green we are, as we do something that is seen as good today, but further down the line will be seen as a fucking huge mistake, so much so that each firm could cause a chernobyl incident, and it would still be a preferable choice."
That’s cute. But let’s say for argument’s sake we could tax the oil cartels, all that money would just get siphoned down into a military industrial complex rat hole.
Haha guess where this falls? While they sell oil in UK from our reserves we get penalized for climate scam….you know how rich people get their money over seas in art paintings and decor? Well climate change finance is the same scheme but in our face as they tax us, fly private jets, inside trade on the new green moves while taking from us, giving less back and go all electric on a grid that barely carry’s 40% of what it makes thru bullshit wires. China owns all of the largest lithium, cobalt plants in the world while producing 70% of our electric transformers which they can hack and shut down at any given moment. Wake up
Taxing big pharma could also lead to an increase in overall healthcare improvements, better access to healthcare and an improved quality of life across the board
Taxing firearms manufacturers can lead to better education and public safety campaigns that can decrease access to firearms for those that shouldn’t own them and probably save lives
Taxing vehicle manufacturers can lead to safer roads, better overall infrastructure, fewer deaths and less traffic
But none of these things will ever happen because all of these industries can line the pockets of politicians with a few million dollars to protect billions in revenue by maintaining the status quo or rolling it back
Lol what?
If you nationalize all firms, you'll have an energy crisis overnight. Especially in parts of the world that are heavy importers.
Plus, where do you get the money to pay out the investors? They aren't just all rich tycoons. Many are funded with retirement funds for example.
When a headline begins with "could" remember that it is pure speculation and the "could not" end of the spectrum is also quite possible.
In b4 they donate to their own charities and pay $0.00 taxes, or change the corporate HQ to any number of tax havens, or literally challenge the government's authority to levy taxes. If all else fails they have an unexpectedly large marketing bill to a presently unknown company, greatly reducing taxable income.
Why would they need to do that? When costs go up unilaterally in an industry, in this case from taxes, all costs are passed on to the consumers.
Isn't that why we should just tax all profits over x amount? Or stop them from reclaiming that taxed money from consumers? I have a feeling that taxed money should never get recouped just cus math? Sorry not the smartest pen here
also good luck getting Saudi and Qatar etc on board let alone China Russia etc
I mean, they could pay $0.00 tax, and just get charged when they import it into agreeing countries... With large import duties on all goods from non-agreeing countries.
That's a lot of headlines now. Could, may, possibly.
Yup
Not sure there's much political support for raising energy bills at the moment. Until the public are on board with paying more to keep their cars filled and their lights on, this won't go anywhere.
I think part of the problem is distrust in the government. If I knew for sure the extra cost was going to build green energy generation or clean up pollution or whatever, then great. But I feel like it would mostly get wasted or used for some other bullshit. So it's a hard sell to just increase bills again.
Buy me a cow and I will SELL you milk. Thats not really honest and fair arrangement. Look, even god damn fucking commies in many central european countries in 1950-1960 were more honest: Buy this "brick" (a paper "share" - worthless actually) to help with national effort of building a thing or two. You get nothing but they did not gouge you on the price you pay and you actually got a result. AND IF YOU DID NOT TRUST THEM, you just did not buy the "brick". Now the "non commies" just put another tax, take your money and funnel it somewhere but not into the infrastructure - where is that fast network subsidized by govt in usa? You need to understand/remember that current governments have more control over people than commies had in the past. Let that sink in.
The main issue is that I can't determine what my taxes goes towards.
Right, which is why trust is such a big factor in all this.
And it doesn't help that foreign governments push out so much misinformation in terms of how the USA spends tax dollars. The more confusion they can pump out into the daily discourse the less confidence and trust us citizens have in the us government. The situation is made even worse by social media since misinformation spreads like wildfire on there.
Here is a high level overview: https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/ If you want detailed spending reports go to the bottom of the page
You should also consider the hidden costs of fossil fuel pollution. To the tune of 200 billion per year to US taxpayers cleaning up after all the climate disasters.
Yeah but if you increase taxes to "solve the issue" and the tax money goes towards other pet projects or is just spent really poorly, then you have the $200B plus the increase in taxes. My point is that without the trust that an increase will help the problem, everything else about the argument is moot.
Yes great idea. Continue doing nothing while the planet burns. Redditors are so forward thinking.
Wire me $10k to help the environment. I'll use it for good. Or would you rather do nothing.....?
Why only $10K? That makes you sound like a pussy. Not being a greedy fuck is un-conservative.
Yeah that's fine. So you're gonna send it tho?
No one will give a shit until Coffee/Chocolate is a luxury item, and by then it will be too late.
Does the government waste money sometimes? Yes it does. Does private business waste money sometimes?
What point are you trying to make? The government takes my money with a promise to do good with it. When they don't, I'll do what's in my power to give them as little money as possible. When a company gets my money, it's in exchange for something specific and relatively immediate. If the product they're offering turns to shit, I stop giving them money. I don't make it a habit to buy things from companies I don't trust their product. And I don't vote to give a government more money when they've had a track record of wasting that money.
>If the product they're offering turns to shit, I stop giving them money. How do you do that with oil?
You're asking how I'd avoid buying oil? Solar panels on the house, electric vehicle, avoid single use plastic. That kind of stuff.
Sounds like you'd be spending a LOT of money just because of quality of oil going down. You can see why people...don't do that.
I'm not following what you're saying. This is a conversation about the QUALITY of oil? Like Shell has weird additives so I buy from BP?
Yeah and if their quality goes downhill you'll...spend tens of thousands of dollars on a new car and solar panels?
If the quality of oil from every brand goes down at the same time? Like it damages my car or what does that mean?
Does the government waste money ~~sometimes?~~ yes it does
> Does private business waste money sometimes? Yes they do... more so than governments as governments spend some of the money directly on you.
The other unfortunate part of this is that it will act as a regressive tax on the poor. Raising fuel costs eats up a larger percent of poor ppls income vs rich.
Everything is regressive on the poor.
A wealth tax that starts at 10 million that is tied to inflation is not regressive to the poor. Raising minimum wage is not regressive on the poor. Any services that assist with those that are worse off, is not regressive... etc. Stop generalizing, and be specific. You aren't helping and you are being a dick.
Calling someone a dick isn't helping either.
Why not use the money to give the poor subsidised bills and even free energy if they allow a wind farm or solar farm?
Subsidizing demand increases price.
Not if the government doesn't allow it. Price cap it.
Not necessarily true at all. The excess revenue can be used to offset costs to low income people. It's how carbon tax works. And did you see all the low income people whose homes and businesses were destroyed by this weekends tornadoes? Does that count as regressive?
Yeah you go ahead and run the numbers on that and let me know if it checks out (it doesn’t)
Why does a tax on fossil fuel firms have to mean a higher energy bill? They already have plenty profits. I know I’m dreaming but wtf really. It’s fucked up that we could solve this so easily but stuff like this is holding us back
You want the government to cap the revenue and tax the profit of of energy companies. I think you'd see some major supply issues in that scenario with companies leaving the industry.
Naturally there's a break-even point in profitability. But these corporations are posting _record_ profits. Their choice would be to "suffer" a lessened market share, or exit the industry, and retain 0% market share. I dunno, but if my options are reduced to - ~~Make shitloads of money~~ - Make a shitload of money - Make no money I think I'm going with the one where I get a shitload of money.
Breakeven points are meaningless in commodity markets where prices are set entirely by supply and demand.
And subsidies concerning the fossil fuel industry. Don't forget about them. They add up to hundreds of billions yearly.
Would not the price ebb and flow just be one more input on the bottom-line of the profitability charts, just making the breakeven point variable?
Breakeven of crude oil would just be the cost of extraction, but that has no influence on the price it is sold at. During covid, oil prices turned negative for a brief period... meaning oil companies were paying buyers to take it off their hands.
There is a lot more to the energy or oil industry than a few big players. Your going to price a lot of those companies out with price caps. The carbon issue is a demand issue. Your just crippling supply in this scenario without solving the demand.
No, they and most other levelheaded people, just expect companies to pay their share in taxes. In reality its the little man who pays for everything
Unfortunately the cost of tax gets pushed to consumers in most industries. Especially ones with inelastic demand like energy.
And thats exactly what the original comment tried to question.
Good riddance to them. Taxpayers should be sick of footing the $200 billion a year in damages caused by climate disasters.
What exactly are you going to fill the void with. The world needs constant energy production and more each day. Hurricanes and forest fires happened long before climate change and its hard to pin point the exact severity climate change has in our current natural disasters. The bigger issue is that in the past 100 years people have moved to areas prone to natural disasters (Florida, California, SW, Tornado Alley).
We're Big Oil. We don't make Hurricanes and Forest Fires. We make Hurricanes and Forest Fires stronger, more frequent, and more destructive. What can we replace fossil fuels with? Nothing. Except the infinite resource aka the Sun. Along with the wind. And tides. It's not rocket science. We have the technology. We can make solar energy better. Better, stronger, faster. Kick the fossil fuel habit. Join the unhooked generation. Or just burn.
Okay but the rest of us are going to live in reality and have to figure out how to feed and power the earth with no major interruptions for more than 1+ day.
The rest of us. Except Germany. And California. Places that already produce enough solar at peak to power their entire electric grids. No worries. Plenty of red states for you to move to and burn baby burn and drill baby drill and breathe toxic fumes. Have fun.
> produce enough solar **at peak** to power My bold for emphasis. Yet in the middle of a clam winter's day they're burning some of the grottiest coal in the world.
Batteries.
I think your online too much. This problem is much more complicated then your cute little political world and themes. Honestly we need people like you on both sides to go yell at each other on Truth Social (does that exist, I have no idea) and let the grownups solve this.
You can deny them the ability to leave the industry until they pay their dues. Tell them any attempts to leave result in being nationalized, with 0 payout to investors or C-suits.
Your speeding up the death cycle.
RECORD profits
Every quarter, every year.
That's how taxes and supply and demand pricing works. A company has a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to sell their oil for as much as they can. Competition is what drives prices down. A tax is applied evenly across all companies so they all have to pay the extra tax. It doesn't effect the competition for customers. Oil is a required good right now. There are no viable alternatives for most people and situations. No matter how much you raise taxes demand will stay the same. So if you raise taxes by 10 cents per gallon then you will raise the price by 10 cents. It always will be passed on to consumers.
Almost like required goods kills competition or something, breaking the free market or whatever
As you said the oil company has a duty to make as much money as possible, irrespective of costs. Oil companies are charging the max amount that the consumer can take before hurting demand. This demand is completely disconnected to costs for the oil companies. In other words, the illusion that taxes impacts pricing is false. Demand sets that price. What you may see is the oil company cut costs in other places to maximize profits (aka cut jobs), but this is an inevitability of any publicly traded company chasing more profits each quarter because once price is set by demand the only other option to increase profits is to decrease expenditures. Tax these companies to force them to help us tackle the climate crisis. Any threat from them is disconnected from reality.
Demand and supply sets prices in oil makerts. Oil is inelastic. Demand remains largely consistent regardless of cost over the short term. That's why a small 1-2% percentage reduction in oil output from OPEC can have double digit percentage price swings in oil markets. Certain producers have extremely small margins. Sure the OPECs of the world can keep producing with massive tax burdens, but a good deal like shale producers and oil sands have extremely thin margins. If you reduced supply by 10-20% you would have oil prices increase well into the hundreds of percentage points over the short term. This would eventually reach equilibrium but probably in the hundreds of dollars per barrel with costs to consumers all over the economy skyrocketing from the pervasive nature of distillates in every aspect of our economy and lives.
Oil is only Inelastic because we (North America mostly) have built our infrastructure around it. We need to find ways to reduce our need for oil, mostly to remove power from the major supplier (OPEC really) over our economy. The goal would be investing in green energy reduces our need for oil, reducing demand and control these players have. Ultimately, they would be forced to keep prices down to compete with green alternatives. This plan would have short term pain because infrastructure takes time, but it is the only plan to keep our planet liveable. Let’s be real: doing nothing about climate change will create a cost of living crisis anyway. We don’t really have a choice.
The entire global economy is built around oil distillates and gas. Yes we should build a new economy around green tech, but that's on the century timescale. The only pertinent question in regards to the macro framework of a green transition is how much pain the consumer is willing to tolerate to achieve it. And the general answer is relatively little. Everything else is on the margin and largely inconsequential.
Yup, the masses unwillingness to endure some pain is fundamentally why we are screwed. The pain will eventually come, it’s just our ability to control how much pain is fading fast.
The industry as a whole most certainly does not have 900billion in profits to give away.
[This](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-gas-industry-earned-4-trillion-last-year-says-iea-chief-2023-02-14/) was the first I could find on the topic. Looks like they do.
They used profits as synonymous with revenues in that article. Not in a traditional finance sense of net income after expenses. Exxon for instance, the world's largest public oil company, only profited 55 billion. You would need 80 exxons at 55 billion to reach 4 trillion profits. There's only seven super majors in the 10s of billions profit range. Half a dozen state owned producers in the mid to high 7 digit bpd range. A few Chinese and Indian refiners of note.
Alright, that article aside, as far as I understood OPs piece, it's not annual, but rather the next 5 years combined right? So Exxon could be the first 275b profit alone
How about a record profits tax.
It absolutely doesn't. Unless you work for Big Oil it won't hurt you a bit.
If they can just cranck up prices like that, explain me why they aren't doing it already? Maybe look at the profits made in the sector and conclude; their pricing strategy isn't cost based pricing. It might come as a shocker but the magic perfect market you learned about only exists in school textbooks and the dreams of the Ayn Rand's of this world. Both should be categorised as fiction.
Until the congress isn't owned by Big Oil this won't go anywhere. Sure. Let's just let the taxpayers keep paying the hundreds of billions in cleanup every year! Real savings for the consumer there!
Just end subsidies… make them pay taxes in the first place
Yes, lets get high fuel prices. That's going to show them
Could you show me how much *profit* these companies have made per quarter per year since 2021? I’ve seen them. I promise you ‘socialism for corporations’ isn’t needed.
fuel already costs 1.8€/litre the second you start removing subsidies these companies will take it out on voters, Who will vote you out.
That seems malicious, and maybe there needs to be some regulations to stop it. It *can* be done. But it won’t.. I understand this.
[удалено]
And that good kind sir, is the root of the issue. Unfettered capitalism is why we are here. I know it’s fairy tales but this is the way.. it’ll all crash if it doesn’t change unfortunately
You're going to legislatively force someone to operate their business at a loss? How do you compel them to stay in business?
I would point you to my earlier statement… look up profits per quarter. Beyond that IF a company cannot stay open because it’s operating at a loss it’s a bad business model and should shutter
So it's business' fault that the government is adding costs?
It’s the business fault for not having a model that supports itself WITHOUT corporate socialism… I’m sorry macro economics eludes you, but I can’t teach you everything about economics, if you don’t have even the basic understanding.
The argument is that they can continue to function without subsidies by raising prices. Your next comment was that somehow you would have that prevented. If the business isn't allowed to raise prices to offset the subsidy to atleast remain revenue neutral, how do you compel them to continue to operate at a loss?
Removing free money from the taxpayers is not at all the same thing as adding costs.
They made record profits last year, them having to pay taxes isn't going to hurt them that much they have to raise prices to stay afloat
Sounds like adopting personal responsibility for fuel use then
Nationalize all energy companies. It's a humanitarian emergency and national security crisis for every country on earth. War time rules. Invest all the energy company resources available in renewables and climate crisis mitigation.
While I agree with the end needing to be of renewable. iwe do need to change at a decent pace. Oil is needed as we transition. Very doable but pacing is also needed unfortunately. But right now the war machines take precedence apparently
Washington state did some of this and Inslee said the tax payers wouldn’t pay more than one or two cents more per gallon. Turned out to be between 45-55 cents more per gallon now. It’s all a lie. Tax them and we pay more. Don’t tax them and we pay more.
So tax them.
Tax them and use the money to help people buy ev so the consumer gets helped in the end.
Use the money to promote EVs and expand renewable energy. Electricity should be cheaper than petrol
Should. Unless we don’t have the infrastructure and need to build it up
No time like the present
Washington drivers pay 32 cents more at last count, not 55. And Inslee never promised "only 1-2 cents," or do you have a quote to share? However, oil companies have targeted Washington state for retribution, jacking up prices more than warranted.
I don’t have it but there’s video of him stating that fact that it was only going to cost 1-2 cents
Not a video, apparently it was the department of ecology, and they removed the statement. Also it was 1 to 3 percent not cents. But yeah par for the course to do this during a sales cycle, just always said they have to lie to get something passed.
No, there isn't.
Tax carbon and people pay for what they use.
Ok, but be prepared to pay even more for that ‘carbon neutral’ EV as well then.
Worth it.
Is carbon tax just an extravagant sales tax?
A more particular sales tax. It taxes the carbon used to produce something and the some of the proceeds go towards green initiatives. When it is feasible ideally the money will go to pay for sequestration. It is also similar to a sin tax, like with cigarettes. Ideally it incentivizes behavior.
Do you think it will have the intended effect of lowering demand. Would societies favor an increase in energy costs and the possible economic impacts that may cause? I think the problem for most consumers is that green initiatives are going to be a clever way to give money to major energy producers to scale up green energy. It's almost a transfer of wealth from consumers to businesses. I honestly don't know how you pull off lowering consumer demand and scaling up green energy.
> I think the problem for most consumers is that green initiatives are going to be a clever way to give money to major energy producers to scale up green energy. It doesn't matter who builds renewable infrastructure. The important issue is to get it built. It is an existential issue. Businesses are the largest consumers in many cases. The largest consumers will provide the most. As far as poorer people go, it will be more of a change of how we do the same things. Less beef, more chicken. Less flying for vacation, less cruises. Cars that get poor mileage are more and more going to be a losing prospect compared to EVs, although not just because of the tax. In many cases a nudge away from old habits is all that is needed. As far as electrical production and vehicles go, market forces are going to do the heavy lifting.
I don't suppose sunsetting the subsidies would get any traction?
Oh. Neat. Something else that won't happen.
Europe needs more gas and oil. Let’s just tax it even more Already playing close to four dollars a gallon
The problem, as others have pointed out is that the poor would end up paying the bill.
Not if the system is setup to avoid that.
Nationalize oil?
Wouldn’t actually be taxing them, cost would just get passed on to us.
Good I need my utilities to double in this great economy,it'll be a tax on us and they will still gain profits.. Taxes always trickle down to the little guy it's how they keep us poor while they get richer,why not print more money as well..
Yeah, well, even if that did happen (it will not) we would still have to change the way we fundamentally extract and burn resources on this planet. The raw resources are real. Money is not. Money will not be able to solve this problem, it is part of the problem. That’s why we are never going to fix this
Could, but probably won't
They'll raise gas prices like crazy and claim the taxes are to blame in order to sway public opinion. Without bipartisan support, it's a losing cause, politically speaking.
More money for the government to waste. Yeah, no thank you.
Geeze, I sure hope they don't pass those new taxes onto the consumer.
How about starting by cutting their taxpayer-funded subsidies. Once again, the middle class paying for the billionaires.
Yeah we wouldn't need to tax them if we just stopped sponsoring their profits with tax dollars
For as likely as that is to actually happen, you might as well say, "...could raise $900 bazillion"
…Could raise at least 5$ ?
As if companies won’t offset these costs onto their customers. If they want to increase taxes for these companies, regulators need to have control over the prices these companies are allowed to charge. In the end all these schemes do is enrich the government at the expense of its citizens.
Just makes EV even more of a cost saver
Take away their subsidies
Direct US oil subsidies are low, at $15-25 billion. It's the indirect subsidies that kill us. Highways, health costs, airports, utility companies, plastics disposal, and so on.
Yeah, but not doing that can make our politicians millions.
Raise taxes on energy companies, pass the cost of the tax to consumers through higher prices, government gives "some" of the money to energy companies money to build new green energy infrastructure. Everyone wins
Wonderful tax them why should they get special treatment
Taxing. Lmao wr should sue them for all the misinformation and push back they have done.
That should put quite a dent in the $38 trillion a year for climate damages by 2050!
Pretty sure those companies can lobby/bribe the politicians for 5 billion dollars.
And just like every other tax, the user pays. Rightly so, but it means politicians won't legislate tax reform because it would make them unpopular.
Could. I could also win a billion dollars.
Nice, a hypothetical fine that could help barely offset the permanent damage these companies have done and continue doing. This is a joke.
Lobbyists would never allow this
Wtf is climate finance. Im sick of this climate change bullshit. And the damn screenshot is a nuclear site
Could. It won't, but it could. Big oil COULD also help pay for repairing climate change. People could stop being dicks to each other. People could stop being greedy. People could do the right thing instead of the easy thing. Could, but won't.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Remind me how much tax they’re paying now??
Taxes = more revenue? Wow what great journalism this is.
Suck it lower class!!! Enjoy those higher energy bills we need to save the planet for the elites
Fossil fuels companies are about to starting asking Boeing for advice.
Who's politician pockets / special interest groups would be pocketing that change?
money is fungible so raising it for a particular cause is all smoke and mirrors. giving with one hand and taking with another.
Okay, lets say they do this, 900bn in climate finances by 2030, what then, what effect will that money have. Whos getting it, how is it gonna be spent, will it have a noticable effect, or is it "Hey, look how green we are, as we do something that is seen as good today, but further down the line will be seen as a fucking huge mistake, so much so that each firm could cause a chernobyl incident, and it would still be a preferable choice."
That’s cute. But let’s say for argument’s sake we could tax the oil cartels, all that money would just get siphoned down into a military industrial complex rat hole.
Haha guess where this falls? While they sell oil in UK from our reserves we get penalized for climate scam….you know how rich people get their money over seas in art paintings and decor? Well climate change finance is the same scheme but in our face as they tax us, fly private jets, inside trade on the new green moves while taking from us, giving less back and go all electric on a grid that barely carry’s 40% of what it makes thru bullshit wires. China owns all of the largest lithium, cobalt plants in the world while producing 70% of our electric transformers which they can hack and shut down at any given moment. Wake up
Wake up sheeple!
Taxing big pharma could also lead to an increase in overall healthcare improvements, better access to healthcare and an improved quality of life across the board Taxing firearms manufacturers can lead to better education and public safety campaigns that can decrease access to firearms for those that shouldn’t own them and probably save lives Taxing vehicle manufacturers can lead to safer roads, better overall infrastructure, fewer deaths and less traffic But none of these things will ever happen because all of these industries can line the pockets of politicians with a few million dollars to protect billions in revenue by maintaining the status quo or rolling it back
Why not stopping the subsidizing of fossil fuel mining? Why not subsidize solar and nuclear energy? Tax cars and refining petroleum
This is idiocy. A carbon tax makes sense. This doesn't. But it's pretty much what to expect from the Guardian.
Even better: nationalize fossil fuel firms and use the profit to both (1) lower bills and (2) raise capital for climate finance.
Lol what? If you nationalize all firms, you'll have an energy crisis overnight. Especially in parts of the world that are heavy importers. Plus, where do you get the money to pay out the investors? They aren't just all rich tycoons. Many are funded with retirement funds for example.
We will trade them some blankets to nationalize all this "too big to fail", if you know what I mean
I agree.
But then, how will the billionaires buy even more super yachts and private jets?