Forum Index » Chaff » The Carbon Flame War


Display Avatars Sort By:
Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: The pace of cooling on 06/23/2011 01:51:44 MDT Print View

Jerry Says in response to me:

"Seems like we should understand it better before we tax our economies into oblivion too."

That's one of those right wing talking points to propogandize people into ignoring global warming.

While they have huge tax loopholes and subsidies for oil and coal and natural gas


How much subsidy does Oil and Gas in the U.S. get in comparison to the tax that is raised on the sale of their products?

I'm not asking for a talking points argument here. I'm asking for some facts and figures. Once we have those, we can have a meaningful discussion about it. If there are no facts and figures forthcoming, I'll move on. Fair?

Stuart R
(Scunnered) - F

Locale: Scotland
Re: Re: Why would anyone want to believe it? on 06/23/2011 02:35:58 MDT Print View

.

Edited by Scunnered on 06/23/2011 02:37:36 MDT.

Stuart R
(Scunnered) - F

Locale: Scotland
Re: Re: Why would anyone want to believe it? on 06/23/2011 02:36:52 MDT Print View

"No sunspots were seen for 50 years during the coldest part of the LIA."

True, but the Little Ice Age began well before the start of the Maunder Minimum.

"the recent announcement of a possible prolonged solar minimum should be a wake up call"

This article puts that recent announcement into perspective: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13792479

To quote a small part:
"In a future grand minimum, the Sun might perhaps again cool the planet by up to 1C.
Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, are expected to raise global temperatures by 1.5-4.5C by 2100.
So even if the predictions are correct, the effect of global warming will outstrip the Sun's ability to cool even in the coldest scenario.
And in any case, the cooling effect is only ever temporary. When the Sun's activity returns to normal, the greenhouse gases won't have gone away."

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Why would anyone want to believe it? on 06/23/2011 07:04:30 MDT Print View

Hi Stuart,

I'm certain the IPCC has underestimated the solar forcing, and as a consequence of doing so, has overestimated the co2 and volcanic forcings. This has come about for several reasons which I won't rehearse again now, unless asked to.

"the Little Ice Age began well before the start of the Maunder Minimum."

That is true, however, intermittent sunspot records and proxy records such as 10Be and historical accounts of flowering times for specific species from Beijing enable a reconstruction of solar activity which suggest a general diminishing of solar activity before the Grand Minimum set in. There is uncertainty attached to this of course, but it should be considered when assessing evidence of the solar- earth climate connections.

The next few years should tell us a lot about the true relative strength of climate driving factors. I anticipate another cold winter, a warmer 2012-2013, then a rapid decline in global temperature from 2014-2015 punctuated by smaller el nino events than 2010. I'll just have to be patient, you can't hurry nature.

Edited by tallbloke on 06/23/2011 07:41:17 MDT.

Steofan The Apostate
(simaulius) - F

Locale: Bohemian Alps
Flaming Hot Carbon on 06/23/2011 08:12:55 MDT Print View

Hi Rog!
Loved the quote,"I anticipate another cold winter, a warmer 2012-2013, then a rapid decline in global temperature from 2014-2015..." Does anyone have an estimate/handle on upcoming snowfall? I seemed to remember reading something from NOAA last summer concerning 2010-2011 winter snowfall amounts which made the ski resort industry very happy but was a real downer for those of us downstream when it all melts.
Thanks!

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: The pace of cooling on 06/23/2011 08:22:22 MDT Print View

"How much subsidy does Oil and Gas in the U.S. get in comparison to the tax that is raised on the sale of their products?"

Exxon and Mobil (or is it Texaco?) pay no U.S. income tax, they actually get money back. The other big oil companies pay a small amount.

There's a lot of gas tax paid in the U.S., but that's supposed to pay for highway construction. The oil companies should pay their fair share of income tax to pay for their fair share of everything they get from the U.S.

The oil companies product produces air pollution that goes into the atmosphere and causes disease, not to mention CO2 that may have a huge cost. They don't have to pay anything for this. "Internalize profit, externalize cost". I have heard estimates that this is $3 per gallon of gasoline, not including the cost of CO2.

The oil companies rely on a stable supply of oil from the middle East and other places. A large part of our military costs go for maintaining this stable supply. I don't think we would have gone into Iraq or Afganistan if not for this. I don't think they would have done the 9/11/2011 terrorist acts if it wasn't for this. I have heard estimates of $3 per gallon of gasoline.

We should have fair U.S. income tax for all companies.

We should raise gasoline tax $6 per gallon (or whatever) and then reduce income tax for people in a way that would make it revenue neutral for the U.S. and the people.

Same thing for coal, heating oil, natural gas, other oil products - you'de have to figure out what their external costs were which would be difficult.

Stuart R
(Scunnered) - F

Locale: Scotland
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why would anyone want to believe it? on 06/23/2011 09:33:43 MDT Print View

Hi Rog

Indeed, any new evidence which helps to settle the argument one way or the other would be very helpful. Patience, as you say.

In the meantime, this country's headlong rush into windpower has me seething. Not only will it make very little difference to CO2 output other than by forcing more manufacturing overseas to avoid increasing electricity prices, but it is destroying our few remaining wild places.

Tax payers money which currently goes to power generators in the form of ROCs and feed-in tarrifs would be much better spent researching alternative means of producing *reliable* power (thorium perhaps?) before the cost of oil becomes prohibitive.

John Vance
(Servingko) - F

Locale: Intermountain West
Hot or cold??? on 06/23/2011 10:00:33 MDT Print View

Just when I was warming up to the idea of global warming I am now being told that we are headed into the next ice age by the same people using the same data!!!! Glad I have a summer AND a winter quilt - I should be covered either way. Come to think of it, my Exped UL7 Synmat and Kookabay downmat are also a good bet as well!

Until then I will be throwing my dead mercury filled compact fluorescent bulbs into the land fill. I just wish I could have saved enough on my electric bill to have covered the cost of the bulbs that don't last any longer the my old incandescent bulbs. Oh well.

Nick Gatel
(ngatel) - MLife

Locale: Southern California
Re: Re: The pace of cooling on 06/23/2011 12:33:22 MDT Print View

Jerry,

"Exxon and Mobil (or is it Texaco?) pay no U.S. income tax, they actually get money back. The other big oil companies pay a small amount."

What money did they get back? Was it money they already paid or tax credits? You and I probably get money back for overpayment of taxes, and we get tax credits (deductions) too.

It is Exxon-Mobil. The other company is Chevron-Texaco. You are referring to 2009 taxes. Exxon-Mobil paid $15 billion in income taxes in 2009, but none in the US. Totally legal. The largest US company is Wal-Mart. They paid $7.1 billion in income taxes. $5.9 billion in the US. Exxon-Mobil has a larger global footprint and generates more total tax dollars. If the US would charge all individual and companies the same percentage of income tax, say 10%, more US companies would re-structure their operations and bring the tax money home. 10% of all incomes is better than 0% of some large corporations, assuming income tax is even beneficial or acceptable. BTW, Exxon-Mobil paid 47 percent of its profits in taxes of some sort.

Also keep in mind that income tax is not the only tax individuals and companies pay. For companies like Exxon-Mobil they pay more money in total taxes than they realize in net income!!

Today in the US, most people are concerned about jobs. High taxes are causing companies to go overseas, or structure their organizations to pay income taxes in other countries. These are global companies, they do business all over the world, and every country and locality wants a piece of their pie. Unchecked, these taxing entities would eat the entire pie, and then complain that the company is not socially responsible. High taxes are causing companies to try and figure ways to reduces expenses and eliminate jobs.


-------------------------
"There's a lot of gas tax paid in the U.S., but that's supposed to pay for highway construction."

Not all of the collected gasoline taxes go to road construction. For years Californians paid a road tax plus a sales tax on gas. A lot of the sales tax worked its way into the general fund. When a gasoline retailer (gas station) receives gas, they pay a lot of taxes that are not ear-marked for roads. One example is the per-gallon EPA Super-fund tax. These taxes are passed on the the consumer.

------------------------
Other taxes

Oil companies pay taxes at the research, extraction, transportation, refining, and delivery points in the supply chain. They pay real estate taxes, capital equipment taxes, inventory taxes, license fees, permit fees, DMV taxes, special use taxes, state and local taxes, FICA, etc., etc. They have invested billions in infrastructure to minimize pollution from their refineries. The actual construction of a single gas station has sophisticated systems for the elimination or mitigation of vapors, tank leaks, monitoring and response systems. Most gas stations in the US are built and owned by the oil companies, and leased to dealers. Again huge taxes paid to local governments for just the operation of gas stations.

Oil companies spend billions to reduce emissions. The other side of the coin is the potential pollution from the end users such as cars or even you, if you use a canister stove. The oil companies cannot control possible emissions from these sources. But those industries also pay a large amount in taxes and pollution remediation measures. A lot of this pollution problem lies with us. For example, someone driving a 1985 Honda is really driving around in a gross polluter, compared to the new cars today, and I am not talking about the EV or Hybrids, just about the standard run of the mill vehicle. Want to help? Get rid of those old polluting cars! Plus new cars get much better mileage, which will reduce our oil consumption. When we point fingers, sometimes we need to turn our hand around and point our finger at ourselves.

-------------------------------

"The oil companies rely on a stable supply of oil from the middle East and other places. A large part of our military costs go for maintaining this stable supply. I don't think we would have gone into Iraq or Afganistan if not for this."

Was this oil driven? Perhaps some of it was. But we were attacked and our mindset was to retaliate. I agree with you here. Both wars were a mistake. With this I will include every war since WWII and all the "actions" we have been involved in. We need to get our military out of all countries. It is not the job of government to "protect our business interests." Nor is nation building.

But the bottom line of all of this is whether we as humans are changing our climate. We are, but research indicates it is minimal and the climate will self correct. We have much larger environmental problems. And companies are not causing all of them. We are. We have too many people on this planet. And we keep reproducing. We will reproduce until we overwhelm all our natural resources. And under the right circumstances, all species will overpopulate themselves... then a large percentage of the population dies off, nature keeps this in check.

Lyan Jordan
(redmonk)

Locale: Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
The Carbon Flame War on 06/23/2011 13:15:00 MDT Print View

" the bottom line of all of this is whether we as humans are changing our climate. We are, but research indicates it is minimal and the climate will self correct."

Source ?

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: The pace of cooling on 06/23/2011 13:38:18 MDT Print View

Deja vu all over again - my head is going to explode : )

I apologize for spamming people with the same stuff over and over again.

Exxon-Mobil and Chevron-Texaco - that's it

They paid a negative tax - not that they over-paid and got some back.

Exxon-Mobil paid 47% tax - to other countries - they paid a negative tax for U.S. income tax - I forget which year, was it 2009? - other years are similar

Yeah, it's legal, they make mega-political contributions and then the "best government money can buy" passes special tax loopholes

Just recently the congress tried to repeal some of these loopholes and 100% of the Republicans and some of the Democrats refused.

Go ahead, blast away, I mentioned the R and D words

Yeah, they pay a bunch of other taxes, but those are unfair too, but there are way too many to go into each one.

You and I agree - get our miltary out of foreign countries. I'm sure you're familiar with "War is a Racket" by Smedley Butler - military contractors make way too much money - we'll never end our military rackets

But I wonder about WWII. I bet that if we only knew, we would find that there were things we could have done to prevent that but the miltary racket people prevented it.

"But the bottom line of all of this is whether we as humans are changing our climate. We are, but research indicates it is minimal and the climate will self correct."

I disagree. As Rog points out, we know little about long term climate change. I predict that in 20 years it will become apparent that CO2 is a major problem and we will regret not doing more today.

Easy prediction because this web site won't be around then. I wonder what computers and internets and web sites and people will be like then???

Nick Gatel
(ngatel) - MLife

Locale: Southern California
Re: Re: Re: Re: The pace of cooling on 06/23/2011 14:59:17 MDT Print View

Jerry,

I am not an Exxon-Mobil fan. Actually I refuse to purchase their products. But can you explain the "they paid a negative tax for U.S. income tax - I forget which year, was it 2009? - other years are similar?"

I think you will find that in 2007 & 2008 their federal income tax liability was something like $4.5 BIL and $3.4 BIL. One has to dig through a lot of documentation to find these numbers, because companies are not required to publish their returns, same as us. Also other taxes paid, reduce income tax liabilities too.

------------------

Like you, I am against political and lobbying expenditures. For me that goes for all special interest groups... individuals, unions, environmental groups, and coroporations. What we must consider is that if some groups are paying for their political agendas, then business will try to counter act that. And I think very poorly of companies that try to obtain any special favors or franchises from government.

------------------

"As Rog points out, we know little about long term climate change." True.

But we don't go and spend huge amounts of money for 'what if' or 'just in case.'

Prove it, then seek a solution.

Maybe we should outlaw backpacking. Iso-propane, alcohol, Esbit, and wood polute the air. And it is us who are engaging in these anti-social behaviors :)

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: The pace of cooling on 06/23/2011 15:30:52 MDT Print View

Jerry says:
I predict that in 20 years it will become apparent that CO2 is a major problem and we will regret not doing more today.


Homer Simpson says:
Prediction is difficult, especially about the future.

In the end, because of the levels of uncertainty in the data, and the quasi-chaotic nature of weather, guesses about the state of the climate in 20 years are all we can make. The question becomes, how good is the knowledge the guess is based on?

Here are some of the reasons I think you are wrong about your guess:

1) There hasn't been any increase in global temperature for a decade or more, yet airbourne co2 has increased by 15%. This is a statement of fact.

2) If this is because of 'natural variation', then it is stronger than originally estimated, which means the warming power of co2 was overestimated, because natural variation was contributing more to warming than estimated during the positive phases of those natural variations which have now turned negative. This is deductive logic.

3) The only solar variation the IPCC takes account of it the raw heating power of the solar energy which arrives on average on Earth. There is abundant research suggesting that the UV part of the solar spectrum has important effects on atmospheric chemistry and marine surface biota and consequent effects on albedo, oceanic absorption of solar radiation and sundry other factors. UV varies up to 15% over the solar cycle whereas the overall solar radiation only varies about 0.1%. Therefore the recent downturn in solar activity will have a bigger effect than the IPCC has estimated.

4) The multi-decadal oceanic cycles are all starting to go negative at once. Global ocean heat content has been falling since 2004.

5) Sea level rise is difficult to measure but the second platform now flying suggests the rate given by University of Colorado is overestimated.

6) The Himalaya isn't melting after all.

7) Antarctic ice is at an all time high since measurement started 30 years ago. Global ice is up too. The Arctic oscillation is following the new oceanic trend and switching negative. Good news for arctic ice, bad news for Canadian farmers.

8) Research into the archeology and geology around the world shows the Medieval warm period did happen after all. Modern warming is not unprecedented, either in amplitude or rate.

9) The warming that did occur between 1976 and 2005 happened in upward step changes following El Nino events. This is inconsistent with a steady increase in co2

10) Increases in co2 follow increases in temperature, not the other way round. Cause precedes effect (except in Goreland).

Here's the proof:

.co2 uah

Co2 in red, lags behind change in temperature. To make the relationship clear, the co2 data has been detrended. The important thing is the timing, not the rate of change.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: The pace of cooling on 06/23/2011 16:40:45 MDT Print View

Exxon paid negative U.S. income tax for 2009:
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/news/1004/gallery.top_5_tax_bills/2.html

U.S. federal: -$156 million
U.S. state and local: $110 million
International: $15.2 billion

"But we don't go and spend huge amounts of money for 'what if' or 'just in case.'

Prove it, then seek a solution"

The ice core data says range of CO2 over the last 500,000 years was 180 to 300 PPM. Now we're at 380 PPM. When you calculate how much CO2 has been produced by buring coal and oil it's obvious that's why the CO2 has rissen.

A lot of climate scientists have studies that show this could cause major climate change. As Rog has shown we know little about long term climate change. From the ice core data, we know that CO2 changes have been associated with huge climate changes.

In 20 years we will have proof is my prediction. Today we have inconclusive evidence.

We should at least take the low cost solutions to reducing CO2 emissions. I'm not saying we have to give up our cars and iso-butane canisters.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: The pace of cooling on 06/23/2011 16:50:48 MDT Print View

Rog, you convinced me at "Here are some of the reasons"

we know so little about long term climate change that natural variations could be cancelling and changes due to CO2

like Nitrogen and Sulfur oxides are cancelling out some of the CO2 changes. And a lot of the CO2 has been absorbed into the ocean, causing a whole new set of problems, but there isn't as much CO2 in the atmosphere

climate scientists are surprised by the most basic effects

but, CO2 is now at 380 PPM. Range over the last 500,000 years is 180 to 300 PPM. This is due to curning coal and oil. Inconclusive evidence says this could be a problem. We better take the easy steps now.

Nick Gatel
(ngatel) - MLife

Locale: Southern California
Re: Re: The pace of cooling on 06/23/2011 19:08:21 MDT Print View

Jerry,

"U.S. federal: -$156 million."

Just because some website says it, does that mean it is true? I looked at your link and there are no facts.

Here is Exxon's 2009 SEC 10-K "Income, sales-based and other taxes statement." It is not their income tax return. They do not publish income tax returns. You can see the - $156M line here. Also, read the notes at the bottom, looks like your reporter missed that one!

EON 2010 SEC 10-K


Most companies file their SEC 10-K long before their income tax return is filed, so the current year tax liabilities or credits usually are not reflective of the acutal tax liability.

Also, did Exxon forward any excess income tax payments from 2008 to 2009? Maybe, and that would explain a lot on this form too. The purpose of the SEC 10-K is to meet SEC requirements, not provide accurate income tax information.

Bottom line is that Exxon has an income tax rate of around 45% year after year. I think that is excessive... the price of gas would sure drop if it were 10%.

So what does the 2010 SEC 10-K look like?
US income tax is $1.3 BIL (after that $156 million from 2009 was deducted).
Total global income tax is $19.9 BIL.
Total of all taxes is $9.8 BIL for the US, and $79.4 BIL golbal.

Do a Google search and you can find Exxon's filing. It will take you a while to read it, as it is 122 pages long.

As I said earlier, I do not like Exxon-Mobil. But I like to deal with facts. Fact is this company pays a LOT of taxes, and employs a lot of people who pay taxes.


So it looks to me like all the stuff everyone is quoting comes from an SEC filing, prepared prior to the income tax return. Not very good reporting, IMO. Kinda like the IPCC scienctists :)


P.S.
Look at the bottom line and you will see they paid significant taxes in the US and the World every year. 2007 & 2008 = $221 BIL.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: The pace of cooling on 06/23/2011 20:02:38 MDT Print View

You're right, the data reported was later revised

Still, they paid no U.S. income tax for 2009, actually negative tax, not fair

and if they paid $1.3 billion in 2010, what was their income, maybe $200 billion, but maybe you should only tax the income they made in the U.S. just guessing $100 billion - so they paid 1.3% - not fair either

George Matthews
(gmatthews) - MLife
Re: exxon and ordinary folks on 06/23/2011 20:30:03 MDT Print View

Think about this...

Exxon Mobil, like all the other gigantic integrated energy companies in US, is NOT owned mostly by Texas oilmen

Believe it or not, it is owned mostly by ordinary folks

Mutual funds, index funds and pension funds (including UNION pension funds) own over 50% of its shares

Individual shareholders (about two million) own almost all the rest except for

Those fatcats who run Exxon own less than 1 percent

It sounds crazy, but the money it earns goes into the pension and retirement accounts of ordinary citizens

SO IF WE GO AFTER EXXON AND REST OF THEM, who are we really hurting?

Again I acknowledge that the situation really sucks, but it is what it is.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: exxon and ordinary folks on 06/23/2011 20:42:20 MDT Print View

It's not GOING AFTER EXXON AND THE REST OF THEM, it's having everyone pay their fair share. If they don't, either we have to pay more or the country runs a deficit. And if we run a deficit then they can claim we're going bankrupt and have to cut programs that benefit average people.

They shouldn't be able to make political contributions and have special tax loopholes

You must be watching those commercials on TV with that atractive lady who says that we all own oil companies, you've been propogandized

Ownership is way skewed to the very wealthy, and it's become more so in the last 30 years

George Matthews
(gmatthews) - MLife
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why would anyone want to believe it? on 06/23/2011 20:49:03 MDT Print View

Rog,

IMO your explanations and arguments are so much more understandable and courageous than the 97%ers.

We all know where you stand and your forecast.

The same can not be said for your opponents. This, I believe, is why I've been skeptical since when I first began reading the concensus research.

Hopefully over the next ten years the research will adjust to reality. Bottom line, in the long run we're all dead : )