120 comments on Paying for Post-Peak Oil Mitigation
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
120 comments on Paying for Post-Peak Oil Mitigation
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- Thanksgiving Open Campfire Thread
- How Relocalization Worked
- How to Set Up and Run a Bicycle Repair Company
TOD:Europe
- Unique Times -- and the Future
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Friday 27th November 2009
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“If kindness and comfort are, as I suspect, the results of an energy surplus, then, as the supply contracts, we could be expected to start fighting once again like cats in a sack.”
—George Monbiot
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Alan
I seem to remember talk in the EU of imposing a tariff on the US and others who had done nothing practical to address CO2 under a similar aspect of the WTO free trade agreements. I don't remember the precise wording, but I would assume if the US imposed the tariff you talked about on the EU then that tariff would in turn be imposed on the US, etc.
Thus you can forget the idea of it not being inflationary and the US essentially being able to tax others to makeup for its lack of attention and action at home (which is what I think you imply).
Its up to the US to elect a strong and sane enough leader this time round to be able to shoulder its responsibilities rather than attempting to avoid the structural change needed. Nobody else is going to bale you out, and its pretty reprehensible to try to find a way to force them to.
A few EU nations may be running a structural trade deficit (UK ?) but very few. And this tariff is ONLY available for those nations with structural trade deficits according to WTO rules.
From the EU perspective, 1) It would be *GREAT* if the USA got serious doing something about oil use and GHG emissions (less competition for existing oil supplies for example) and 2) if the US $ rose from 0.68 euros to 0.70 euros, the tariff would have no effect,
Alan
I think you're missing the point. The issue wasn't on trade deficits, it was on another part of the agreements. I found this story talking about it.
As such all your proposal would do would be to create added impetus for global trade barriers - which would certainly harm the US and its interests.
Fundamentally you are trying to tax exporters to the US to pay for schemes which should be coming out of taxes on US citizens. That won't wash, others won't let the US get away with such a low trick and the upshot will be to hurt the US.
[Note: the global community can deliver the improvement in the US excess oil use / CO2 production by imposing such a tariff on US exports (producing a US recession) and keeping the money themselves. The US taxing global exporters to pay for their action is not an enticing case in comparison.]
Exactly.
All this would do is trigger a round of reciprocal rises in tariffs on US goods and services (Microsoft, EDS, Apple, Accenture, Intel, etc. would not be pleased).
In addition, your "oh, the US$ would rise in value also" is nonsensical.
Why not simply tax oil consumption? Ration by price.
Why not simply tax oil consumption?
Other than the specific case of filling the SPR, I do not think that it is a viable option in the near future. And even for filling he SPR, I doubt it.
I go back to Senator Long's dictum.
Alan
Hi Alan,
If you're checking back here, thanks for working on this topic.
re: "I do not think that it is a viable option in the near future..."
Why not?
And...
Could you get the same results from a "tax on oil consumption" *if* it *was* "viable"?
The WTO treaty governs the actions of the global trading community, and I have found a valid clause that applies to our situtation.
the global community can deliver the improvement in the US excess oil use / CO2 production by imposing such a tariff on US exports is *NOT* according to the rules of the treaty.
BTW, I do NOT think that the current situation of the USA importing $3 and exporting $2 is sustainable long term. Especially as oil climbs in price. A controlled change seems to be in the enlightened self interest of all. And that is what I am proposing.
Alan
As I pointed out, the EU already has a case to impose tariffs on US exports using different provisions; and indeed have considered it already at a fairly senior level within the EU. Its basically under the rules that allow tariffs to ensure a level playing field is maintained and one country cannot gain an advantage by damaging the environment - eg IT IS LEGAL. My guess is they backed off to prevent a trade war - but in the world you suggest they would have no problem imposing that and other taxes.
There is no way you are going to find it possible to tax other countries to pay for what should be funded by the US itself.
Sorry, time to think again.
Your 'controlled change' has to be focused on the US taking responsibility for the US created problems with US funds; not trying to 'slope shoulder' them when the US has the financial means to deal with them.
The program I have proposed would take the USA from those that are not doing anything about GHG emissions to a leader in reduction (50% reduction in 30 years per Millennium Institute T21 modeling). So the USA would no longer be subject to that provision under WTO.
And yes, taxing that "fellow behind the tree" is very politically appealing. And that fellow will find 1) little alternative except to pay and 2) in his/her national interest to pay.
We have a MASSIVE trade deficit and you do not. That is the difference.
We will reduce this deficit NOT by reducing imports of French wine, Japanese cars or German machine tools (3% will make little difference before currency adjustments and none after) but by reducing our oil imports !
Alan
Too bad we spent 2+ TRILLION on Iraq and have nothing to show for it...that would have funded all of the above and then some.
This govt has known about PO for a looong time and has done Nothing about it. They never will until there are shortages and then it will be too late.
Unfortunately that is blood into the sand (unless McCain gets elected, then expect Phase II) and cannot be reversed.
I am looking forward.
Alan
Err, ONLY with McCain?
Well, guaranteed with McCain. "Stay the course till victory", "We will NEVER accept defeat", etc.
I see four more LONG and bloody years with McCain.
Unfortunately Richardson has dropped out, but I read "between the lines" that they will "Declare Victory and Get Out".
Alan
Hillary will not leave. She will believe that such an action would paint her as "weak" and therefore she will not do it. Obama might but even that is not guaranteed after him waffling on the question of being out of Iraq by 2012.
Probably not Romney either if his energy policy is any guide.
He was on Hannity and Colmes tonight, here's the gist from an earlier post:
Drill in ANWAR
Drill everywhere else
More nukes
Clean coal
Ethanol
Renewables are cute but would only supply 5% of our needs
BAU
I guess that leaves only Kucinich or Paul.
And which of those has a snowballs chance in hell of winning a nomination?
The more I watch all these clowns in both parties, a Michael Bloomberg 3rd pary run is looking more attractive by the day.
The witch from hell is a guaranteed attack on Iran, she is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Likud party.
what are you smoking?
OK, one last time.
Other countries have probably more ethically and legally justifiable reasons to impose tariffs on the US, so no they won't have "no alternative" - they can tax the US in response and all that happens is trade barriers go up between the US and the rest of the world. That isolates the US, depresses the US economy, makes the global financial markets even more wary of US mismanagement than before, and generally will hurt the US more than anyone else.
Its classic cutting off your nose to spite your face.
You are not going to find funding for migration programmes anywhere else than in US pockets and US redeployment of US assets. Nobody else is there as a pot to be raided.
I think your issues with your worldview stem from a misunderstanding of the relative positions. That "fellow behind the tree" is an 800 pound gorilla quite capable of ripping your arms off and currently maintaining a firm grip on your genitalia (debt) ready to twist. Playing macho and threatening to steal his banana isn't a sensible or workable course of action. Get your own banana and keep your voice down.
Other countries have probably more ethically and legally justifiable reasons to impose tariffs..
If the USA goes from doing nothing about GW to a world leader in GHG emissions reductions (it helps to start as a large wasteful user :-), under what WTO provision can others apply tariffs to USA goods ?
AFAIK, large commercial a/c (Airbus & Boeing) are exempted from WTO.
I do not think that the USA buying $3 and selling $2 is sustainable.
Under my plan, this trade gap would be closed by reducing USA oil imports (a strong positive for the EU ! More black goo for you).
By other means, (collapse of the US $, you have had a small taste so far) much of the balancing of the trade deficit with come from imported manufactured goods and relatively less from reduced oil imports. And the treasuries of EU nations will suffer from the devalued holdings of US $.
Now, if the G8 wants to negotiate a mixed funding program for reducing US oil imports (i.e. Phase II), we can see.
Alan
You lost me here. A tariff on oil would be paid for by U.S. consumers. And how much does the U.S. export to oil producers that would be subject to retaliation?