2802

Sure Al Gore might be prone to exaggeration; he invented the internet after all…

2803

It’s like the Right now exactly how to inflate and twist comments so they only have a passing resemblance to the truth and the base will eat it up. Like death panels.

2804

And selling fetuses. And Benghazi. And Muslim Anti-Christ Obama. And, and, and…

2805

Obama is proposing a $10 per barrel tax on oil, which seems pretty insane, given that oil is only trading at around $33 a barrel currently. I mean, you’re talking a 30% tax at that point.

2806

It’s about 25 cents per gallon of gas. Seems rational to me.

2807

But that’s not really a good way to think about it, because it doesn’t really encapsulate the full impact.

By putting a 30% tax on oil, you are slapping a large tax on energy… And energy goes into everything. It’s not just a tax on you at the pump, but it’s a tax on basically everything you consume, because at some point in its production and delivery, it used oil. Not to mention other direct uses of oil like heating.

I mean, when you say, “hey, it’s just a quarter!” It sounds much smaller of an impact than it is. And such an impact will hit the lower income levels harder than anyone else.

2808

According to this graph, the US currently has a MUCH lower tax than many other nations. Note - that’s in litres, so multiply by 3.79 to get the per-gallon equivalent.

2809

When oil goes back up to $80 a barrel, or higher, it won’t look so bad to you. ;)

2810

Yea, the timing is very strange. Basically the only people who would benefit from this are the Saudis. Is it a tax on refining or producing? It’s not clear. It would drastically change the economics of oil recovery and ironically raise prices much faster than now as domestic production ground to a standstill (relatively speaking).

2811

some cool news on the future of energy storage:

‘From liquid air to supercapacitors, energy storage is finally poised for a breakthrough’:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/04/from-liquid-air-to-supercapacitators-energy-storage-is-finally-poised-for-a-breakthrough

It doesn’t always rain when you need water, so we have reservoirs - but we don’t have the same system for electricity,” says Jill Cainey, director of the UK’s Electricity Storage Network.

But that may change in 2016, with industry figures predicting a breakthrough year for a technology not only seen as vital to the large-scale rollout of renewable energy, but also offering the prospect of lowering customers’ energy bills.

Big batteries, whose costs are plunging, are leading the way. But a host of other technologies, from existing schemes like splitting water to create hydrogen, compressing air in underground caverns, flywheels and heated gravel pits, to longer term bets like supercapacitors and superconducting magnets, are also jostling for position.

In the UK, the first plant to store electricity by squashing air into a liquid is due to open in March, while the first steps have been taken towards a virtual power station comprised of a network of home batteries.

“We think this will be a breakthrough year,” says John Prendergast at RES, a UK company that has 80MW of lithium-ion battery storage operational across the world and six times more in development, including its first UK project at a solar park near Glastonbury. “All this only works if it reduces costs for consumers and we think it does,” he says.

Energy storage is important for renewable energy not because green power is unpredictable - the sun, wind and tides are far more predictable than the surge that follows the end of a Wimbledon tennis final or the emergency shutdown of a gas-fired power plant. Storage is important because renewable energy is intermittent: strong winds in the early hours do not coincide with the peak demand of evenings. Storage allows electricity to be time-shifted to when it is needed, maximising the benefits of windfarms and solar arrays.

2812

On the oil tax, Obama will also propose a relief fund for families affected by higher energy bills.

The gas tax hasn’t gone up in many, many years. It’s super low and kinda dumb it’s as low as it is. Not that Obama’s proposal has any chance of passing.

2813

Yeah, but he knows he won’t GET $10/barrel since any new tax has to come from Congress. What he’s given the GOP is an opportunity to impose a (very much needed) new gas tax and still look anti-tax to their constituents:

“Haw haw, that there Obama feller wanted to stick a $10 per gallon tax on ya’ll! But me and the other Republicans weren’t about to let THAT dog hunt! We got that down to only $2.75 per barrel! Yer welcome!”

2814

It’s not a production tax, it’s effectively a consumption tax. Bloomberg:

Jeff Zients, director of the National Economic Council, told reporters that exported oil products wouldn’t be subject to the fee, even though imported ones would “across the board.”
“We recognize oil companies will likely pass on some of these costs,” Zients said.

2815

Yeah, it’s the same thing as just slapping a sales tax on everything. Which is to say, it’s effectively a regressive tax, that will hit the poor harder than anyone.

Folks need to think about this harder, rather than thinking that it’s some tax on rich oil company executives.

2816

Well, it’s not going to happen any time soon, so I’m not sure it’s worth thinking too hard about. But almost any sin tax is regressive in practice (we don’t tend to impose punitive petrol/cigarette type taxes on mink coats or opera tickets), and that’s not necessarily a bad thing if it’s part of a larger framework, as this plan ostensibly is.

2817

That’s a constant in politics these days, sadly. Imagine how the other side of the aisle feels given the media bias.

2818

First of all, the gas tax hasn’t been raised in many years. A .25 tax is trivial for most people and the aggregate benefits outweigh the individual cost. Second of all, Obama’s proposal also includes assistance for those who actually need it. (Not that it matters, his proposal wouldn’t receive enough Democratic support, let alone Republican.)

2819

It seems as if the tipping point to change behavior was $4/gallon gas.

2820

We need to ‘get over’ gas/oil. We certainly are smart enough and have the tech too. Anyway not doing so leads to this kind of thing:

'Sea-level rise ‘could last twice as long as human history’:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/08/sea-level-rise-could-last-twice-as-long-as-human-history

Huge sea-level rises caused by climate change will last far longer than the entire history of human civilisation to date, according to new research, unless the brief window of opportunity of the next few decades is used to cut carbon emissions drastically.

Even if global warming is capped at governments’ target of 2C - which is already seen as difficult - 20% of the world’s population will eventually have to migrate away from coasts swamped by rising oceans. Cities including New York, London, Rio de Janeiro, Cairo, Calcutta, Jakarta and Shanghai would all be submerged.

“Much of the carbon we are putting in the air from burning fossil fuels will stay there for thousands of years,” said Prof Peter Clark, at Oregon State University in the US and who led the new work. “People need to understand that the effects of climate change won’t go away, at least not for thousands of generations.”

“The long-term view sends the chilling message of what the real risks and consequences are of the fossil fuel era,” said Prof Thomas Stocker, at the University of Bern, Switzerland and also part of the research team. “It will commit us to massive adaptation efforts so that for many, dislocation and migration becomes the only option.”

The report, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, notes most research looks at the impacts of global warming by 2100 and so misses one of the biggest consequences for civilisation - the long-term melting of polar ice caps and sea-level rise.

This is because the great ice sheets take thousand of years to react fully to higher temperatures. The researchers say this long-term view raises moral questions about the kind of environment being passed down to future generations.

The research shows that even with climate change limited to 2C by tough emissions cuts, sea level would rise by 25 metres over the next 2,000 years or so and remain there for at least 10,000 years - twice as long as human history. If today’s burning of coal, oil and gas is not curbed, the sea would rise by 50m, completely changing the map of the world.

“We can’t keep building seawalls that are 25m high,” said Clark. “Entire populations of cities will eventually have to move.”

By far the greatest contributor to the sea level rise - about 80% - would be the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet. Another new study in Nature Climate Change published on Monday reveals that some large Antarctic ice sheets are dangerously close to losing the sea ice shelves that hold back their flow into the ocean.

2821

Yeah but just think about all the oil we could drill for in Antarctica if all that annoying ice would melt away!