If you've no account register here first time
User Name :
User Email :
Password :

Login Now

Exxon Will Push Hard for a Carbon Tax. What’s its Rationale?

exxonExxonMobil is saying that it now wants to lead a national effort to enact a carbon tax. While the oil giant has supported a carbon tax since 2009, its previous efforts have been tepid. The Wall Street Journal is reporting, however, that it wants to take the lead in this effort. What’s the rationale?

More than likely, the oil company sees that inevitable trend toward more carbon constraints. By coming to the table — not working behind the scenes to block efforts — it feels it is able to have more of an impact on any legislation. And even if such laws are never enacted, it will be able to say publicly — read PR efforts — that it has tried to make a difference.

All this, meanwhile, comes on the heels of efforts of some state attorneys general including those in New York and Massachusetts to have Exxon turn over documents dating back decades — ones that allegedly show that the oil company has long known of the consequences environmentally from burning oil; that it leads to the earth’s warming and the resulting fallout from that climate change.

“Of the policy options being considered by governments, we believe a revenue-neutral carbon tax is the best,” Suzanne McCarron, the company’s vice president of public and government affairs, wrote in May in the Dallas Morning News, as reported by the Wall Street Journal. Besides Exxon, the journal says that BP and Royal Dutch Shell have also come out in favor of a carbon tax. Chevon, it reports, is an outspoken opponent of a carbon tax. 

Under a carbon tax, government would tax utilities according to their carbon footprints that can be readily measured. NextEra Energy says that it is a fairer way to compute results and that it is easier to administer than a cap-and-trade system. The proceeds from the carbon fee would then be targeted directly to an account that would help fund the development of new technologies.

A joint report issued by the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute says that pricing carbon is the most efficient way of reducing carbon dioxide releases that are tied to global warming. A $16 tax per ton would raise $1.1 trillion in the first 10 years.

“The largest source of greenhouse gas emissions is carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels, so many economists particularly advocate an excise tax on the carbon content of those fuels, or a ‘carbon tax,’” write AdeleMorris and Aparna Mathur, economists with Brookings and AEI, respectively, which represent just left and just right of center on the political spectrum.

Conservative legends such as George Shultz, former U.S. Secretary of State under President Reagan, support a carbon tax. His argument is that the producers don’t bear the environmental price; rather, it is the broader society. And a carbon tax would even the playing field.

Shultz adds that that British Columbia has such a carbon tax. In that case, the government there gradually increased the tax and then redistributed it to individuals, making it popular. He adds that the Republicans have historically been known as the party that issued policies to protect the environment, noting that it was under President Nixon that the 1970 Clean Air Act passed.

“We have to have a system where all forms of energy bear their full costs,” says Shultz. “For some, their costs are the costs of producing the energy, but many other forms of energy produce side effects, like pollution, that are a cost of society.

“The producers don’t bear that cost, society does. There has to be a way to level the playing field and cause those forms of energy to bear their true costs. That means putting a price on carbon. We’ve studied a variety of ways to do that, and to me the most appealing way is a revenue-neutral carbon tax. That is, you distribute all the revenue from the carbon tax in some fashion back to taxpayers, so there is no fiscal drag on the economy,” Shultz concludes.

Most of the earlier discussions centered on a carbon tax or cap-and-trade scheme, where carbon ceilings are set and utilities must meet them, or buy credits that allow them to exceed such limits. But those debates occurred after President Obama came to Washington and when his party controlled both legislative chambers. When the Republicans took over the U.S. House in 2010, those ideas died.

“Although both a tax on emissions and a cap-and-trade system use the power of markets to achieve their desired results, a tax is generally the more efficient approach,” says Peter Orszag, former director of the Congressional Budget Office. “Studies typically find that over the next several decades, a well-designed tax would yield higher net benefits than a cap-and-trade approach.”

If any entity can move a reluctant Congress toward putting a price on carbon, it is Exxon. Just how hard it will push, though, is a different question and may depend on whom is elected the next US president.

Environmental Leader Product and Project Awards 2016
Sponsored By: Environmental Leader

How Tracking/Managing Energy Consumption Drives Real Cost Savings
Sponsored By: Digital Lumens

Run an Efficient EHS Audit Program - A How-to Guide
Sponsored By: Sphera Solutions

Choosing the Correct Emission Control Technology
Sponsored By: Anguil Environmental Systems


4 thoughts on “Exxon Will Push Hard for a Carbon Tax. What’s its Rationale?

  1. One approach that Secretary Schultz and many other luminaries have endorsed is the Carbon Fee & Dividend plan advocated by Citizens’ Climate Lobby, a grassroots organization that lobbies virtually every US senator, house member and/or their staffs. The fee & dividend structure should have appeal for Republicans in that the revenues are distributed directly to the citizenry on a monthly basis, rather than sent to the US treasury for Congress to then allocate. For more information, visit http://citizensclimatelobby.org

  2. Exxon has finally figured out that the best way to keep the status quo is to levy a carbon tax. A carbon tax is paid for by its customers and no effort is needed, aside from accounting.

  3. A revenue-neutral fee & dividend such as CCL advocates would be paid by and rebated to customers. It’s likely to affect the status quo, if it works in the US as it has in other countries to reduce fossil fuel use.

  4. Secretary Shultz just endorsed Washington State Initiative 732, which will be the first revenue-neutral carbon tax to go before state voters this November. I-732 uses a $25/ton carbon tax to reduce the state sales tax, effectively eliminate the state business tax on manufacturers, and fund a 25% match to the federal Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income families. For more information, visit http://yeson732.org/

Leave a Comment

Translate »