Obama energy policy page offers some rhetoric, and no solutions. Empty, fluffy word, pablum read below or go see for yourself.
Well, I don’t believe that climate change is just an issue that’s convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it’s one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation. That’s why I’ve fought successfully in the Senate to increase our investment in renewable fuels. That’s why I reached across the aisle to come up with a plan to raise our fuel standards… And I didn’t just give a speech about it in front of some environmental audience in California. I went to Detroit, I stood in front of a group of automakers, and I told them that when I am president, there will be no more excuses — we will help them retool their factories, but they will have to make cars that use less oil.”
Why is global warming a moral challenge? Assuming anthropogenic exists, and the science is still weak, is this not instead a technical challenge? This could be an issue of survival for the species, culture or nation, depending on how deep the impact of the warming. This is not a moral issue. Stealing from you neighbor, killing your neighbor, sleeping with his wife are moral issues. Failing to insulate you house, or sleeping in the road, while dumb, are not moral issues.
Note that Obama’s ’solution’ is to attack the domestic auto manufacturers. This coupled with his plan to increase taxation on investments and to treat them as income will quickly have us remembering the good old days under Jimmy Carter. Furthermore, since when does the constitution empower the government to meddle in factory design. For shining examples of government lead industrial policy see any one of the Soviet Unions five year plans.
Then there are Obama’s disastrous cap and trade ideas as espoused on his website …
Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama’s cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition.
So we are to be limited to creating one fifth of the CO2 we generated in 1990? We are to do this without nuclear power as well. Windmills people, we are tilting toward windmills, except when they are to be built anywhere within 40 miles of Ted Kennedy’s summer home. The economic dislocation wrought by this policy will make the great depression look like an era of prosperity. The energy policy is less about energy than it is about reducing CO2 regardless of the social impact. This is not an energy policy but a hysterical global warming policy. Al Gore would be proud.
Our country is growing, our economy, despite George Bush, will continue to grow as well. There is no science that even remotely suggests that we can meet our future needs and cut that much CO2 production. The science concerning the link between warming and CO2 emission is immature. Most critically the impact to our economy given worst case scenario from the U.N. documentation in this issue will be less destructive than this policy.
This is a policy born from one end of the political spectrum. If Obama is about change, as he alleges ad nauseam, if he is about reaching across the aisle then where are the practical aspects of the policy that take into account: the current need for a greater oil supply; the need for a transitional energy source that will keep the economy going as opposed hand outs for the unemployed; a willingness to investigate the deployment of proven as opposed to hoped for (mythological) energy sources?
Obama’s campaign site contains a laundry list of pie in the sky list of wants. This is not a plan but a long drawn out slogan with partisan anti business, anti-growth overtones. It is demands the current energy providers fund their future competition. Such behavior only happens willingly in totalitarian junta;’s or in the mythology of the environmental left.
Jacob,
I missed ya. Thought maybe you and the kids got lost in the woods or something.
Osama-bama sez we all need to inflate our tires and get our cars tuned if we want to spend less in gas. Hummm! Heard about this the other day and it seems that scientists are working more on an end-around then an elimination of a resource. Me? I say stop cutting down trees or plant plant replacements with a high CO2 intake and O2 output. But what do I know!
http://www.geek.com/scientists-develop-co2-scrubber-device-20080602/
Obama’s tire reccomendations are akin to Jimmy Carter telling everyone to wear a sweater – that’s leadership!
Of course, he also want to pile more taxes on those nasty companies that are supplying fuel for our cars, farm equipment, ships, and trucks. Sure, raising taxes on the energy company is a great way to lower the price of energy.
Anyway, the oil companies really don’t make that much money. Their profit margins hover around 10% — hardly exorbitant.
Guess jack holds a lot of oil stock.
Re Exxon Mobil:
“,,,announced the biggest quarterly profit of any corporation in U.S. history, breaking its own previous record with $11.68 billion in earnings during the second quarter.”
jack said: “Anyway, the oil companies really don’t make that much money….”
What does jack consider “much money”, I wonder?
Lovisa, Like most people you see a number like $11 Billion and all logic goes out the door. Jack was prety clear, a 10% profit margin is not exhorbitant. Please keep in mind for every dollar the Oil co’s make in profit, the Federal Gov’t get 2 in taxes.
I probably sound like a broken record but the US exports 700 BILLION dollars a year with our reliance on foreign oil. I call that exorbitant, risky, foolish, dangerous, several other adjectives blah, blah, blah.
I’m not looking at the numbers. I’m looking at the fact that it is the biggest profit in US history.
Besides, why do you trust Jack’s statement re 10% profit margin?
You are only looking at the numbers that suit you.
It would serve you well to worry less which stocks Jack chooses to invest in. Me, I have no remorse over the money I have made in energy stocks over the last year. It is an open game, anybody can get in.
USNEws.com:
“The oil industry urges people to look beyond its profits to its profit margin: about 7.6 percent of revenues late last year. That’s not much higher than the 5.8 percent profit margin for all U.S. manufacturing, and if you exclude the financially troubled auto industry from that analysis, the oil industry actually appears less profitable than most manufacturers, which were earning 9.2 cents on every dollar of sales.”
I urge you to look beyond the profits too, and research these numbers if necessary. Jack linked to CNN, I looked on US News, apparently 10% is a high estimate.
Shell: 8.79%
Exxon-Mobil: 10.85%
BP: 7.7%
Chevron: 7.2%
Thank you Jack. Indeed the average is below 10%.
NoVisa aka “the sky is falling”,
Just like John Edwards who you protect to the hilt, I’m going to give you your “you don’t know” homework.
The 11 Billion dollars is a very striking figure. Find out how many company employees there are. Find out how many stock holders (including mutual funds) there are. Show me the top tier of bonuses given. Show me the re-investment dollars. Then we can see the TRUE bottom line of where that ugly amount of profit is going and how much Schumer and Osama-bama deserve!
This is a capitolistic society based on supply and demand. You want to boycott? Don’t buy. I know for a fact your tune would be different if you were an employee of an oil company.
Lovisa,
1. The insurance companies make %18 per dollar of investment
2. banks made %20 per dollar of investment
THEY PRODUCE NOTHING
Most industries that produce something average %8 per dollar of investment
Keep in mind that such industries are higher risk. Spending a few million on drilling in a given area does not ensure you will find oil. I am surprised they do not make more money, considering the risk.
Exxon paid over $30B in taxes last year. Obama wants to raise the taxes further. That is lunacy.
I have read and heard from a friend in the industry that “exploratory drilling” produces nothing over 90% of the time. That means 9/10$ they spend on exploration results in nothing.
OK, I stand corrected and will definitely begin to feel sorry for the oil companies who seem to have it so tough.
They probably also have to spend a lot of money to work against those who are trying to invent vehicles and machinery that will use less oil and natural gas.
Wonder how the over $30B taxes the government took in last year were spent. Personally I don’t want to overtax companies because they just pass it on and I end up paying their taxes. ( I’m probably wrong here too.)
As for banks and insurance companies, they are bloodsuckers, IMO.
Please don’t confuse return on sales with return on investment with with profit marginreturn on equity . They’re all completely different and the first three will always depend on the industry.
For instance, grocery stores always have a tiny return on sales, but they move a lot of product quickly and they’re not a very capital-intensive business, so it doesn’t matter. Comparing returns on sales from oil companies and banks makes no sense. (Of course, the oil companies say different because it doesn’t make them look so bad.)
For instance, Wal-Mart’s profit was only 3% of sales. What a lousy company!!!! Can’t compare across industries. Apples and oranges.
If I have more time, I will research the return on equity for some oil companies and banks. that comparison will be more meaningful. This will give a more meaningful estimate of return on, say, $1 worth of stock.
Sanity,
You are on the money. I believe I am quoting % return on investment. Please do the research, it would be a good to get confirmation one way or the other on this.
All,
Am I the only one who thinks a company paying three times more in taxes than it makes in profit is outrageous?
No, you are not. Feeling a little lonely or something ?
The key thing to remember about corporate taxes is that they are only paid on profits- totally unlike federal individual income taxes. So while you or I pay tax on our total income, companies only pay tax on the money above and beyond expenditure. If exxon lost money or broke even, they wouldn’t pay any taxes.
I was reading the other day (It may have been WSJ, dunno) that stock prices for exxon have been flat- Companies that do nothing but pump crude / exploratory drilling (apache) have stock prices rising. Companies that are vertically integrated (BP, Exxon) have had flat to higher share prices), while companies that do refining (Valero) are down. This is all due to the price of crude.
Then, there is base vs. percentage confusion. Exxon just posted the world’s largest quarterly income of anybody, ever- at just over 10%- due to the huge base. Pharmaceutical companies have profitability sometimes over 30%- due to a much smaller base.
James Baker’s group published a report on what oil companies were doing with all that money- mostly buying back their own stock.
They can stay at this level of profitability with production and gas prices right where they are. ANWAR / Shelf drilling would just be a pointless handout- it’s not Exxon’s job to give you cheap gas, it’s their job to make money.
Indy,
“it’s not Exxon’s job to give you cheap gas, it’s their job to make money.”
Agreed.
If Kerr-McGee(sp?), Haliburton (dun dun dunn!) and other smaller wild caters were given the go ahead to drill for oil, that will expand the supply and will in turn drop prices, immediately.
If Exxon, BP et. al. were given the green light to build more refineries we would see the production bottleneck loosened, and less volatility in price at the pump.
“So while you or I pay tax on our total income”
Not quite, we pay taxes on Adjusted Gross Income, total income minus deductions. If your AGI goes down, so does your tax bracket. You make no money, you pay no taxes. Your costs, i.e. deductions go up, your taxes go down.
Shareholders don’t want companies that maintain profitability, they want companies that increase profitably. Ever see a stock fall through the floor after posting revenue gains of 25% when the market expected 30% ? Happens every day, that’s the way a free market works.
“it’s not Exxon’s job to give you cheap gas, it’s their job to make money”
Yes, it is Exxon’s job to make money. But you can’t overlook that if Exonn’s gross is $1 a gallon at pump prices of $2 or $4 a gallon, the $2 price is better for them as the volume of gas sold is inversely proportional to the retail price. Problem is that right now volume can’t increase to match global demand. Opening up ANWAR and the ICS would help the domestic market.