Tax and Hike, or Hands off

Exxon is going to invest a shitload of money ->Exxon Mobil will put $125 billion in big projects, CEO says

There you have it folks. The key reason why we should not tax energy companies further. Substantial investments need to be made in all aspects of energy production because we continue to be a demanding society.

I had an email exchange with a very intelligent, yet liberal, colleague of mine. We'll call him Johnson. We definitely don't see eye to eye, but I respect the man because his personal convictions are just that way. He holds them strong. We've had hours of talk about global warming, presidential campaigns, rock music, etc. He's a good guy, but leans left.

One particular response went like this:

I feel we have a big problem on our hands, and it comes down to national security and energy independence. Bottom line. Think about this for a second: if we are not to secure energy sources and have access to affordable energy (and not just for us, but have our military available for protection of say, European energy supplies), can you imagine if crude hits $150 because some nutball radical takes a major refinery hostage or just bombs it? What about $200?

You must understand supply and demand economics. We are in a global market. I think it is completely possible. I think we are a headline away from having $5/gallon gas. What if the Iran leader actually decides to bomb Israel? You don’t know whether he will or will not. He certainly talks like he will.

The more preaching on why we need to tax the energy companies even is so completely irrational to me that it literally makes me sick. Sick to my stomach. How the hell is taxing a company on a product (gasoline) that we NEED to survive as a society going to lower costs? And then how the hell are we supposed to develop energy independence if we handcuff ourselves by not allowing development of ALL energy sources? We need more research. More E&P. More cellulose and renewable energy production. More drilling. But safety and environmental factors FIRST and FOREMOST, always.

Houston in the 1980’s was not a good place to find work from what I have read about. The restriction of oil exploration and the windfall profit tax held on the energy companies killed the Houston economy.

What it boils down to Johnson, is basically what one person thinks about the role of government. Should the government promote what the people say is the best for the people, or should the people decide that the government knows best and the people will do what the government says?

In my opinion, the role of government is to promote the welfare and social responsibility for the people, while keeping their hands in tune to what the market and economy determines. Whether that is to regulate and tax, or to have the laissez faire attitude, the government should do what the majority of the people desire, to do what is best for the next generation, i.e. the future.

It’s how I feel about many issues, abortion, global warming. Government should not tell a woman what she can and can’t do to her body, but government shouldn’t promote it either. How is killing the next generation good for a society?

Now, equate that to the whole global warming/climate change debate. What is it? Global warming? Or climate change? The earth has been warming since the ice age, right? The climate has changed, is constantly changing, and always will change. There are much larger factors affecting climate than how CO2 emissions, which account for only a fraction of a percent of atmospheric composition. Solar activity has a much larger affect on our climate.

And we DO NOT KNOW if we are actually changing it at a more rapid pace. Evidence points both ways. Face facts from both sides of the aisle.

Now, tell me again, how the government is supposed to act? If we don’t actually know whether or not we are changing our climate, and to what degree we are changing it, and how we are to react to a it, then how is the government supposed to act in the best interests of the people?

You know one positive thing I get from this debate, Johnson, and what really makes me happy, is FINALLY we as a society are getting the underlying message: sustainability of our society and the promotion that we need to protect and maintain the environment.

Bottom line: use energy more efficiently, develop energy in a more efficient manner, and use energy to sustain our economy and society, not to line our pockets excessively. And do it in a responsible manner to the environment.

But that leads me back to the top and the lack of faith in the leaders we have in front of us. I sincerely feel most just do not seem genuine and for the best interests of the people.

Just remember folks, the opposite of right is wrong...