I'm fine with Exxon benefitting from a carbon tax. They have the political clout to push a bill like this through Congress, and it benefits the country as a whole to have carbon legislation in place. Seems like a win-win to me.

If a corporation, especially a multi-national, benefits from a tax, I would question the benefit to society from that tax.

Not to say that society would not benefit, but it does make me wonder.

I think that it's a bad thing that "multi-national corporation" has become synonymous with "bad agent" or even "evil." Much of our society is multi-national corporations, so when we have a biased view of them we may end up cutting off our nose to spite our face.

And in popular culture, if we end up with people opposed to a carbon tax just because Exxon wants a carbon tax too, well it doesn't more nose-less than that.

"Much of our society is multi-national corporations"

I have problems with that statement.

In my opinion, if we start forgetting we are a society of humans that, sometimes, use corporations as a tool for collaborating, we have serious problems.

So, everybody, repeat with me: we want to maximize humans welfare. Corporations are tools.

That's exactly what I meant by that statement, corporations are tools for our collaboration. They are a dominant form of our economic collaboration. Nearly all of us invest in them in our retirement savings. Many of us work for them. Everyone uses their services. So they have a big role in our society, and they are a tool that can be used in good and bad ways.

So in summary, I'm not sure what your problem was with that statement, other than perhaps my statement was too ambiguous :)

My problem was not with your comment specifically, but with a narrative trend I have observed where corporations, or also the economy, are the 'raison d'être' and we are the accessory.

It's something subtle in the public discourse (or not so subtle sometimes).

> I think that it's a bad thing that "multi-national corporation" has become synonymous with "bad agent" or even "evil."

Until the aims of multinational corporations are aligned with the aims of society at large, they will continue to be considered untrustworthy.

Society doesn't have aims, people do. Your unstated assumption that you views represent everyone else's is incorrect, and I am sure that my aims are very different from yours.

That assumption was unstated because I wasn't making it.

In a capitalist society they are.

No, in a capitalist utopia they are.

I don't know if you consider the existing society capitalist or not, but I can't give serious consideration to the idea that corporations even vaguely represent the aims of society. Yes, you can claim that people have aims, not societies, but people constitute societies, and the aims of 99.9% of people are not aligned with the aims of the corporations.

Having corporations in a capitalist society clearly correlates with things like reduced infant mortality, better health, etc. They do this by creating value that people want to buy and providing jobs that people want to have. Sounds representative of the aims of society to me.

I think the intended point was that, in a capitalist society, the instutions of capital (i.e. multi-national corporations) do not act with the best interests of the average person, but rather the interests of the institutions themselves and their biggest benefactors: the executives and shareholders.

That's pretty lazy reasoning. Tech companies spend a lot of time promoting STEM education. They benefit from the government teaching people those skills on the public dime. So do you reflexively question the benefit society gets from STEM education?

>> So do you reflexively question the benefit society gets from STEM education?

Um, no. I believe there's a fallacy in there somewhere but I'm not up to speed on them.

There are typically competing multi-nationals that have market share to gain by diminishing their competitors, so you can assume that there will be lobbies on both sides for legislation that interferes with the free market.

There is no "free market here"--CO2 production is an externalized cost and not taxing it enables some companies (that use energy) to pass off part of the costs of their profit-making activities on everyone else.

My understanding is that externalized costs have nothing to do with a free market. Intervention is necessary in order to account for the externalized costs, which is an infringement on a free market. Are you saying that is incorrect?

Free markets are not the same as the state of nature. A basic assumption is that if you want a benefit from someone, or you want someone to shoulder a burden in a way that benefits you, have you to transact with that person.

Say you run a delivery business, and your bike messengers can save a lot of time (netting you a higher profit) cutting across your neighbor's property. It's a free market when you can freely transact with your neighbor for an easement over his property; it's not a free market when the government fails to stop you from trespassing on his property without his permission.

Externalized costs from pollution aren't any different. Like trespassing, pollution burdens other peoples' property. Letting people pollute unchecked undermines the free market.

This argument is a good way of understanding that there is no such thing as a free market. The air we breathe is treated differently to the land we walk on, under the laws we have adopted in most of society. Land is bought and sold, while air is in "the commons" and free to use for everyone, including big industry. Land was once also in the commons, before the process of Enclosure when capitalism really took off. Once it became clear that land was a necessary component in the capitalist mode of production, the government was called upon to legislate for the privatisation of all land. This was beneficial to the rich in two ingenious ways. It provided the means for the private ownership of land, from which to profit by renting it out to farmers etc. In addition, those who could not produce enough from the land to make rent were forced to move into cities and take up work in factories at pitiful wages.

Remember how this came about though, the government of the time had to "step in" and end the use of land as a commons and bring about its privatisation. This sounds like market intervention, doesn't it? We don't look at it that way though, as it was the government intervention that kicked off the whole machine of capitalism. The wealthy at the time were mostly in favour of it and so it had a lot of support.

So what is a free market? In order to have a market at all, you need a government which defends the property "rights" (a purely ideological/philosophical assertion by Locke and co.) of private owners of the stuff and things that we use to produce in this world. We use air to produce things too, as well as land. Just as land must be used to accept the refuse of our production and consumption (rubbish dumps, landfills), the air does too. We charge people to put stuff in landfills, so why don't we charge people to put stuff in the air? This carbon tax is effectively a way of "uncommonsing" the air, just as the land was in the 18th century. This proposed intervention is less popular among the wealthy, of course, as it is not a form of privatisation that they can easily profit from. Ultimately, if it comes to it, they will surely be passing the cost of this privatisation to the workers and consumers in the end anyway.

I don't have data, but I wouldn't be surprised if support for a carbon tax rises with income. I don't care if the cost of gas goes up by 50 cents a gallon, but I bet I would if I only made 25k a year and had an hour long driving commute every day.

Corporations are infinitely selfish and completely merciless, not evil. They're as likely to do good for good's sake as they are to do evil for evil's sake.

Ok, I did my due diligence and read my comment over at least three times, I fail to see where I said corporations are "evil". Were you agreeing with me? Because other than the evil part, your comment is much in line with what I meant.

I would agree.

I have deeply negative feelings about Exxon for misleading the public on the dangers of fossil fuel combustion while having ample knowledge of that danger (they've known for 40 years). However, I'm a pragmatist; it's more important that we take steps which will move us off carbon-generating energy sources than it is to render punishment. If Exxon happens to benefit, fine. I'd be more pleased if their executives were convicted on criminal charges and the tax was implemented due to the overwhelming will of American voters, but this is fine too.

I wouldn't call a 10-15% increase in the price of gas "little effect."

It's nowhere near enough to meaningfully affect demand. The EIA estimates[1] that gasoline has to get 25-50% more expensive to reduce demand by even 1%.

[1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=19191

The article linked to an Economist article on British Columbia's $30/ton carbon tax, where it seemed to have a much more significant effect:

>BC’s fuel consumption is also down. Over the past six years, the per-person consumption of fuels has dropped by 16% (although declines levelled off after the last tax increase in 2012). During that same period, per-person consumption in the rest of Canada rose by 3%. “Each year the evidence becomes stronger and stronger that the carbon tax is driving environmental gains,” says Stewart Elgie, an economics professor at University of Ottawa and head of Sustainable Prosperity, a pro-green think-tank. At the same time, BC’s economy has kept pace with the rest of the country.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2014/07/british-...

I'm not sure I trust future projections much from the EIA; they are extremely conservative in terms of being unable to imagine non-fossil fuel energy. They've been consistently wrong on renewable technology as well:

http://cleantechnica.com/2016/05/15/us-eia-responds-cleantec...

I don't mean to diminish the excellent work they do. But for projections like this they must necessarily embody lots of opinion, and there's a good chance that their opinions embody the slow-change mindset of the energy industry.

This is comparing miles traveled to fuel costs when it really should compare fuel consumed / person to fuel costs since MPG is not static.

I would bet with hybrid (and arguably electric) cars being as usable as their ICE cousins that the demand for transportation fuel will become far more elastic.

>It's nowhere near enough to meaningfully affect demand.

That's because gas is inelastic. That doesn't mean a price increase wouldn't have a negative effect.

OTOH, most carbon capture schemes need a carbon price about triple of that to break even (IIRC).

27 cents a gallon is quite a lot.

No it isn't. US gas prices are comically low compared to virtually every other country on the planet. The exceptions are countries with stupidly low gas prices like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. If this tax was applied it wouldn't push America into European levels of pricing. It wouldn't even nudge it into Canadian pricing levels.

Hasn't US petrol prices seesawed from $4 to $2 fairly recently?

Of course, over here in the UK it's £1.10/liter, which is about $6.

Gas prices vary by that amount just from state to state.

And that variance is also considered "a lot."

And that will just be the start.

Compared to inundating Manhattan? Perspective.