Republican Elder Statesman Calls for Carbon Tax

[Trakar]

Stanford's George Shultz on energy: It's personal

-George Shultz leads a group preparing to propose a federal tax on carbon to slash U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and oil consumption, a seemingly unlikely policy from a Republican Party statesman.

George Shultz was an economist in the Eisenhower administration, as well as secretary of the Treasury and Labor, and director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Nixon administration. Under President Ronald Reagan, he was secretary of state for almost seven years. Despite the reluctance of his fellow Republicans to embrace action on global warming, Shultz is confident that when the time is right conservatives will support a carbon tax, for a number of reasons...

...I've been worried about our energy problem for a long time. President Eisenhower said that if we imported more than 20 percent of the oil we use, we were asking for trouble with national security. By 1973, I'm secretary of the Treasury and we have the Arab oil embargo. They seek to deny us oil in order to change our policies. I thought then, you know, President Eisenhower knew something.

...If you speak out about something, you've got to walk the talk, you've got to do it yourself. The biggest consumer of oil is the automobile, so I've been interested in driving a car that is more efficient. My solar panels have long since paid for themselves by the savings in electricity costs. I have my electric car running on electricity from the sun, which costs me nothing and there is plenty of it here. So, I'm driving on sunshine. Take that, Ahmadinejad!

...We have to have a system where all forms of energy bear their full costs. 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.

...Historically, Republicans have often protected the environment. President Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency. We dealt with the ozone layer under President Reagan and with acid rain under the first President Bush, both with bipartisan support. People making careers out of disagreeing with each other is a very recent phenomenon.

There are three major issues raised in the energy area. One is national security. We know that we don't want to be vulnerable to sources of supply that are uncertain or to send billions of dollars to regimes that are not our friends. Then there's the economy. Every spike in the price of oil has put our economy in a recession. We want to have more diverse energy resources so our economy won't be so vulnerable to the oil market.

Then there's the environment, which has many aspects. One of these is the air you breath, which Tom Steyer and I emphasized in the "No on 23" campaign. Another is that the globe is warming, which is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. The arctic is melting. If you could bring together the constituencies concerned with national security, the economy and the environment – both local and global – that would be a potent coalition...

Much more at the Stanford News site, I encourage everyone, regardless of your political persuasions or ideological preferences to read this man's considerations and opinions: Stanford's George Shultz on energy: It's personal

 

[whitehall]

Unfortunately the post is typical of most global warming quasi-scientific theories. Cherry pick a single statement by someone who seems to be influential in politics and ignore the rest of the story hoping that the ignorant anti-Americans will latch on to the concept. Schultz said that Ike was right when he estimated that the US would be in trouble when we imported more than 20% of oil. Today we import about 50% and we are in hock to oil producing countries. There is no substitute for fossil fuel and lefties know it. America is in trouble economically and the socialist criminal conspiracy sees it as their last chance to bring the US down to a 3rd world status.

 

[Trakar]

Unfortunately the post is typical of most global warming quasi-scientific theories. Cherry pick a single statement by someone who seems to be influential in politics and ignore the rest of the story hoping that the ignorant anti-Americans will latch on to the concept. Schultz said that Ike was right when he estimated that the US would be in trouble when we imported more than 20% of oil. Today we import about 50% and we are in hock to oil producing countries. There is no substitute for fossil fuel and lefties know it. America is in trouble economically and the socialist criminal conspiracy sees it as their last chance to bring the US down to a 3rd world status.

you seem to have some irrational and unreasoned tin-foil hat conspiracy theory memes stuck in your head.

Please feel free to read the entire story as I provided the links and encouraged everyone to do (hardly the definition of "cherry-picking"), and then come back and demonstrate how I misquoted or misrepresented Mr. Shultz's opinion or beliefs about any issue.

(BTW, I am Republican, myself.)

 

[Mr. H.]

Clinton pushed it and it went nowhere.

 

[Oddball]

George Schultz?...I though he was dead.

 

[Trakar]

Clinton pushed it and it went nowhere.

Clinton's 1993 btu tax wasn't properly designed nor would it have been effective at achieving it's purpose. The largest flaw was that it not even partially revenue neutral. Shultz's concept of a carbon tax includes the understanding that you have to combine such taxes with refunds and benefits that remove most if not all of the impact from such taxes upon the individuals who would be most impacted by them.

 

[Trakar]

George Schultz?...I though he was dead.

Nope, still alive and kicking at 91. Currently a leading figure at the Hoover Institution at Stanford among other things.

 

[tjvh]

George Schultz?...I though he was dead.

"Peanuts", and worrying about Global Warming... How did he find the time?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Stanford's George Shultz on energy: It's personal

-George Shultz leads a group preparing to propose a federal tax on carbon to slash U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and oil consumption, a seemingly unlikely policy from a Republican Party statesman.

George Shultz was an economist in the Eisenhower administration, as well as secretary of the Treasury and Labor, and director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Nixon administration. Under President Ronald Reagan, he was secretary of state for almost seven years. Despite the reluctance of his fellow Republicans to embrace action on global warming, Shultz is confident that when the time is right conservatives will support a carbon tax, for a number of reasons...

...I've been worried about our energy problem for a long time. President Eisenhower said that if we imported more than 20 percent of the oil we use, we were asking for trouble with national security. By 1973, I'm secretary of the Treasury and we have the Arab oil embargo. They seek to deny us oil in order to change our policies. I thought then, you know, President Eisenhower knew something.

...If you speak out about something, you've got to walk the talk, you've got to do it yourself. The biggest consumer of oil is the automobile, so I've been interested in driving a car that is more efficient. My solar panels have long since paid for themselves by the savings in electricity costs. I have my electric car running on electricity from the sun, which costs me nothing and there is plenty of it here. So, I'm driving on sunshine. Take that, Ahmadinejad!

...We have to have a system where all forms of energy bear their full costs. 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.

...Historically, Republicans have often protected the environment. President Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency. We dealt with the ozone layer under President Reagan and with acid rain under the first President Bush, both with bipartisan support. People making careers out of disagreeing with each other is a very recent phenomenon.

There are three major issues raised in the energy area. One is national security. We know that we don't want to be vulnerable to sources of supply that are uncertain or to send billions of dollars to regimes that are not our friends. Then there's the economy. Every spike in the price of oil has put our economy in a recession. We want to have more diverse energy resources so our economy won't be so vulnerable to the oil market.

Then there's the environment, which has many aspects. One of these is the air you breath, which Tom Steyer and I emphasized in the "No on 23" campaign. Another is that the globe is warming, which is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. The arctic is melting. If you could bring together the constituencies concerned with national security, the economy and the environment – both local and global – that would be a potent coalition...

Much more at the Stanford News site, I encourage everyone, regardless of your political persuasions or ideological preferences to read this man's considerations and opinions: Stanford's George Shultz on energy: It's personal

Just another fucking liberal nothing new.

 

[Mad Scientist]

You can call him a "Republican Elder Statesman" if you like but his actions show him to be a Globalist who has no allegiance to any Party or Country.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

George Schultz?...I though he was dead.

That was Charles Schultz

 

[Trakar]

Just another fucking liberal nothing new.

You have a very strange concept of "liberal."


George P. Shultz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hoover Institution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you're understandings are that fringe, I daresay your considerations of such things are largely irrelevent.

 

[whitehall]

Unfortunately the post is typical of most global warming quasi-scientific theories. Cherry pick a single statement by someone who seems to be influential in politics and ignore the rest of the story hoping that the ignorant anti-Americans will latch on to the concept. Schultz said that Ike was right when he estimated that the US would be in trouble when we imported more than 20% of oil. Today we import about 50% and we are in hock to oil producing countries. There is no substitute for fossil fuel and lefties know it. America is in trouble economically and the socialist criminal conspiracy sees it as their last chance to bring the US down to a 3rd world status.

you seem to have some irrational and unreasoned tin-foil hat conspiracy theory memes stuck in your head.

Please feel free to read the entire story as I provided the links and encouraged everyone to do (hardly the definition of "cherry-picking"), and then come back and demonstrate how I misquoted or misrepresented Mr. Shultz's opinion or beliefs about any issue.

(BTW, I am Republican, myself.)

Well gee fellow republican let me put it this way. There is no substitute for fossil fuel. Everyone knows it. What ever the nice old republican's opinion about a "carbon tax" Shultz is no expert and his opinion is irrelevant.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Just another fucking liberal nothing new.

You have a very strange concept of "liberal."


George P. Shultz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hoover Institution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you're understandings are that fringe, I daresay your considerations of such things are largely irrelevent.

Difference between you and me, I don't need wiki to tell me what a liberal is.

 

[Old Rocks]

The differance between you and Trakar is that he is a conservative, and you are a 'Conservative'. The former gave us an Interstate Highway System, cleaner air, and our most of our National Parks. The latter has given us 'birther' conspiracies, and economic theories that do more than just border on lunacy.

 

[Trakar]

Just another fucking liberal nothing new.

You have a very strange concept of "liberal."


George P. Shultz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hoover Institution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you're understandings are that fringe, I daresay your considerations of such things are largely irrelevent.

Difference between you and me, I don't need wiki to tell me what a liberal is.

True, you don't seem to rely upon facts or reality when deciding what you choose to believe.

 

[whitehall]

When is the last time Stanford ever quoted a republican in a positive way? Stanford is no friend of republicans and I'd bet the two Marks who wrote the article are not conservatives. The first word in the post title tells you everything about the direction of the post. It doesn't say "noted economist" or "former Reagan appointee. It says ....REPUBLICAN... The grain of truth that the two Marks were forced to admit in the 2nd or 3rd paragraph is that republican party doesn't support or condone Schultz's long standing crazy opinions about global warming but that doesn't stop the two Marks from trying to make the point that Schultz used to work for Republican presidents.

 

[Old Rocks]

Among those that acknowledge reality, whether they are liberal or conservative, there is a will to address a major problem that is already affecting all of our lives.

The scientific evidence supporting the premises in AGW is irrefutable. Were it not so, the 'Conservatives' would be attacking the evidence and data, rather than the scientists themselves.

That we have to reduce emissions in order to ameliorate the already serious affects that we are seeing, so that the future is reasonable for our descendents is not a matter of debate between rational liberals or conservatives. In fact, the debate is now between those that believe that we can ignore reality, and those that realize that is the sure path to disaster.

We are now seeing a fringe element that is stating that all the scientists in the world are in on a grand conspiracy to lie to us concerning global warming. Unfortunetly, that fringe is exerting an undue influence on the GOP and seems to be controlling it's policy concerning global warming.

 

[Trakar]

Unfortunately the post is typical of most global warming quasi-scientific theories. Cherry pick a single statement by someone who seems to be influential in politics and ignore the rest of the story hoping that the ignorant anti-Americans will latch on to the concept. Schultz said that Ike was right when he estimated that the US would be in trouble when we imported more than 20% of oil. Today we import about 50% and we are in hock to oil producing countries. There is no substitute for fossil fuel and lefties know it. America is in trouble economically and the socialist criminal conspiracy sees it as their last chance to bring the US down to a 3rd world status.

you seem to have some irrational and unreasoned tin-foil hat conspiracy theory memes stuck in your head.

Please feel free to read the entire story as I provided the links and encouraged everyone to do (hardly the definition of "cherry-picking"), and then come back and demonstrate how I misquoted or misrepresented Mr. Shultz's opinion or beliefs about any issue.

(BTW, I am Republican, myself.)

Well gee fellow republican let me put it this way. There is no substitute for fossil fuel. Everyone knows it. What ever the nice old republican's opinion about a "carbon tax" Shultz is no expert and his opinion is irrelevant.

You are, at the least, simply mistaken, about both fossil fuels and George Shultz.
BTW - Dr Shultz earned his Ph.D in industrial economics (when I was 2) from MIT, he taught at MIT Department of Economics and the MIT Sloan School of Management for a decade before he was appointed to Eisenhower's Council of Economic Advisers as a senior staff economist. He later served as Nixon's Secretary of Labor, was the first director of the Office of Management and Budget, and was then Secretary of the Treasury for several years. He then left public service for about eight years to serve as president and the board director of Betchel industries. President Reagan tapped him to be the U.S. Secretary of State for 7 years of his two terms. He served as an advisor on George W. Bush's 2000 campaign is still a strategist with the Republican party having served as one of the Vulcans (senior Republican advisors to the bush administration),...and this is just a superficial scratch of the man's record. I may not agree with the man on everything, but he has more than enough gravitas with regards to economics and conservative politics that you'll just have to forgive me for considering his knowledge, experience and expertise in this field to be relevent and superior to a knee-jerk anonymous detractor's aspersions on the internet.

 

[Mr. H.]

Clinton pushed it and it went nowhere.

Clinton's 1993 btu tax wasn't properly designed nor would it have been effective at achieving it's purpose. The largest flaw was that it not even partially revenue neutral. Shultz's concept of a carbon tax includes the understanding that you have to combine such taxes with refunds and benefits that remove most if not all of the impact from such taxes upon the individuals who would be most impacted by them.

Yes that was the BTU tax. Thanks for clarifying.

From your description, it sounds like utilities and other carbon emitters would not be allowed to pass the tax on to consumers. Bad idea.