Trump's Energy Advisor

Hmmmm....head scratcher

One idea might be a carbon tax that replaces the Clean Power Plan. Cramer is perhaps the only elected Republican to express support for such a fee. And his description of a carbon tax doesn't align with popular ideas about its shape. Most advocates want to direct carbon revenue toward cuts to the corporate tax rate or to fund clean energy programs.

"My idea of a carbon tax would be to help fund clean fossil fuel research and development, not to fund the government, not to punish fossil fuel generation, not to manipulate fuel choice," Cramer said. "Even a neutral, a revenue-neutral, carbon tax is inappropriate, in my view. But if we can have a very, very modest carbon tax to fund, again, the solution by utilizing fossil fuels like coal, I think even the industry would support that."

Read more: http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060037208

Views: 3285

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on May 13, 2016 at 11:18am

Someone ought to introduce Donald to T. Boone Pickens and suggest he (T. Boone) Chair an Energy Committee to advise him should he be elected.

Although T. Boone IMHO is a little light on promoting Natural Gas as a Transportation Fuel since he's primarily pushing conversion only for eighteen wheelers.

Personally, I think it ought to be promoted more widely (and subsidized) to also enable conversions for privately owned passenger vehicles.

Just me wishin'.

Permalink Reply by Bob Rock on May 13, 2016 at 11:32am
No Boone.
Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on May 13, 2016 at 11:46am

Why not / how come ?

Permalink Reply by Tim on May 14, 2016 at 1:19am
That led to a meeting between Trump and Cramer about two weeks ago, when Trump was in Washington, D.C., to give a foreign policy speech. In conversations with Corey Lewandowski, Trump's campaign manager, and John Mashburn, the candidate's policy director, Cramer agreed to write at least two white papers on energy, he said.

Cramer described the topics as "How does America First [Trump's campaign theme] apply to energy policy? How have regulations gotten in the way of the greatest part of our economic recovery in this country almost undeniably?"

"It's easy to talk about the ways the federal government has gotten in the way," Cramer said of regulations. "But then what can we do to bring back the jobs that Hillary Clinton seems to want to get rid of in her keep-all-the-fossil-fuels-in-the-ground attitude?"

Does not sound negative to me.

Converting coal fired electricity to Nat gas is a win win for many in USA, obviously loss for the coal plants/workers, however, emissions are down 20% from the conversion.

When you read entire article, he makes a lot of sense.

Bottom line, GOP puts 'costs' in effect which are finite and fund specific items, Dems do it to fund their agendas, and the 'costs' never go away.
Permalink Reply by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on May 14, 2016 at 7:59am

IMO, I never want to see a carbon tax as a solution. Anti-Hydrocarbon bureaucrats would love to get their hands on that type of set up.

Permalink Reply by John Smith on May 14, 2016 at 9:17am

Which Trump??.. The one that was for it before he was against it or for it again. Every side of this issue. And all issues usually in the same speech .Not a policy wonk.Heck he has no real policy but build a wall... O an G too much for that pee brain

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on May 15, 2016 at 3:19am

'Which Trump??' / what he would actually deliver is a real concern - I'll grant you that.

But, what we have now is also - as it just ain't workin' for me and mine.

What we have now is way too far to the left and does not serve us.

What to do / how to fix ? ?

Stopping dumb trade agreements (especially with hostile / potentially hostile partners) and forging smart ones and acting to protect each other in alliance should help the way we see it.

Beyond that we just don't know.

Permalink Reply by John Smith on May 15, 2016 at 3:50am

Now that is more like it...  I agree that we make bad trade deals..  I think the left right  paradigm is a bit overstated.. They all are self serving.. 

Permalink Reply by RJMB on May 15, 2016 at 2:20am

Too easy. Obama has been trowing money away at so-called "renewable energy" projects at a clip of about $14-15 billion per year for which we are only deeper in debt. If we were to use these subsidies to quickly convert power plants to natural gas, we could quickly reduce our emissions output to levels 75 years in advance in just a few years while at the same time begin to take full advantage of our domestic energy supply thereby reducing out need for any foreign crude. Let me say this about jobs in America. Obama spent about $700 billion on his stimulus program while he made up 3,410 new regulations in 2015 alone at a cost the US economy of about $1.885 trillion. This dollar estimate in from the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Does anyone see the problem here? Trump can begin to put America back to work again doing 2 things: 1 stop the regulatory production mill, and 2 reopen every trade agreement where we have a persistent trade imbalance of 10% or more. Persistent trade imbalances is not free trade, but dumb trade...

Permalink Reply by John Smith on May 15, 2016 at 3:10am

So your answer to Trump being on every side of every issue is to trash what Obama is doing now? It would help if you were educated. "trowing money away" = Throwing money away. Not only is your grammar poor but your facts are off too. Then on top of all that..You want less regulations. I for one am glad the government mandates regulations on companies. I like getting on a plane and knowing that by law they have a check list to follow. The oil and gas industry have the great Halliburton loophole..After that really subsidies, which is corporate welfare. Can't have it both ways.. Free market no regulations but subsidies??? I do agree with you on fair trade though..But I like how you took my shot at Trump and just switched the conversation to Obama..Was not talking about him.. Since you use those tactics . I can tell no matter what science proof I have not to even bother. You would be too dumb to understand it.

Permalink Reply by Butch Ratell on May 15, 2016 at 7:42am

large money in gas and oil, and no employees needed compared to coal, coal is more a small business and makes 100 times the jobs. America should look at jobs and not money. we have burned coal for 200 yrs and it has not hurt anything. 100 yrs ago we had no cars today there are billions of 2 inch pipes pumping out gasoline and natural gas clouds.

as far as your climate change or warming or what ever you call it to make money, look at the volcanoes, one volcano can pump out more emisions in 1 hour than 1000 power plants for a yr, but you can not stop a volcano and you can not charge taxes on a volcano. and you can not make a job for some one to watch a volcano, do you get it yet???? money ,money money, it is all about money and regulations to make more stupid jobs for morons that have no brains and pay them with tax money, money we do not have.

just open your eyes to the money envolved and you will see where we are going. if you can not see it, then get your damn head out of your ass.

Permalink Reply by RJMB on May 16, 2016 at 3:11am

I did forget the "h" by I edify millions, so an occasional glitch in my spelling is to be expected.. Books have been written that illustrate why each of your points is off base. But I will invest my time edifying you on 1. TSA is only necessary for 1 reason, Islamist terrorist. Islamist terrorist need to be treated no differently than we treated small pox. Complete extermination of these groups will squash the cult think and end terrorism as we know it and thus we can then redeploy TSA personnel to the southern border. Hope this helps...

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service