March 13 News: Big Oil Trots Out Ad Campaign To Protect Its Tax Breaks

The American Petroleum Institute will announce a new TV ad campaign today attempting to protect fossil fuel tax breaks from fiscal policy negotiations. Their arguments on production and jobs are familiar, and familiarly bogus. [The Hill]

The group, which is the oil-and-gas industry’s largest trade association, will announce a new TV ad campaign.

The White House and many Democrats have for years been pushing to strip the petroleum industry’s ability to claim several tax deductions, calling them a multibillion-dollar taxpayer handout to an industry that doesn’t need it.

But industry officials and their allies have beaten back the efforts thus far. They say that higher taxes on energy producers would slow what has been booming oil-and-gas production, harm job creation and unfairly single out their industry.

Rep. Ryan’s new budget doubles down on the exact same policies helping corporate special interests like Big Oil at the expense of seniors, the middle class, and the most vulnerable that he and Mitt Romney ran on and lost on in 2012. [Politico]

Coming on the heels of a new carbon tax proposal, a group of House Democrats have announced a series of floor speeches to call on Congress for a response to climate change. [The Hill]

President Obama said Tuesday that drought fueled by climate change creates problems for barges bringing goods out of the Midwest down the Mississippi. [The Hill]

Flammable ice: Japan is the first nation to successfully extract natural gas from frozen methane hydrate deposits on the seabed, which remains an expensive procedure. [The Guardian]

The European Union is set to partially suspend its controversial airlines emissions tax scheme, stopping the clock until the International Civil Aviation Organization meets in September. [IOL]

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, chairman of the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, announced plans for the fifth biennial C40 Cities Mayors Summit discuss ways to fight global climate change. [CBS/AP]

Australia’s solar market may hit 10,000 megawatts as early as 2017, reaching “saturation” levels for owner-occupied houses in many areas. [Renew Economy]

A group of scientists and energy analysts has laid out a plan by which New York State could, in theory, eliminate its use of fossil fuels and nuclear power by 2050. [NYTimes]

17 Responses to March 13 News: Big Oil Trots Out Ad Campaign To Protect Its Tax Breaks

  1. fj says:

    Huge industries are rapidly acting on climate change as flood insurance will dramatically change in the next two years.

  2. Mike Roddy says:

    It’s nice to hear that Congressmen will be making floor speeches about climate change. Prediction: They will be partially covered on CSpan, and ignored everywhere else. For every minute of air time about these speeches, there will be about a thousand about celebrity goings on.

    Mussolini is the one who first fully understood that if you control the media, you control the people. In the United States, our media is under the thumb of fossil fuel and banking corporations, who want to continue BAU. The people have meekly gone along, and such is the media’s power that politicians, “Green” organizations, and even alternative media are afraid to confront them. This has to change.

  3. Will Fox says:

    “Flammable ice: Japan is the first nation to successfully extract natural gas from frozen methane hydrate deposits on the seabed, which remains an expensive procedure.”

    Yay! Great way to make the planet hotter, and the climate even more volatile and unstable. Let’s all just kill ourselves, shall we?

  4. Jim says:

    That’s what I thought too. But actually here in the US we really doing the same thing because as you know an Oilman never saw a tract of land that he didn’t want to frack.

  5. Brian R Smith says:

    I’ve been advocating a coordinated green media strategy & deployment summit/project for about three years here. Short list of reasons: Educate the public and mobilize them politically; expose & massively discredit everyone responsible on the confusionist side; replace denialist legislators; create whatever organization is needed for enabling a working alliance into the future.

    Environmental orgs took in $17.8 billion in 2012. 1% of that, $179million, would be a substantial war chest.

    There is no defensible reason for allowing the API, ALEC, Koch and the rest to get away with this. Money is not the problem. We have to start using, together, the resources we have. I am dumbfounded that climate leaders haven’t come together over media strategy.

  6. Sasparilla says:

    I thought the same as well…assuming they can come up with a commercially viable mining process (the article in the NT Times said they figured it’d 5 years to do that).

    Japan, which has few fossil fuel resources, would probably do nearly anything to have this fossil fuel energy security.

    It always brings to mind the question regarding Japan, they would seem to be a prime candidate for Wind, Tidal and GeoThermal based renewable energy – why don’t we hear more about renewables with that country?

  7. Paul Magnus says:

    “A carbon tax provides greater certainty around the price of GHG emissions, but poses a great deal of uncertainty around actual emission reductions.”

  8. Calamity Jean says:

    Would you rather the methane clathrates melt in place? In the short run methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. At least burning the stuff postpones the overheating.

  9. Sasparilla says:

    It’s an interesting Canada focused article – their PM Mr. Harper doesn’t want any restriction on carbon at all of course.

    But much of the oil industry up there wants a Carbon tax – because they figure it won’t raise the price of their tar oil enough to restrict its sale much & allow them to feel the stuff for a longer time period (since they’ll be lobbying to make sure that the price isn’t too high – No Dr. Hansen level prices).

    They are much more concerned with countries (in the future) just out and out saying we can’t use the tar sands oil period (now or in the future) – get a low enough (worthless for oil) carbon tax in place with their expectation that they can game the political system and they view their industry as secure for the future.

  10. Sasparilla says:

    I wrote “allow them to feel the stuff for a longer time period ”

    I meant to say “allow them to product the stuff for the foreseeable future”.

    The article also mention Exxon is a big owner of some of the interests up their (and hence the security they can game the political system if a carbon tax was in place).

  11. Sasparilla says:

    It’s an interesting quandary there isn’t it? Two exceedingly awful choices.

    I think I’d rather have the clathrates stay in place as long as possible without mining – much of the question arises from the fact that we don’t know which clathrates (and where) are going to melt when.

    If the ones around Japan aren’t going to melt for 100 years then I’d rather they stay in place for now and have Japan double down on renewables (which it has a huge plethora of), but if they are going to melt out in the next 30 or 40 years (where we can’t stop them) in that location then mining doesn’t sound so bad.

  12. Tami Kennedy says:

    That was definitely one of the scariest articles I’ve read considering a piece in Fortune touting potential hydrates equaling total of all other carbon fuel reserves.

  13. Tami Kennedy says:

    I’m not sure if it is true but the sad thing about these tax subsidies is they aren’t unique to the fuel giants. Law would have to change to exclude these fuel giants from a general law that applies to other corporations.

  14. paul magnus says:

    “The events leading to the rebuke began when casing of a well drilled at the Preese Hall site was damaged by an earthquake caused by its drilling on 1 April 2011. The deformation in the well was discovered in routine investigations a few days later. ”

    This must happen all the time in the US, but, we don’t hear a thing about them.

    Let’s face it Fracking is not good and if safety and enviromental regulations where applied in the US it would fail.

  15. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    Chomsky and Herman in ‘Manufacturing Consent’ said it all, but any half-aware being can see it. Strangely, the MSM presstitutes, not only cannot see it and will not see it but also will swear blind that it is not so. A once noble vocation, brought low by the ever malignant power of money.

  16. Dusitn says:

    The point that the EU is planning on temporarily pulling aviation from the EUETS is enormously disappointing. To date, it is the only major legislation aimed at curbing GHG emissions from the aviation sector, which represents about 2% of all anthropogenic emissions.
    The fact that it’s being stayed is very disconcerting