Venezuela' socialist hell

Sledog said:

2001400ex said:

doogie said:

Can't wait! Gonna be fun!

http://theweek.com/articles/693411/venezuelas-socialist-hell

Who are you trying to convince that communism or socialism doesn't work? You do realize no one in America outside of a few loonies is pushing for either, right?

The DNC is more than a few people.

Boobs or Harv IMO

salemcoog said:

AZDuck said:

Venezuela is hell, although, as your author admits, the socialism is debatable.

Here's an oil-rich "socialist" country that's done pretty well:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-heck/we-are-all-millionaires-n_b_4906237.html

Sounds like there's an oil boom in Europe.


I'm betting the people in power in Norway could give 2 flying fucks about implementing carbon taxes now huh???

Norway‘s ambitious target in GHG emission is to reduce 30% from 1990 to 2020, and to become a country of net zero carbon emission by 2050(2011 IEA). At present, both Norway’s electricity industry and energy use in buildings have already realized GHG-emission‐free. The purpose of Norwegian government doubling its carbon tax on petroleum industry is to generate large tax revenue and to invest the revenue to innovate new technology for environmental friendly energy.

...

[T]he carbon tax rates in Norway are different between industries. Petroleum production and natural gas extraction have been imposed the highest tax rate, which is $71.84 per tonne CO2 in 2013(Johnston 2012).

Huh.

salemcoog said:

AZDuck said:

salemcoog said:

AZDuck said:

Venezuela is hell, although, as your author admits, the socialism is debatable.

Here's an oil-rich "socialist" country that's done pretty well:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-heck/we-are-all-millionaires-n_b_4906237.html

Sounds like there's an oil boom in Europe.


I'm betting the people in power in Norway could give 2 flying fucks about implementing carbon taxes now huh???

Norway‘s ambitious target in GHG emission is to reduce 30% from 1990 to 2020, and to become a country of net zero carbon emission by 2050(2011 IEA). At present, both Norway’s electricity industry and energy use in buildings have already realized GHG-emission‐free. The purpose of Norwegian government doubling its carbon tax on petroleum industry is to generate large tax revenue and to invest the revenue to innovate new technology for environmental friendly energy.

...

[T]he carbon tax rates in Norway are different between industries. Petroleum production and natural gas extraction have been imposed the highest tax rate, which is $71.84 per tonne CO2 in 2013(Johnston 2012).

Huh.

If others follow suit . it's sure gonna put a dent in the value of their oil and gas fund now won't it?

I don't think they care. Norway never made oil revenues part of regular budgets, instead investing them in a sovereign wealth fund that now contains roughly $1M per resident. The fund now generates more revenue than the oil does.

AZDuck said:

salemcoog said:

AZDuck said:

salemcoog said:

AZDuck said:

Venezuela is hell, although, as your author admits, the socialism is debatable.

Here's an oil-rich "socialist" country that's done pretty well:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-heck/we-are-all-millionaires-n_b_4906237.html

Sounds like there's an oil boom in Europe.


I'm betting the people in power in Norway could give 2 flying fucks about implementing carbon taxes now huh???

Norway‘s ambitious target in GHG emission is to reduce 30% from 1990 to 2020, and to become a country of net zero carbon emission by 2050(2011 IEA). At present, both Norway’s electricity industry and energy use in buildings have already realized GHG-emission‐free. The purpose of Norwegian government doubling its carbon tax on petroleum industry is to generate large tax revenue and to invest the revenue to innovate new technology for environmental friendly energy.

...

[T]he carbon tax rates in Norway are different between industries. Petroleum production and natural gas extraction have been imposed the highest tax rate, which is $71.84 per tonne CO2 in 2013(Johnston 2012).

Huh.

If others follow suit . it's sure gonna put a dent in the value of their oil and gas fund now won't it?

I don't think they care. Norway never made oil revenues part of regular budgets, instead investing them in a sovereign wealth fund that now contains roughly $1M per resident. The fund now generates more revenue than the oil does.

Right but if every one else followed their lead, you would think that the fund would lose value. But based on the conclusion in the article, their carbon taxes are kinda FS anyway.

Conclusion & Recommendation

As one of the pioneer countries in the world to implement the carbon tax, Norway might have tried to do its best. The high carbon tax that Norway imposed to some industries has partially reduced its GHG emissions. However, the carbon tax is not economically efficient, because the government intends to protect its domestic industries and exempts too many industries from the carbon tax. According to Hoel, an efficient carbon tax system “should be equal for all users of fossil fuels”(1996). It is recommended that Norwegian government should eliminate the policy of protecting the activities of increasing environmental damage, such as exempting or reducing carbon tax on certain energy-intensive industries.

AZDuck said:

salemcoog said:

AZDuck said:

salemcoog said:

AZDuck said:

salemcoog said:

AZDuck said:

Venezuela is hell, although, as your author admits, the socialism is debatable.

Here's an oil-rich "socialist" country that's done pretty well:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-heck/we-are-all-millionaires-n_b_4906237.html

Sounds like there's an oil boom in Europe.


I'm betting the people in power in Norway could give 2 flying fucks about implementing carbon taxes now huh???

Norway‘s ambitious target in GHG emission is to reduce 30% from 1990 to 2020, and to become a country of net zero carbon emission by 2050(2011 IEA). At present, both Norway’s electricity industry and energy use in buildings have already realized GHG-emission‐free. The purpose of Norwegian government doubling its carbon tax on petroleum industry is to generate large tax revenue and to invest the revenue to innovate new technology for environmental friendly energy.

...

[T]he carbon tax rates in Norway are different between industries. Petroleum production and natural gas extraction have been imposed the highest tax rate, which is $71.84 per tonne CO2 in 2013(Johnston 2012).

Huh.

If others follow suit . it's sure gonna put a dent in the value of their oil and gas fund now won't it?

I don't think they care. Norway never made oil revenues part of regular budgets, instead investing them in a sovereign wealth fund that now contains roughly $1M per resident. The fund now generates more revenue than the oil does.

Right but if every one else followed their lead, you would think that the fund would lose value. But based on the conclusion in the article, their carbon taxes are kinda FS anyway.

Conclusion & Recommendation

As one of the pioneer countries in the world to implement the carbon tax, Norway might have tried to do its best. The high carbon tax that Norway imposed to some industries has partially reduced its GHG emissions. However, the carbon tax is not economically efficient, because the government intends to protect its domestic industries and exempts too many industries from the carbon tax. According to Hoel, an efficient carbon tax system “should be equal for all users of fossil fuels”(1996). It is recommended that Norwegian government should eliminate the policy of protecting the activities of increasing environmental damage, such as exempting or reducing carbon tax on certain energy-intensive industries.

I read that too, I thought it was a debatable proposition at best. Basically the article criticizes policy choices made by the Norwegian government using a concern-troll efficiency argument. There is also an alternative efficiency argument which makes sense - and justifies the Norwegian policy - in that the hydrocarbons industry has huge knock-on effects downstream (hydrocarbon production results in further hydrocarbon usage (refining, plastics production, etc.); OTOH fishing boats are an end-user. But I think it is hard to say that a program which has led to the electrical grid going completely off greenhouse gases is somehow not achieving program goals.