Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth EU

UN Chief Calls For Windfall Tax On Fossil Fuel Companies (theguardian.com) 212

Countries should impose windfall taxes on fossil fuel companies and divert the money to vulnerable nations suffering worsening losses from the climate crisis, the United Nations secretary general has urged. The Guardian reports: Antonio Guterres said that "polluters must pay" for the escalating damage caused by heatwaves, floods, drought and other climate impacts, and demanded that it was "high time to put fossil fuel producers, investors and enablers on notice." "Today, I am calling on all developed economies to tax the windfall profits of fossil fuel companies," Guterres said in a speech to the UN general assembly on Tuesday. "Those funds should be redirected in two ways -- to countries suffering loss and damage caused by the climate crisis and to people struggling with rising food and energy prices." Guterres's appeal came in his most urgent, and bleakest, speech to date on the state of the planet, and the will of governments to change course. His first words were: "Our world is in big trouble."

"Let's have no illusions. We are in rough seas. A winter of global discontent is on the horizon, a cost-of-living crisis is raging, trust is crumbling, inequalities are exploding and our planet is burning," he told the assembly. "We have a duty to act and yet we are gridlocked in colossal global dysfunction. The international community is not ready or willing to tackle the big dramatic challenges of our age." [...] Under Guterres's proposal, revenue from the taxes would flow to predominantly developing countries suffering "loss and damage" from global heating, to be invested in early warning systems, mopping up from disasters and other initiatives to build resilience. Vulnerable countries are poised to leverage the UN general assembly week to ask rich nations for a "climate-related and justice-based" global tax to pay for loss and damage.

But his speech on Tuesday was particularly pointed, delivered on the grand dais of the general assembly and following the secretary general's recent visit to Pakistan, where floods from what he called "a monsoon on steroids" have submerged a third of the country and displaced millions of people. [...] Governments must stage an "intervention" to break their addiction to fossil fuels, Guterres said, by targeting not only the extractive companies themselves but the entire infrastructure of businesses that support them. "That includes the banks, private equity, asset managers and other financial institutions that continue to invest and underwrite carbon pollution," said the secretary general. "And it includes the massive public relations machine raking in billions to shield the fossil fuel industry from scrutiny. Just as they did for the tobacco industry decades before, lobbyists and spin doctors have spewed harmful misinformation. Fossil fuel interests need to spend less time averting a PR disaster -- and more time averting a planetary one." Guterres said it was "high time to move beyond endless discussions" and deliver finance for vulnerable countries and for wealthy nations to double adaption funding by 2025, as they promised to do at UN climate talks in Scotland last year.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UN Chief Calls For Windfall Tax On Fossil Fuel Companies

Comments Filter:
  • Sounds like the UN Secretary wants gas to cost a lot more than it does now.

    • by muffen ( 321442 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2022 @02:31AM (#62900463)
      Yes he does, that's kind of the whole point.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Misagon ( 1135 )

      It is obvious that you are thinking only of the US, but this is a global problem. The price of petrol in the US is already much lower than in most of the West.
      And if US cities had been planned to be actually liveable, you know, for humans instead of cars, then US:ians wouldn't have been so dependent on their cars and on spending fuel. It is only reasonable that you should pay the full price for your bad planning, without subsidies.

      The proposals also cover other fossil fuels, as well as other uses of fossil

    • Doesn't matter, in a few years cars won't need gas anymore.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by idji ( 984038 )
      of course he does. haven't you woken up to that fact yet. Gas has to cost so much that noone WANTS to use it anymore, because the alternatives are better and cheaper. - and we need to get there fast.
    • I guess his thinking is that making everyone's life equally bad is a bit like a kind of justice?
  • I see this in my country too. And while it's true that energy-related companies are having soaring profits, and maybe you could ask them to reduce margins or increase the taxes, it's not where the big money goes. The big profits go to oil/gas producing countries and speculators.

    • Ironically it is the green energy producers in the EU that are making record profits. Why? Because they have sunk capital costs(fixed cost of production) for the most part, but the amount they are getting for juice has skyrocketed. It is just schizo what is going on. The west wants demand destruction of carbon fuel and prices are going up dramatically. You'd think government would be dancing in the streets. Just one problem, the west isn't ready and those prices are biting the average person hard and so gov
  • Maybe he can meet up with Al Gore for some good advise.

  • make alternatives more affordable, it would decrease the demand for petroleum powered automobiles and machinery. electric motors are the only plausible alternative to the internal combustion engine, dont punish the consumer, but find an alternative the consumer can afford to use
    • They already are, depending on your personal circumstances. I'm in the UK and just about to junk a 2007 Ford Focus and replace with a Volkswagen id3. At the current cost of petrol and electricity in the UK, and considering the number of miles I travel per week, the cost of the loan to buy the new car is equal to what will be saved in fuel costs. If I had solar panels and battery storage, that would go from break-even to a saving of about £200/month. Depending on how the electricity price goes over the

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • See how they like it.

  • by RobinH ( 124750 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2022 @06:54AM (#62900795) Homepage
    The nations of the world need to agree on a ramped up carbon tax over X years. That'll tip the scales in favour of low carbon options we already have, like hydro, solar and wind, but most importantly nuclear. Yes, I'm actually OK with $10 a gallon gas ten years from now because it's highly unlikely I'll be driving an internal combustion engine car ten years from now. The surplus oil and gas capacity will make fertilizer prices go down, which will help food security. It won't completely eliminate fossil fuels, but it's a huge step we could take, and it's so simple. If we can't even implement a worldwide carbon tax, which is literally the least we could do, then we have no hope at all.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by cayenne8 ( 626475 )

      Yes, I'm actually OK with $10 a gallon gas ten years from now because it's highly unlikely I'll be driving an internal combustion engine car ten years from now.

      You are about as optimistic of a person as I've ever seen in my life.

      I don't see even close to a majority of cars in the US being EV or non-ICE in 10years.

      Hell, it'll take 20 years to get the grid even close to ready to handle all those EVs...in addition to all the reasons we use and strain the existing one today.

      $10 gas makes things so expensive

      • by RobinH ( 124750 )
        Well, I work in the auto industry, and the transition to EVs is well underway. Everyone all the way down the supply chain is scrambling to get a piece of the new EV market, with engine makers eager to apply their knowledge to new EV components, and the stamping industry learning a lot about forming aluminum, or working with these new higher strength (lower weight) steels that EVs demand. Everyone can see it coming. I'm also an electrical engineer. Remember that most EV charging is done at night when the
        • Well, I work in the auto industry, and the transition to EVs is well underway.

          Interesting!!

          Nice to hear from someone in the industry...

          I noticed you used km...so, guessing your are in Europe.

          It sounds like, from what I read, that there ya'll have a head start on the US as far as charging infrastructure goes, which would help a lot.

          While it is building out here, it is pretty scarce outside of the few large, urban centers in the US..ie west coast and likely east coast.

          I look at the maps for charging in

          • by RobinH ( 124750 )
            Actually I'm in Canada, but yes, I think the EU is ahead of North America with EVs. But don't discount the US. Your country may be a lumbering behemoth politically, but once you put your minds to it, the US has an astounding capacity to industrialize when it wants to. Also, your car buyers love torque (like we do in Canada) and you just can't get more torque than an EV. The Ford F-150 Lightning is going to be a game changer, and if GM can pull off their new universal EV platform that uses the same batte
            • The Ford F-150 Lightning is going to be a game changer,

              I agree, for owners that only use it as a car for transportation about town.

              But for those that use a pickup truck as a work horse, I'm afraid the lack of charging infrastructure and limitations of charge...might hinder it if it can't compete with and ICE version of it for hauling all day, etc...

              If you want a stock tip: invest in companies that build products that go into electrical infrastructure.

              I'm also thinking invest in lithium mining and mining

              • by RobinH ( 124750 )
                I'm not so sure about the mining, because I suspect battery chemistries are still up in the air right now. Cobalt has been cited as being very critical, for instance, but there's a lot of improvements in the technological pipeline that would drastically reduce or even eliminate dependence on cobalt. I could see the same thing happening with other minerals.
                • by sfcat ( 872532 )
                  There is about the same amount Lithium as Cobalt in earth's crust. I love my EV, but we can't build enough batteries for them without getting Li from off planet or using some other chemistry that doesn't currently work.
  • Try to spend 3 weeks without the benefits of all products that are made directly or indirectly from petroleum products.
    You will basically be living an episode of "naked and afraid".

    This is just a cash grab, nothing more.

  • Econ anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nealric ( 3647765 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2022 @08:04AM (#62900981)

    Regardless of how you feel about fossil fuel producers, removing profit incentive to do something is not a great way to get people to do something. If you are worried about a shortage of fossil fuels, the worst possible thing to do is discourage their production.

    • By definition, a windfall is something the recipient did nothing to receive therefore taxing it up to 100% cannot disincentivize any action on the recipient's part.

  • by Virtucon ( 127420 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2022 @08:31AM (#62901035)

    Serious question as we approach 8 billion people. No, I'm not eating bugs either. Also, don't spew the falsehoods that two of the largest nations in terms of population actually give two rat shits about "climate change"

    • The UN has indirectly addressed overpopulation.
      Their conclusion was that If a birth control program is not entirely and completely voluntary, then it is 'Genocide' or 'Crimes against humanity ' https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/30... [cnn.com]
      • by Ichijo ( 607641 )

        So make sterilization free for everyone, and declare infertility (whether natural or through sterilization) to be immediately eligible for disability benefits even if the person chooses to continue to work.

  • by sabbede ( 2678435 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2022 @08:42AM (#62901061)
    I'll stick with not making my life worse so some unaccountable UN bureaucrat can get his rocks off by spending my money somewhere else. I roundly reject the basic assumptions and childish conclusions of that useless debate-society's leadership and will thank him to screw off.
  • How about windfall tax on UN Diplomats and their staff?

    They are super carbon intensive lot always jetting around between NYC and wherever home is to attend meeting they could as easily do remotely.

    They never accomplish anything because all the players that mater create independent treaty obligations to each other via their respective state departments and equivalents.

    I suggest a tax rate of 100% of salary

Think of it! With VLSI we can pack 100 ENIACs in 1 sq. cm.!

Working...