Bible Open

The so-called "carbon tax" is not about global warming, but funding the UN. The worlds biggest polluters in Asia are exempt, while billions from the West will funneled to the UN to use as a world welfare fund and give them a revenue stream outside the control of individual states. The following from Wayne Madsen proves the point. Manmade global warming is unproven and the earth has been far warmer even in historical times.

The errors in this report are many and as of 2014 have been proven wrong. Yes the temperature has gone up 1 degree F. in the last 120 years because we came out of the Little Ice Age. But if this is implemented the UN will reap billions for redistribution and to enhance its power. Others trading is "carbon credits" that produce nothing of value will also reap billions.

Only a carbon tax can stop global warming

Source: Salt Lake Tribune
Date: March 12, 2007
Byline: Wayne Madsen

The global warming train finally is leaving the station with almost everyone onboard - except for a few die-hard deniers from ultra-conservative groups and the Flat Earth Society. Now comes the really difficult task - one that demands a thorough debate among all governments and all peoples: What can we humans do to prevent global warming and ameliorate its more negative impacts? The decisions we reach are vital; they almost surely will determine if our small, fragile planet survives and whether we Americans continue to enjoy all of the freedoms we hold so dear.

There can be no doubt that Earth has entered a warming period - temperatures have risen about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 120 years - and there is good evidence that human generated greenhouse gas emissions have played a significant role since 1940. The most recent report by the United Nations' respected Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggests that - barring draconian remedial actions - global temperatures could increase as much as 11 degrees by 2100.

If that is the case, the current mandates of the Kyoto treaty on climate change just won't cut it. Fully implemented by its signatory nations, Kyoto would trim only one degree of warmth from the U.N.'s worst-case projection by 2100 - a decrease that matches the recorded increase in temperature since the latter-part of the 19th century. Unfortunately, Kyoto exempts such major emerging economies as China, India, Brazil, Indonesia and Mexico, which together are projected to account for more than 60 percent of the world's man-made greenhouse gases by the year 2040.

Even worse, most European Union nations actually have increased their emissions of carbon dioxide since the alliance imposed a system of emission trading credits that allows low-level polluters to sell their surplus carbon credits to highest. The idea underlining such a convoluted system is that low-level polluters will reduce emissions even further so they have more carbon credits to sell; and higher-level polluters will make reductions to avoid having to pay for credits. The failures of Kyoto's mandates and the EU's system of emission trading credits have caused consternation and confusion on Capitol Hill.

Even Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the new chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, who favored such remedies when the Democrats were out of power, now has backed-off and is pursuing relatively small steps like increasing the energy efficiency of federal buildings. With the latest U.N. report declaring that global warming is all but unstoppable, such incremental measures seem ludicrous. Far bolder efforts than Kyoto and carbon trading credits will be required to blunt the impact of global warming, if the United Nations' forecasters are correct.

The fastest, surest way, of course, would be for the United Nations itself to impose a tax on all of its member nations that correlates with the carbon footprint of each. Populous, heavily industrialized countries like the United States, India, China, Brazil, Japan, Mexico and the larger European states would pay through the smokestack, so to speak, while the poorer nations of Africa, Asia and Latin America would pay what amounts to chump change. The U.N. climate change panel calls for a 4 percent global tax on advanced countries in it recent report.

That is a small price to pay for saving our planet - especially for a super-affluent society such as ours. For most Americans, it amounts to sacrificing a few automobile trips, a month's worth of Starbucks and maybe a dozen Big Macs. Given our national obesity epidemic, how can that hurt? The important thing about such a global carbon tax is that it would be eminently fair - taxing each nation according to its greenhouse gas emissions.

Admittedly, getting a U.N. consensus to take even a trivial action is rough sledding. But every opinion leader committed to a sustainable, survivable planet - from Al Gore to Tony Blair to New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman - ought to add their voices to a chorus calling for this global tax.

Such a tax would be economically benign - adding up to only a small fraction of each nation's Gross Domestic Product. That amount would be offset many-fold by the increased profits rolling in from the development of new "green" technology, not to mention the lower health-care costs generated by a cleaner environment. The only alternative would be to sit tight, do nothing and hope that the United Nations' predictions turn out to be bogus.

Speaking of the flat earth society:

Madsen is a member of the 9/11 Truth Movement in that he subscribes to the opinion that elements within the Bush administration either let the September 11 attacks happen, or made them happen on purpose. This group of mostly far-left activists has been discredited. Even Bill Clinton as I watched him on television at a political rally for his wife, responded to a heckler by saying, "Nine-eleven was NOT an inside job, it was an Osama Bin Laden job with 19 people from Saudi Arabia, they murdered 3,000 Americans and others foreigners including Muslims and we look like idiots, that the people who murdered our fellow citizens did it, when they are continuing to murder other people around the world." He also said, "How dare you!"

MIT engineering professor Thomas W. Eagar was at first unwilling to acknowledge the concerns of this movement, saying "if (the argument) gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." In response to physicist Steven Jones (who is not a structural engineer) publishing a hypothesis that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition, Eager stated:

"These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the "reverse scientific method"... they determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."

Interesting that the environmental fascists do the same thing with global warming. The case with Jones illustrates again the problem of false authority. Using the names of "scientists" in unrelated fields whose positions and title somehow stands as proof the claim is correct. Science is about verifiable scientific proof, not consensus or academic titles.


Gateway Pages for this website:
  » General Subjects
  » Archive 1   » Archive 2   » Archive 3   » Archive 4
  » Archive 5   » Archive 6   » Archive 7
  » Archive 8   » Archive 9