Obama Pushes Carbon Tax Proposal
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Obama Pushes Carbon Tax Proposal

This is a discussion on Obama Pushes Carbon Tax Proposal within the Off-Topic forums, part of the Main Category category; Alex Jones' Prison Planet: The truth will set you free! Obama Pushes Carbon Tax Proposal That Would Inflict New Great ...

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,857

    Default Obama Pushes Carbon Tax Proposal

    Alex Jones' Prison Planet: The truth will set you free!

    Obama Pushes Carbon Tax Proposal That Would Inflict New Great Depression

    President elect sets out on agenda to revive frightening Lieberman/Warner legislation



    Paul Joseph Watson
    Prison Planet.com
    Wednesday, November 19, 2008

    President elect Barack Obama used his speech at a Los Angeles summit last night to reinvigorate a push for the revival of a frightening proposal to slash carbon emissions by 80 per cent, a move that would inflict a new Great Depression, cost millions of jobs, and sink America to near third world status.

    “My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change,” Obama said in a video message to governors and others attending a Los Angeles summit on the issue.

    “In the roughly four-minute message, Obama reiterated his support for a cap-and-trade system approach to cutting green house gases. He would establish annual targets to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them another 80 percent by 2050,” reports the Associated Press.

    Obama’s mission is to revive and expand the defeated 2007 Lieberman/Warner bill, “America’s Climate Security Act,” which proposed a cap and trade system to reduce carbon emissions 70 per cent by 2050



    The bill was rejected for a very good reason - its passage would have created economic conditions comparable to a new Great Depression and sunk America to near third world status.

    The Environmental Protection Agency’s economic analysis of the bill forecast that a whopping $2.9 trillion would be shaved off the economy by the year 2050 if the legislation was enacted. It would also reduce GDP by 6.9 percent - a figure comparable with the economic meltdown of 1929 and 1930, and millions of jobs would have been lost within the first 10 years of its passage.

    As JunkScience.com’s Steven Milloy highlights, “For more perspective, consider that during 1929 and 1930, the first two years of the Great Depression, GDP declined by 8.6 percent and 6.4 percent, respectively.”

    And what would we get for such a massive self-inflicted wound? It ought to be something that is climatically spectacular, right? You be the judge.

    The EPA says that by the year 2095 — 45 years after GDP has been slashed by 6.9 percent — atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would be 25 parts per million lower than if no greenhouse gas regulation were implemented.

    Keeping in mind that the current atmospheric CO2 level is 380 ppm and the projected 2095 CO2 level is about 500 ppm, according to the EPA, what are the potential global temperature implications for such a slight change in atmospheric CO2 concentration?

    Not much, as average global temperature would only be reduced by a maximum of about 0.10 to 0.20 degrees Celsius, according to existing research.

    Sacrificing many trillions of dollars of GDP for a trivial, 45-year-delayed and merely hypothetical reduction in average global temperature must be considered as exponentially more asinine than the dot-bombs of the late-1990s and the NINJA subprime loans that we now look upon scornfully.

    Obama’s agenda to cut carbon emissions by 80 per cent is a huge leap towards the ultimate goal, expressed by the Carnegie Institute earlier this year and afforded sober credibility by the corporate media - a complete reduction down to zero carbon emissions.

    Zero carbon emissions? That would lead to the near complete reversal of hundreds of years of technological progress and man’s return to the stone age.

    Correction - stone age man was at least able to make use of fire - that too would presumably be banned under the measures being proposed.

    Global transport of any kind would cease, manufacturing and production would be a thing of the past, the global economy would crumble, communications would go dark as computer networks and the Internet are abolished. Millions would freeze to death as a result of not being able to heat their homes.

    We’d be back to living in caves and hunting for food with spears.

    Presumably, since livestock flatulence accounts for more green house gas releases than cars, planes and all other forms of transport or industry put together, cows would also become an endangered species and global meat farming would cease to exist. This sounds like a joke but this is actually what these crazies are proposing.

    The sheer ludicrousness of the Carnegie report is on a parallel with a March 2007 New York Times editorial, which subtly pushed the notion that humans emit carbon dioxide when they exhale, therefore should all be taxed for breathing!

    And remember that all of this is being pushed in the name of a scientific theory that is being increasingly debunked on an almost daily basis.

    The fact that there has been climate change since the birth of the planet has again been emphasized by a noticeable recent wave of global cooling related to a dearth of sunspot activity and exemplified by the Arctic ice sheet expanding by 30 per cent, an area the size of Germany, since the summer of 2007.

    This clear reversal in natural climate change from the solar-system wide global warming that occurred throughout the 90’s is being buried by man-made global warming advocates by means of deceit and dirty tricks.

    Global warming fearmongers like the World Wildlife Fund are having to resort to deception as a clear trend of global cooling unfolds. In a recent report, the WWF cited shrinking Arctic ice coverage to suggest climate change is “faster and more extreme” than first thought, while failing to acknowledge that Arctic sea ice expanded over an area bigger than the size of Germany during the year of 2008.

    Last week, climate scientists allied with the IPCC were caught citing fake data to make the case that global warming is accelerating. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, announced that last month was the hottest October on record. They later had to admit their “error” after it was revealed that they had used temperature records from September, a naturally hotter month, and merely passed them off as representing October temperatures.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  2. #2
    toreskha's Avatar
    toreskha is offline Titles are un-American.
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,437

    Default

    Carbon regulations probably will have both positive and negative effects. Still, the government has no role whatsoever in meddling in that sort of thing. When did we get so off-track that we have nothing better to do than regulate smoke?
    Silent Running, by Mike and the Mechanics

  3. #3
    wolfhunter Guest

    Default

    Carbon emissions have an effect on the environment. Too bad the total human-induced carbon (industrial) effect is less than the bovine scat emission effect.

    The one big thing carbon regs will effect would be the auto industry. The Big 3, the Japanese, and the Euro car plants would shut down for decades of re-design before producing vehicles in a quantity sufficeint to meet the proposed carbon standards. That is, unless some taxpayers get chosen to subsidize the development costs for the car industry. If it weren't for our subsidizing, Ethanol/E-85 fuels would be double their current price.

  4. #4
    toreskha's Avatar
    toreskha is offline Titles are un-American.
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,437

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfhunter View Post
    Carbon emissions have an effect on the environment.
    I mean as far as creating a market for something...you can sell a lot of filters (regardless of whether they do anything) or make money off carbon credits or whatever other voodoo is created as a result of carbon regulations. Money is good.

    Still, though...the important part is that it's not the government's place. Government's role should be very limited, disciplined, and it should stick to the basics. We'd all be better off if they kept their tendrils out of 99% of most things.
    Silent Running, by Mike and the Mechanics

  5. #5
    wolfhunter Guest

    Default

    Toreskha,
    Check the other two thirds of my post. My post was intended to illustrate how government interference in private industry does nothing beneficial for anyone but the politicians.
    Last edited by wolfhunter; 11-21-2008 at 11:04 PM. Reason: spelling

  6. #6
    tattedupboy's Avatar
    tattedupboy is offline Thank God I'm alive!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfhunter View Post
    Carbon emissions have an effect on the environment. Too bad the total human-induced carbon (industrial) effect is less than the bovine scat emission effect.

    The one big thing carbon regs will effect would be the auto industry. The Big 3, the Japanese, and the Euro car plants would shut down for decades of re-design before producing vehicles in a quantity sufficeint to meet the proposed carbon standards. That is, unless some taxpayers get chosen to subsidize the development costs for the car industry. If it weren't for our subsidizing, Ethanol/E-85 fuels would be double their current price.
    What you call subsidizing, I call a massive tax increase. The reason government exists, in theory, because without it, people's lives, liberty, and property would be in jeopardy. However when people are worse off as a result of government mandates, it has failed them.
    Last edited by tattedupboy; 11-20-2008 at 12:31 AM.

  7. #7
    wolfhunter Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    What you call subsidizing, I call a massive tax increase. The reason government exists, in theory, is because without it, people's lives, liberty, and property would be in jeopardy. However when people are worse off as a result of government mandates, it has failed them.
    The subsidies for Ethanol/E-85 are already in place, so no new tax increase. Bur you are right. If we don't pay the industry to do the R&D, there won't be so-called alternate energy sources. Even with subsidies, those sources are still decades away, in any statistically effective quantity.

    The simple fact is government regulations plus BAD negotiations have crippled the Big 3, and they need Chapter 11 reorganization if they ever will be viable companies again. Bail-outs and loans will only mask the problem.

  8. #8
    tattedupboy's Avatar
    tattedupboy is offline Thank God I'm alive!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfhunter View Post
    The subsidies for Ethanol/E-85 are already in place, so no new tax increase. Bur you are right. If we don't pay the industry to do the R&D, there won't be so-called alternate energy sources. Even with subsidies, those sources are still decades away, in any statistically effective quantity.

    The simple fact is government regulations plus BAD negotiations have crippled the Big 3, and they need Chapter 11 reorganization if they ever will be viable companies again. Bail-outs and loans will only mask the problem.
    So what? Do you know where the money for subsidies comes from? That's right, it comes from tax money. If the free market doesn't give incentives for alternative energy sources to be developed, then subsidizing them won't make things better. In fact, it'll make things worse.

  9. #9
    wolfhunter Guest

    Default

    I give up. The point is that if there were no CURRENT (and going back 30+ years) subsidies for alternate fuels, there would be no alternate fuels. Therefore, they are a government induced phenomenon, not a viable, economically sound part of the solution.

    There are more studies showing that global warming is part of a 15000 year cycle than there are true studies (done by scientists, not politicians) that show global warming is human-induced. There are also a large number of studies that show the claims of global warming theorists are greatly exaggerated to gain a desired reaction. (20 foot increase in tide levels, as opposed to 4 INCH increases if the warming cycle continues through the century)

    Global warming is a Political/Media hoax designed to make the populace sympathetic to more government control of our behavior and lifestyle. Carbon Trading is a practice designed to make folks like Al Gore richer.

  10. #10
    tattedupboy's Avatar
    tattedupboy is offline Thank God I'm alive!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfhunter View Post
    I give up. The point is that if there were no CURRENT (and going back 30+ years) subsidies for alternate fuels, there would be no alternate fuels. Therefore, they are a government induced phenomenon, not a viable, economically sound part of the solution.

    There are more studies showing that global warming is part of a 15000 year cycle than there are true studies (done by scientists, not politicians) that show global warming is human-induced. There are also a large number of studies that show the claims of global warming theorists are greatly exaggerated to gain a desired reaction. (20 foot increase in tide levels, as opposed to 4 INCH increases if the warming cycle continues through the century)

    Global warming is a Political/Media hoax designed to make the populace sympathetic to more government control of our behavior and lifestyle. Carbon Trading is a practice designed to make folks like Al Gore richer.
    You do know that this flies directly in the face of those who insist that the earth is only 7,000 years old, and thus isn't old enough to have gone through any such cycles, don't you?
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •