Cap and Trade: Regulating to Infinity and Beyond
Cap and Trade: $3,900 Per Family Per Year
The Truth Will Set You FreeApril 29, 2009
While we’re being distracted by Obama’s personal jet flying low over NYC, bringing back nightmares from that MOSSAD/CIA false-flag and being shown pics from around the world of people wearing masks to protect them from swine flu, our corrupt Congress is pushing to pass the cap and trade scheme, which will put a never ending tax on our backs that keeps doubling each year until some vague goal is met.
The Empire’s 24/7 news channels are on point, reporting on the man-made swine flu nonstop from around the globe, seeding fear and confusion into your brains, while nary a peep is heard from any reporter on the floor of Congress that’s debating this huge tax increase.
Wall Street must be drooling over the amount of money this is going to generate, a significant amount which that bunch of gangsters will make disappear offshore, devising another of their "Three Card Monte" games to make the money vanish. At least $650 BILLION a year will be taken from our pockets to fund this "green-collar" bubble...
Green Comes Clean
Investor's Business DailyJanuary 2, 2009
Propaganda: The global warming alarmist in chief has unveiled the environmentalists' real objective. And no, protecting the planet is not their top concern.
In a letter addressed to President-elect Obama and his wife, Michelle, James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, makes an appeal for a carbon tax, ostensibly as a means for cutting emissions of carbon dioxide, a gas that’s allegedly causing a dangerous greenhouse effect and warming trend. Hansen suggests that the tax be levied “at the well-head or port of entry” from where it “will then appropriately affect all products and activities that use fossil fuels.”
This tax will have “near-term, mid-term, and long-term” effects on “lifestyle choices,” Hansen acknowledges...
Something to Ponder About Cap and Trade
By Steve LeMaster, Global Warming SkepticsMarch 30, 2009
Question:
Who decided to pay farmers to destroy ten million acres of crops and kill six million farm animals?If you answered FDR, then you would be correct. But, why did he do it and what was the end result?
The markets were keeping food prices too low for farmers to make enough money for a profit, thus FDR promoted higher food prices by paying farmers to plow under some 10 million acres of crops and slaughter and discard some six million farm animals, because it primarily benefited big farmers due to the fact that they had more food crops to destroy than small farms. The end result of this policy and later programs was the victimization of millions of already starving Americans.
I recently heard about a corn and soybean farmer by the name of Rex Woollen. Doing a simple Google search yielded scores of articles about this American farmer and how he is making a profit by not tilling 800 acres of his land. So, what’s the significance of this, you ask? Well, he is making about $3,000 a year (not much to him, but hey, it’s money) by preventing an estimated 470 tons of carbon (yeah, that’s plant food) from entering the atmosphere. He then banks $3,000 by purchasing “carbon credits,” which he then sells to the Chicago Climate Exchange.
So, by not growing crops, Rex Woollen gets money. Though it’s not a huge amount, it does have the potential of enormous profits if Congress passes mandatory nationwide greenhouse gas limits. Wait, it may get worse. Some state lawmakers want to allow farmers to plant trees that will let them create a separate source for carbon allowances, thus allowing them to collect offsets to sell alongside government permits on carbon markets. This means that not only can farmers earn cash by not planting food crops, they also collect money by planting non food sources.
Rewind back to the Chicago Climate Exchange for a moment. During its beginnings, who do you think was on the board of the charity that gave over a million dollars in funding?
If you answered Barack Obama, you would be correct.
The EPA's New Ozone Standard
By Joel M. Schwartz, American Enterprise Institute for Public PolicyOriginally Published on June 27, 2007
EPA sets the nation's air-pollution health standards. But this means that federal regulators decide when their own jobs are finished. Imagine a company that gets to decide how much of its product customers must buy. That's EPA. Federal and state regulators' also provide millions of dollars a year in funding to environmental groups, which use the money to augment fear of pollution and agitate for expansion of regulators' powers.
Perhaps most ironic, the Bush administration has justified this vast expansion of federal power over Americans' lives based on the same spurious health claims through which environmentalists and regulators maintain unwarranted public anxiety about environmental risks.
Regulators are likewise major funders of the health research intended to demonstrate the need for more regulation. Government officials decide what questions are asked, which scientists are funded to answer them, and how the research is portrayed in official reports. Researchers who believe low-level air pollution is a serious threat and who report greater harm are probably more likely to attract this research funding and to be picked to sit on EPA advisory panels. Scientists who choose a career in environmental health research are also self-selected for environmentalist ideology. Many of these researchers have explicitly associated themselves with environmental groups and causes.
With its new ozone standard, EPA is taking these incentives to their logical conclusion. The standard is so stringent that it is likely to be unattainable in many areas of the country. Much ozone is natural or transported from other countries. Ozone from these "background" sources is high enough in some areas--certainly Los Angeles, but probably several areas in the eastern half of the country as well--that the standard will be unattainable, even with a complete elimination of all human-caused ozone-forming emissions. Whatever else the new standard does, it will make EPA a growth business for decades to come.
The stringency of the standard ensures that attaining it will impose enormous direct costs on the American people. But that's only the beginning. The Clean Air Act requires that non-attainment areas submit implementation plans to EPA that demonstrate compliance with the standard by some future deadline. But because attaining the standard will require elimination of nearly all current emissions, most areas will find themselves prohibited from expanding roads to relieve congestion and from adding new employers that produce any ozone-forming emissions. Regulators' and environmentalists' gain will be our loss.
Environmentalists and many newspaper editorial boards have relentlessly pilloried President Bush for ostensibly "rolling back" the Clean Air Act and causing increases in air pollution. Meanwhile, back in the real world, air pollution continues to decline and the Bush EPA has imposed the nation's toughest-ever air-pollution standards and regulations, going far beyond where the Clinton administration ever sought to tread. Perhaps most ironic, the Bush administration has justified this vast expansion of federal power over Americans' lives based on the same spurious health claims through which environmentalists and regulators maintain unwarranted public anxiety about environmental risks.
CO2 Is a Pollutant? Tell EPA No Way!
By Andrew Langer, RegularFolksUnitedNovember 25, 2008
There are countless human activities that generate CO2, most especially breathing. And while breathing itself wouldn’t be regulated (yet), the Clean Air Act’s mandates on how much of a substance can be released into the environment would mean that even a medium-sized office building or restaurant would now be treated like a major industrial polluter by EPA. More than a million new buildings would become “facilities,” forcing the owners of those buildings into an incredibly complicated maze of regulations.
Currently, the regulatory state costs the American economy more a trillion dollars annually. For small business owners (with fewer than 20 employees), this translates into more than $7700 per employee per year. Americans spent 8 billion hours doing paperwork last year, at a cost of more than $400 billion. This regulatory regime would, by EPA’s own estimates, add millions more hours of paperwork and impose regulatory costs in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Moreover, there is no guarantee that any of the regulations that would be created would to anything to curb the emissions of CO2 and other so-called “greenhouse” gases, or that after spending all this money we would be doing anything to impact the environment.
Given the current economic hardship the nation is facing, our economy simply cannot handle the burden that such a draconian and far-reaching regulatory structure would impose. When one considers the marginal benefits, it simply does not make sense. Please do not classify CO2 as a pollutant.
How Clean is Clean? - 'Pollution' Controls Are an Expensive Neurosis
Makers and Takers - Clean Air Act is an Orchestrated Propaganda Campaign
Global Warming Skeptics - And the Propaganda Keeps Coming
Supreme Court's Mangling of the Clean Air Act
Federal Taxpayers Subsidize Anti-clean Coal Ads That Spread Falsehoods About Clean Coal
Obama’s Plan to Tax Everything You Do and Send the Money to Kuwaiti Millionaires
The Sierra Club Exposed
The Skeptic's Handbook
UN Infects Science With Cancer of Global Warming
IPCC 4th Assessment Report - Analysis and Summary
Global Warming Has Stopped
Geologic Evidence of the Cause of Global Warming and Cooling
22,000 “Green” Jobs Outsourced to India
Cap and Trade vs. Carbon Tax
Obama: Climate Change an ‘Irreversible Catastrophe’ If Not Addressed
Canada's $779 Million Carbon Capture Plan
Updated 10/18/09 (Newest Additions at End of List)
No comments:
Post a Comment