Update, 8/17/12, Bloomberg doubles down and why not with all he has at stake: "Arctic Sea Ice Heads for Record Low as Melt Exceeds Forecasts," Bloomberg, Alex Morales
Bloomberg News denies science that US CO2 emissions have dropped steadily since at least 2006 and are going lower. Bloomberg editorializes that the US wants and needs a 'carbon tax.' CO2 is no longer an issue in the US though billions of US tax dollars continue to flow to the CO2 alarmism industry. Other countries' CO2 hasn't dropped despite billions spent on cap and trade and extra taxes. NY billionaires can't get off the CO2 train because it helped them get where they are now. They see themselves as world leaders:
8/14/12, "Carbon Taxes Cut Debt, Cool Planet," Bloomberg Editors
"The basic concept of a carbon tax enjoys support from a majority of Americans, including many Republicans. Former Representative Bob Inglis, a South Carolia Republican, recently started a think tank to build support for a carbon tax, and the conservative American Enterprise Institute has joined Brookings and the International Monetary Fund in an initiative to explore one. Greg Mankiw of Harvard University and Glenn Hubbard of Columbia University, two top economic advisers to presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, have been vocal proponents, along with Arthur Laffer, a former economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan."...
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ed. note: Arthur Laffer is your proof of something? He voted for Bill Clinton twice and thinks Obama is a fine human being. Anyone who thinks Obama is a fine human being has serious problems. I wouldn't take anything such a person says seriously.
June 10, 2012, "Arthur Laffer: Taxpayers' cheerful champion," Richmond Times-Dispatch, B. Raynor
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg's proof that a "majority" of Americans support a "carbon tax" is a summary of an online poll from March 2012.
First, one of the poll's sponsors, George Mason University, also sponsors Bob Inglis and Art Laffer whom Bloomberg cites as 'proof' that Republicans want a carbon tax.
Second, Bloomberg doesn't mention that failed "Republican" Bob Inglis is being backed in his new anti-fossil fuel career by fossil fuel billionaire David Rockefeller.
Third, the poll doesn't substantiate what Bloomberg claims, ie that most people are open to a new tax, in this case a "carbon tax."
On page 28 when the topic of a tax on fossil fuels is mentioned, respondents are told the "new tax" wouldn't really be a new tax anyway, that federal income tax revenues would simply be diverted and re-named a "tax on fossil fuels." Even if you believed one online poll was sufficient proof that hundreds of millions of Americans are willing to pay an extra tax for something, that isn't what this poll finds. It merely finds that some people wouldn't mind an accounting procedure moving some funds from federal income tax receipts and labeling them a 'fossil fuel tax' that 'would create jobs:'
pdf, page 28: "Would you be more or less likely to vote for a candidate who supports legislation to reduce the federal income tax that Americans pay each year, but increase taxes on coal, oil, and natural gas by an equal amount? This tax shift would be "revenue neutral" (meaning the total amount of taxes collected by the government would stay the same), and would create jobs and decrease pollution.
- Nat’l Avg Dem Ind Rep N/P
- Much more likely 28 37 28 15 31
- Somewhat more likely 33 37 32 36 21
- It would make no difference in my vote 20 13 18 24 31
- Somewhat less likely 10 9 10 13 12
- Much less likely 9 4 12 12 5"...
The article doesn't provide a breakdown of demographics of the online poll, or how respondents defined "global warming" or "carbon," or if they were asked to do so. Are respondents made aware that US CO2 has already dropped significantly since at least 2006 and is going lower? Are respondents made aware they already pay billions yearly for what is scientifically known to be a non-existent problem in the US? The title of Bloomberg's editorial speaks of 'cutting debt' but the poll it cites says taxes wouldn't be increased. On page 28 it clearly asks respondents about a "revenue neutral" shift of existing income tax dollars to "fossil fuel tax" dollars. Just an accounting matter. Not normally a matter for federal elections.
-------
Source: "Climate Change in the American Mind: Public Support for Climate & Energy Policies
in March 2012," Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. (Note: George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication also sponsors Bob Inglis and Art Laffer carbon tax programs).
-------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg Editors say "many Republicans" like the idea of a "carbon tax" but they don't name any elected Republicans to back up this claim. The closest they come to "proof" is former Republican congressman Bob Inglis, who was thrown out of office in part because he pushed CO2 alarmism (which is now technically dead in the US in any case). Establishment Republicans are mainly people who can't accept reality due to a character defect or emotional problem. They live in a fantasy world in which they are obsessed with sabotaging new talent and ideas in the Republican Party. They appoint themselves to a shadow government whether it's about 'carbon taxes' or whatever. US taxpayers are sitting ducks, no one is looking out for them so why not? Why waste time with taxpayers' elected representatives?
7/13/12, "George Shultz Endorses Carbon Tax – You Were Surprised?" GlobalWarming.org, Marlo Lewis
"But there has always been a wing of the GOP — the “establishment,” “Country Club,” or “Rockefeller” Republicans — who care more about controlling the party than about advancing liberty or even about winning elections. AEI’s Ken Green (a colleague of Hassett’s) hits the nail on the head. In a story on Shultz’s endorsement of carbon taxes, Green told Climatewire: (subscrip):
“There seems to be an eruption of conservatives — very moderate-seeming conservatives, non-tea party, old country club-style conservatives — who are suddenly enamored of carbon tax,” said Kenneth Green, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
“I think this is mostly vanity and egotism on the part of these people who are coming forward, to try and reassert the Republican establishment over the tea party revolution,” he added. “I wouldn’t be surprised if we have more of these guys weigh in.” (begin parag. 11)...As noted here, earlier this week, former Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) launched a new institute with Rockefeller Family Fund backing [oil money] to promote carbon taxes as a ‘Republican idea.’ Inglis said nothing to suggest that he views carbon taxes as an alternative to EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations, or that one of his objectives is to rein in the agency
- and return control over climate policy to the people’s representatives."
Bloomberg Editors cite Art Laffer whose 'Republican carbon tax' advocacy is sponsored by George Mason University (as noted above) which also sponsors the poll Bloomberg cites as proof that most people want a carbon tax:
Laffer says don't worry, you don't need to decide about non-existent CO2 endangerment, he'll decide for you on behalf of the trillion dollar CO2 industry. He and his pals will just restructure and redistribute your country. If all this is so benign and just an accounting matter, why is David Rockefeller involved with it?
---------------------------------------------------
CO2 alarmist 'glory days' are over:
7/28/12, "The Energy Revolution 4: Hot Planet?," Walter Russell Mead, The American Interest
"But there is one group (other than the Russians and the Gulf Arabs and the Iranians) that isn’t sharing in the general joy: the greens. For them, the spectacle of a looming world energy crisis was good news. It justified huge subsidies for solar and wind power (and thereby guaranteed huge fortunes for clever green-oriented investors). ...But those glory days are over now, and the smarter environmentalists are bowing to the inevitable."...
---------------------------------------------------
7/15/12, "Recession Special: Cleaner Air," NY Times, Matthew Wald
"What the government has not mandated, the economy is doing on its own: emissions of global warming gases in the United States are down.
According to the Energy Department, carbon dioxide emissions peaked in this country in 2005 and will not reach that level again until the early 2020s."...
-----------------------------------------------------------
US CO2 has dropped steeply and is going lower:
6/26/12, "The Incredible Shrinking Carbon Pollution Forecast - Part 2," switchboard.nrdc.org, Dan Lashof
--------------------------------------
8/16/12, "AP IMPACT: CO2 Emissions In US Drop To 20-Year Low," AP via NPR
--------------------------------------
6/29/12, "US Carbon Output Forecasts Shrink Again," American Interest, Walter Russell Mead
--------------------------------------
6/4/12, "Climate change stunner: USA leads world in CO2 cuts since 2006," Vancouver Observer, Saxifrage
-------------------------------------------
6/22/12, "U.S. cuts greenhouse gases despite do-nothing Congress," CNN, Steve Hargreaves
"Even factoring in a stronger economy, forecasters see greenhouse gas emissions continuing to fall."...
--------------------------------------------------------
4/21/12, "Why [CO2] Emissions Are Declining in the U.S. But Not in Europe," by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, newgeography.com
"As we note below in a new article for Yale360, a funny thing happened: U.S. emissions started going down in 2005 and are expected to decline further over the next decade."
------------------------------------------------------
11/23/11, "Europe's $287 billion carbon 'waste': UBS report," The Australian, by Sid Maher
"SWISS banking giant UBS says the European Union's emissions trading scheme has cost the continent's consumers $287 billion for "almost zero impact" on cutting carbon emissions."...EU CO2 trading provided "windfall profits" to participants paid for by "electricity customers.""
---------------------------------------------------------
4/23/12, "'I made a mistake': Gaia theory scientist James Lovelock admits he was 'alarmist' about the impact of climate change," UK Daily Mail, L. Warren
===============
7/16/10, "Carbon Trading Used as Money-Laundering Front," Jakarta Globe
--------------------------------------
10/8/10, "Murder on the Carbon Express: Interpol Takes On Emissions Fraud," Mother Jones, M. Schapiro
==========================
A 2011 report noted EIA results through 2009, US CO2 emissions dropped steadily since 1999. If, hypothetically, US temperatures have been on the increase, they couldn't possibly be related to US carbon dioxide emissions:
4/14/11, "Biggest Drop in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions," World Climate Report
"In 2009, greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. experienced their biggest drop since the U.S. Energy Information Administration began tracking them during the 1990-2009 timeframe."
-------------------------------------
1/25/2009, "Global warming industry becomes too big to fail," Timothy Carney, Washington Examiner
---------------------------------------------------------
8/23/11, "The Alarming Cost Of Climate Change Hysteria," Forbes, Larry Bell
"The Small Business Administration estimates that compliance with such regulations costs the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year — about 12%-14% of GDP, and half of the $3.456 trillion Washington is currently spending. The Competitive Enterprise Institute believes the annual cost is closer to $1.8 trillion when an estimated $55.4 billion regulatory administration and policing budget is included."...
----------------------------------------------------------
8/10/11, "U.S. Army Creates Renewables Office: Billions to Be Spent," GreenTechMedia.com
--------------------------------------------------------
1/21/11, "Analysis: U.S. government a tenuous beachhead for biofuel firms," Reuters
"The U.S. military has emerged as a key ally for fledgling producers of non-food-based biofuels."...
-------------------------------------------------
A few examples of climate cash sought in 2011:
1/11/11, "Big Money in Climate Change: Who Gives, Who Gets," Al Fin
-----------------------------------------------
CRS says congress may want to consider that global warming isn't happening anyway.
3/26/12, "Obama Requests $770 Million to Fight Global Warming Overseas," CNS News, Matt Cover
"The Obama administration has requested $770 million in federal funds to combat the effects of global warming in developing countries, a new congressional report details, continuing its policy of using foreign aid to combat the effects of global warming in the developing world.
The figure, from a recent report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), shows that despite another year of $1 trillion deficits, the Obama administration continues to pursue its policy of using foreign aid funds for anti-global warming measures – known as the Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI).
According to CRS, the government has spent a total of $2.5 billion on GCCI since 2010 on overseas anti-global warming efforts in Latin America, Asia, and Africa."...
-----------------------------------------
And, "Only 12% (of net US petroleum imports) came from Saudi Arabia last year, down from nearly 19% in 1993."...
12/16/11, "Oil boomlet sweeps U.S. as exports and production rise," USA Today, Wendy Koch
"The U.S. exported more oil-based fuels than it imported in the first nine months of this year, making it likely that 2011 will be the first time since 1949 that the nation is a net exporter of such goods, primarily diesel....
"It's dramatic. It's transformative," Edward Morse, a former senior U.S. energy official who now directs global commodities research at Citigroup, says of the historic shifts. He says the U.S. is importing a smaller share — 49% in 2010, down from 60% in 2005 — of the oil it uses, adding: "We're moving toward energy independence.""...
----------------------------------------------
11/30/11, "U.S. Nears Milestone: Net Fuel Exporter," Wall St. Journal, by L. Pleven, R. Gold
"U.S. exports of gasoline, diesel and other oil-based fuels are soaring, putting the nation on track to be a net exporter of petroleum products in 2011
for the first time in 62 years.
- upending the historical norm.
-----------------------------------------------------
7/28/10, "The secrets 10 states and Wall Street don't want you to know," by Mark Lagerkvist, NJ Watchdog
""Secrecy and greed are polluting the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the nation’s first
- mandatory cap-and-trade system.
- $729 million in carbon dioxide permits since 2008.
----------------------------------------------------
Global Warming "action" was institutionalized in US government in 1990 by George Bush the 1st. 13 federal agencies are tasked with climate "action," $68 billion has been spent on 'climate' just in the past 4 yrs.
-------------------------------------------------------
Forbes profile, David Rockefeller, Sr., net worth "$2.5 billion," "Source of Wealth: Standard Oil, Banking"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
2/11/2008, Mayor Bloomberg addresses UN General Assembly about terrors of man-caused climate change, reuters photo, "Bloomberg slams U.S. energy law over corn ethanol," Reuters.
Mayor Mike Bloomberg's perch as an elected official has blended nicely with his media empire, financial interests, and global persona.
12/16/11, "Bloomberg: Mayors hold key to climate change progress," Grist
12/4/2009, "Carbon Capitalists Warming to Climate Market Using Derivatives," Bloomberg, L. Kassenaar
-------------------------------------------------------
11/4/10, "Ruling Class GOP Declare War on Country Class Conservatives," RushLimbaugh.com
Spoken after the historic Tea Party victories in November 2010 that landed in the GOP because they had nowhere else to go, not because the GOP wanted most of them.
"The ruling class of the Republican Party doesn't want conservatives having any kind of a foothold, any success or any leadership in the party. ...(item half way down page)....So it appears to me they're (GOP) perfectly happy being in the minority if it means not supporting conservatives. (2/3 down page, Rush was using the term conservatives generally describing the new people elected in Nov. 2010)... Apparently the
establishment Republicans
will fight harder and more viciously to stop conservatives
than to stop Obama and the left. "...(2/3 down page).
-------------------------------------------------------
EDF took money from the UK to try to "re-educate" Texas hicks about catastrophic man-caused global warming.
4/3/12, "Rick Perry criticises UK initiative to influence US climate sceptics," UK Guardian, Leo Hickman
"In 2009, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) gave £13,673 to the US-based Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) to part-fund a project entitled "Influencing climate security policy and legislation in Texas", the Guardian has learned. The money was used to fly two Texan state politicians, including the climate sceptic Republican Troy Fraser, to the UK to receive a briefing with climate scientists and government officials. A conference was also held at the Texas Capitol in Austin in which a video of Prince Charles personally addressing Texan politicians on the subject of climate change was shown."
.
No comments:
Post a Comment