Clinton’s Cap and Trade Tax on The American People for Consuming Electricity and Driving Cars, SUVs and Trucks!

Posted on November 14, 2007. Filed under: Blogroll, Climate, Economics, Politics, Rants, Raves, Resources, Science, Taxes, Technology, Uncategorized, Video |

All the news reporters and commentors were focusing on the planted question on global warming asked by a college student to Senator Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton Caught on Planting Question Man She is Good

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoXQzcT1xr0

Hillary Clinton Insults , Uses , Manipulates Iowans

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPzauCmxqQc&feature=related

The big news was candidate Clinton’s answer.

A new cap-and-trade program that auctions 100 percent of permits alongside investments to move us on the path towards energy independence;

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/

Al Gore’s propaganda film An Inconvenient Truth about global warming is being shown to students multiple times in government schools.

That is why young people are asking you questions about global warming Senator Clinton.

Stop scarring our children with your propaganda on global warming.

Parents deeply resent this.

Inhofe Speech: Climate Alarmism’s Impact On Children

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDXDmsgaBfA

John Stossel – The Global Warming Debate 10-20-07

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FI0U5JOtoo

Senator Clinton wants all Americans to pay a new tax for the carbon emissions resulting from burning carbon based fuel, mainly coal used to power electrical plants and gasoline to power your cars and trucks.

She likes to call it cap and trade.

Note Senator Clinton said companies, individuals and businesses who emit greenhouse gases.

Well news flash folks — all humans and animals– including your pet dogs and cats emit or exhale carbon dioxide.

The carbon dioxide you and your pet breath out or exhale is used by plants as food to grow. Think of carbon dioxide as plant food.

Animals and humans in turn eat the plants. We are all part of the carbon cycle. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and should not be confused with carbon monoxide, a pollutant.

“Global Warming:
A closer look at the numbers

Just how much of the “Greenhouse Effect” is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account– about 5.53%, if not.

Water vapor constitutes Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect (4). …”

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Carbon Dioxide: A Satanic Gas?

“…Assuming linearity, this gives a rise of 1.3°C in the next century—precisely at the midpoint of the range to which I first testified over ten years ago.

Models are also linear with respect to their cold and warm season warmings. Given the differential that we have seen since 1968, the expected winter and summer half-year warmings work out to 1.45 and 1.15° C, respectively, in the next century.

During this century, we experienced a temperature rise of approximately half of these values. Crop yields quintupled. Life span doubled, in part because of better nutrition. Winters warmed. Growing seasons lengthened. The planet became greener. Increasing carbon dioxide had something to do with each and every one of these. There is simply no logical reason to assume that doing the same, this time in 50, instead of 100 years, will have any different effect in kind. That kind of improvement in the quality of human life could hardly be caused by a “pollutant.” …”

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pm100699.html

CO2 Pollution and Global Warming

When does carbon dioxide become a pollutant?

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html

Pollution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution

Also anybody who uses electricity in their home and business is emitting carbon dioxide.

The electrical power plant is emitting carbon dioxide when it burns coal or natural gas to produce the electricity that you use in your home and place of employment.

If you drive a car or truck your car engine is emitting carbon dioxide when it burns the gasoline to power the engine.

The Democratic Party is using climate models to produce computer aided scanarios called projections to scare people into thinking they are changing the earth’s climate.

This speculative nonsense or computer aided story-telling is then used in propaganda films and books to justify a massive tax increase.

A cap and trade tax or a carbon tax would damage the United States economy and result in more jobs being outsourced to such countries as China and India to name two.

Cap and trade as well as a carbon tax is just another tax to be paid by the American people.

One more tax to be added to the taxes they already pay for electricity and gasoline.

Now you know why Al Gore obsesses on global warming and the planetary emergency.

It is a big cover story to justify a massive tax increase.

Al Gore with his movie and book, An Inconvenient Truth, about global warming scares children, ignorant government school teachers and science challenged adults.

Adults are not easily fooled. Nor are judges:

Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth

http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html

Only the progressive greens or watermellons greens (green on the outside and red on the inside) mostly socialists, communists, American liberals and leftists buy into this nonsense and associated investment and tax scams.

Eco-Socialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-socialism

The vast majority of Americans and scientists think climate change is primarily caused by the sun with an assist from the oceans, cosmic rays, greenhouse gases–mainly water vapor, clouds, precipitation, volcanoes, the biosphere (plants and animals), and may be just a very tiny bit by man.

There is no one cause for climate change and man is not the primary or even leading secondary cause for climate change.

Here come the taxes–Cap and Trade–and there goes the American economy and American job overseas.

Cap and Trade: A Bad Trade-off for the Economy and Company Earnings

Wayne Winegarden*

April 10, 2007

“…Under the best scenario the cap and trade will:

• Raise gasoline prices by nearly 53 percent

• Raise energy prices by more than 86 percent

• Reduce economic growth by 1.9 percent, which is $256 billion of 2006 GDP

• Reduce economic activity across most industries including the construction, manufacturing, transportation and finance industries

• Raise interest rates because higher energy prices will exert upward pressure on overall prices and contribute to inflation …”

http://www.freeenterpriser.com/documents/Capital%20Comment%201.pdf

Congression Budget Office:Trade-Offs in Allocating Allowances for CO2 Emissions

“…Regardless of how the allowances were distributed, most of the cost of meeting a cap on CO2 emissions would be

borne by consumers, who would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those

price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income

than wealthier households would. In addition, workers and investors in parts of the energy sector—such as the

coal industry—and in various energy-intensive industries would be likely to experience losses as the economy

adjusted to the emission cap and production of those industries’ goods declined. Such losses would probably

be limited to current workers and investors. Job losses in those industries would be likely to impose a fairly large

burden on a relatively small number of households; …”

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/80xx/doc8027/04-25-Cap_Trade.pdf

Almost all taxes are past on to the consumer Senator Clinton and you know it.

Energy independence requires the building of electrical power plants (coal, nuclear, and natural gas), oil refineries and the exploration and development of oil reserves in Alaska, the continental United States and off the coasts.

Incidently that is exactly what the People Republic of China or the Chinese Communists are doing.

New coal plants bury ‘Kyoto’

“…What you’re seeing with China and the others is the cheapness and security of coal just overwhelming the desire to be clean.” …

COAL’S KNOCKOUT BLOW TO KYOTO: By 2012, expected cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions under the Kyoto treaty will be swamped by emissions from a surge of new coal-fired plants built in China, India, and the United States
SOURCES: UDI-PLATT’S, US ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, AND INDUSTRY ESTIMATES; SCOTT WALLACE – STAFF

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html?s=u

More taxes and regulation only makes the American people and the United States more dependent upon imports from foreign government controlled oil companies.

Thanks but no thanks Senator Clinton.

Just say no.

Replace all Federal taxes with the Fair Tax–a consumption tax to encourage savings and investment and grow the economy!

Fair Tax on Comcast

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XATkhjH9UHc

What is the Fair Tax?

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

Fair Tax.Org

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

Background Articles and Videos

BBC News – How to cut emissions (Global Warming)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zznSd5TCFyI–any takers?

Some facts about greenhouse and global warming

“…What are the take-home messages:

The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.
The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century – perhaps) is generally estimated at around 1 °C.
The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on “feedback” (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these “feedback” mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).
The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend — global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.
The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.)
Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.
Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects.
Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a “pollutant” it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.
There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures – there is no known “optimal” nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.
Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).
Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems. …”

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Global Warming: The Anatomy of a Debate

Presentation before the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
January 16, 1998 by Jerry Taylor

Jerry Taylor is director of the Cato Institute’s Natural Resource Studies

“…I ask you, would you have been comfortable had your grandmother impoverished herself so that you could be 4.4 times wealthier than she rather than 3.9 times wealthier than she? Remember also that increased energy costs are borne most directly by the poor, who spend a greater portion of their income on energy than do the wealthy. Moreover, the poor who will pay the highest price of greenhouse gas abatement will be those in the developing world who will be denied the opportunity to better their lifestyle and standard of living. They will be “saved” from the fate of industrialization and experiencing even the most rudimentary comforts of Western consumer societies.

We’re not really gambling with the lives of our grandchildren. They’ll be just fine regardless of how the climate plays itself out. We’re gambling with the lives of today’s poor, who stand to lose the most if we act rashly. …”

http://www.cato.org/speeches/sp-jt011698.html

If “global warming” is real, what could be causing it?

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/cause.html

Global Warming: Hot Air or Cool Science?

Professor Bob Carter

James Cook University

http://www.unisa.edu.au/nbe/research/seminars/carter.pdf

Cap-and-trade like Soviet-style central planning

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4oBjbe8BIA

The Adverse Economic Impacts of Cap-and-Trade Regulations

http://www.junkscience.com/Cap_and_Trade_Economic_Analysis_September_2007.pdf

The Challenge of Global Warming:

Economic Models and Environmental Policy

William Nordhaus, Sterling Professor of Economics. Yale University

“…The issues involved in understanding global warming and taking actions to slow its harmful impacts are the major environmental challenge of the modern age. Global warming poses a unique mix of problems that arise from the fact that global warming is a global public good, is likely to be costly to slow or prevent, has daunting scientific and economic uncertainties, and will cast a shadow over the globe for decades, perhaps even for centuries to come.

The challenge of coping with global warming is particularly difficult because it spans many disciplines and parts of society. Ecologists may see it as a threat to ecosystems, marine biologists as a problem leading to ocean acidification, utilities as a debit to their balance sheets, and coal miners as an existential threat to their livelihood. Businesses may view global warming as either an opportunity or a hazard, politicians as a great issue as long as they don’t need to mention taxes, ski resorts as a mortal danger to their already short seasons, golfers as a boon to year-round recreation, and poor countries as a threat to their farmers as well as a source of financial and technological aid. This many-faceted nature also poses a challenge to natural and social scientists, who must incorporate a wide variety of geophysical, economic, and political disciplines into their diagnoses and prescriptions. …”

http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/dice_mss_091107_public.pdf

Make a Comment