April 10, 2012
By Paul Joseph Watson
“A global tax? Really? Talk about an over-the-top and global elitist solution to a miniscule problem.” –KTRN
NASA global warming alarmist James Hansen, who previously endorsed a book that called for acts of environmentalist terrorism and genocide to return the planet to the agrarian age, is set to call for a global tax on carbon emissions in an upcoming speech.
“In his lecture, Hansen will argue that the challenge facing future generations from climate change is so urgent that a flat-rate global tax is needed to force immediate cuts in fossil fuel use,” reports the Guardian.
Echoing rhetoric that skeptics of the political agenda behind man-made climate change are akin to racists, Hansen characterizes alleged human-induced climate change a “great moral issue” on a par with slavery.
The report admits that the tax would “greatly increase the cost of fossil fuel energy” even as people struggle with soaring energy costs and that the “the carbon levy would increase year on year.”
The report gives little indication as to how the tax would be collected and by whom, but hints at some kind of hair-brained redistribution of wealth scheme with the promise that the tax would be “paid directly back to the public as a dividend, shared equally, rather than put into government coffers.”
December 23, 2009
By Mark Whittington
Nathan Myhrvold is a former technology officer for Microsoft who has found his own company, Intellectual Ventures, which is involved in a number of technology development programs, including new forms of energy generation.
Nathan Myhrvold also thinks that he has found a cheap and reliable way to solve global warming, which does not involve upending and perhaps destroying the world’s economy. The global warming solution proposed by Nathan Myhvold involves running a hose up to the stratosphere with balloons and using that hose to pump out enough sulfur particles to dim the sun’s heat just enough to counteract the effects of global warming. The estimated cost would be about two hundred and fifty million dollars.
Nathan Myhrvold suggests that volcanoes and other natural processes already pump out sulfur into the stratosphere and that his scheme, if adopted, would increase that amount by only one percent. Nathan Myhrvold therefore thinks that there would not be any unintended consequences (like starting a new ice age.)
Nathan Myhrvold’s anti global warming scheme is intriguing, even for those people (increasingly most people) who doubt that man caused global warming is actually real. The climate gate scandal involving leaked emails suggests that the data that supports the idea of man caused global warming has been doctored to some extent. Thus there is increasing resistance to the idea of arbitrarily cutting back on carbon emissions before clean energy technology is mature enough to take the place of fossil fuels, thus causing wrenching disruptions in economic growth and personal lifestyles.
One might suggest that Nathan Myhrvold’s anti global warming scheme might be part of a more rational solution to climate change, if it is a problem at all. The idea would be consist of the following.
Drop all ideas of government mandated reductions in carbon emissions.
Fund “clean energy” technology that would include not only the politically correct wind and solar, but nuclear, fusion, and space based solar energy.
Conduct a scientific study of the Earth climate, though this time with everything being above board, with real peer review, and with dissenters being allowed to offer input and criticism.
If there does turn out to be a man made global warming crisis, execute Nathan Myhrvold’s anti global warming scheme while the world more gradually, and more sustainably transfers from a fossil fuel economy to a “clean energy” economy.
There are, of course, several problems, some political, with Nathan Myhrvold’s anti global warming scheme.
First, the environmentalists will react negatively to any attempt to basically terraform the planet we happen to be living on, even if it is for a beneficial purpose and using a process that occurs in nature.
Second, certain politicians will not like it because as benign as Nathan Myhrvold’s anti global warming scheme would be to the world economy, it provides them with less opportunities to expand government control over peoples’ lives.
Third, there might be unintended consequences. For one thing, the energy produced by the sun undergoes fluxuations. That is one reason the Earth has been in a cooling period since 1998. What if the sun cooled unexpectedly while the Nathan Myhrvold’s anti global warming scheme was being executed? Can the amount of sulfur be adjusted accordingly to prevent unexpected drops in temperature?
Still Nathan Myhrvold’s anti global warming scheme is an interesting idea that ought to be added to the debate over climate change.
December 18, 2009
President Obama’s mission to save the planet from global warming could end up trampling on the U.S. Constitution, critics say.
When Obama arrives in Copenhagen Friday, he is hoping to cut a deal on a new global-warming agreement. Even though the conference is not likely to produce a legally binding deal, critics say if the president signs an international climate treaty pledging reductions in carbon emissions, he will violate the Constitution.
“President Obama cannot bind the American people to job killing international agreements on climate change without the advice and consent of the United States Senate,” former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich wrote Wednesday at the conservative Web site Human Events.
The Constitution states that the president cannot sign treaties without the approval of two-thirds of the Senate.
But with climate change legislation stuck in the Senate after the House passed its version earlier this year, the White House is flirting with the possibility of taking action without Congress.
Last week, on the day the climate summit opened in Denmark, the EPA formally declared that greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide are a danger to human health — a finding that could pave the way for massive new regulations under the Clean Air Act for cars, power plants, crude-oil refineries and chemical plants.
While administration officials have said they would prefer Congress take action on regulating greenhouse gas emissions, Republicans fear the EPA, buoyed by its latest finding, is prepared to act unilaterally.
Democratic Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, co-author of the House climate change bill, told Fox News that the Obama administration has the power to act without Congress through the EPA.
“It’s no longer a question of legislation or no legislation,” he told Fox News’ Chris Wallace. “It is now a question of legislation or regulation. The EPA can act.
December 16, 2009
By Agence France-Presse
Police battled demonstrators outside the UN climate summit on Wednesday as leaders of developing nations let rip at wealthy counterparts, exposing the huge obstacles facing a deal to tame global warming.
Police with dogs fired tear gas and arrested around 260 marchers in Copenhagen, while inside the Bella Center venue fears swelled that ministerial wrangling could wreck hopes for a deal.
Around 1,500 demonstrators tried to march on the closely guarded complex, where 194 nations are seeking to forge a strategy to head off the dangers from rising oceans, droughts, plagues and storms threatened by soaring temperatures.
Inside the conference centre, a man and a woman stormed on to the main stage after a speech by Senegal’s President Abdoulaye Wade, repeatedly shouting “Climate justice now!” before being taken away by security.
Many delegates applauded and away from the stage, world leaders — arriving for Friday’s grand summit of 120 chiefs — portrayed negotiations in a sombre light.
Friday’s summit hopes to conclude a post-2012 strategy by setting down the outlines of an accord on curbing carbon emissions and craft a mechanism to provide billions of dollars for poorer countries in the firing line of climate change.
Scientists warn that many millions of people face going hungry, losing their homes and access to water within the next decade if nothing is done to stem the rise in greenhouse gas emissions.
But nine days of official and informal negotiations have failed to produce a breakthrough on any of the key issues. Copenhagen talks: Update on the positions
In one of the first speeches by a head of state, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez railed against what he called “the imperial dictatorship” of the West and said poorer nations would not take their orders from the rich.
“There’s a group of countries who think they are better than us in the South, in the Third World,” he said before taking a dig at US counterpart Barack Obama for receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.
Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, usually subject to a European Union travel ban over allegations of human rights abuses, said the West was guilty of hypocrisy.
“Why is the guilty North(ern hemisphere) not showing the same fundamentalist spirit it exhibits in our developing countries on human rights matters on this more menacing threat of climate change?
“Where are its sanctions for eco-offenders? When a country spits on the Kyoto Protocol by seeking to shrink from its diktats, or by simply refusing to accede to it, is it not violating the global rule of law?”
Chinese chief negotiator Su Wei complained the process was “not transparent” and warned of “very grave consequences” if things did not improve. Related article: China opposes ‘carbon tariffs’
With the conference moving towards its climax, Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen took over as chairman, replacing Connie Hedegaard who will lead informal talks.
“People around the world are actually expecting something from us,” said Rasmussen, showing frustration at events.
Some of the bitterest wrangling has been between the world’s two biggest carbon emitters, China and the United States, which have declared they would not shift on their emissions pledges, the thorniest problem of all.
Obama has offered to cut US carbon emissions by 17 percent by 2020 over a 2005 benchmark, a figure that aligns with legislation put before Congress.
It amounts to a reduction of around four percent compared with the more widely used reference year of 1990. The European Union has pledged to cut emissions by 20 percent on 1990 levels by 2020 and is willing to increase that figure to 30 percent if other developed nations follow suit.
“We are still putting on the table the obligation to go to 30 percent already to 2020 if other developed countries would make the same kind of contribution,” said Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, whose country holds the EU’s rotating presidency.
Reinfeldt also said he was “not sure” whether a deal can be clinched in Denmark which will limit global warming to two degrees Celsius.
The Copenhagen summit has been mired with organisational problems with the number of people accredited outstripping capacity by around 30,000.
Thousands of activists were forced to leave the venue Wednesday to accommodate VIPs, fuelling anger among those who already feel their voices are not being heard.
December 4, 2009
By Joe Pogany
Appearing at the final date of Al Gore’s and others’ “Made in America Clean Energy Jobs Tour” which was held in Pittsburgh on September 23rd 2009, the President of the AFL-CIO and member of President Obama’s PERAB (President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board), Richard Trumka, calls for a “New Economic Order” and “New rules on carbon emissions.”
During Trumka’s nearly 10-minute speech, he makes repeated calls for a “New Economic Order.” At one point during his speech, Trumka ties together both the New World Order and carbon taxes by saying, “We need new rules on carbon emissions, we need a new economic order that addresses the global job crisis that Wall Street keeps exporting and exploiting.”
Mr. Trumka is basically trying to deceive the people into believing that there is essentially a ‘good’ and ‘bad’ New World Order by saying that “Unregulated globalization” has lead to our current economic crises. While the latter part of the statement is true, having “New rules on carbon emissions” is the NWO’s agenda to get the United States and the rest of the western world on the hook for a “Carbon Debt” as seen in the Copenhagen Treaty.
Founder and Chairman of the “Alliance for Climate Protection” Al Gore, stated in a recorded message at the rally, “Our Made in America Clean Energy Jobs Tour was a critical effort to show the power and the benefits of a transition to a truly clean energy economy. It’s no secret our economic crisis and the climate crisis are linked, and so are their solutions.” Again, the latter part of the statement is truthful on its face, however, Gore isn’t telling us that the NWO deliberately destroyed the United States’ economy and is now pitching “Good green jobs” and “Cap and Trade” as the way for us to rebuild it.
It’s classic Hegelian Dialect at its best (worst). They create the problem, reaction, and then offer their solution. Let us not follow Richard Trumka, Al Gore, or President Obama down the rat-hole into an abyss of “Global Governance.”
Let us expose these people and their fraud of Anthropogenic Global Warming, which only seeks to bring the United States under the hammer of the New World Order’s one-world government!