I have long argued that the idea of catastrophic human-induced global warming is being promoted and supported in large part by anti-Western, anti-capitalist elements in the international community, and here at home. It’s an example of science hijacked by rank politics. Basically, global warming is the issue that will be used to extort the American taxpayers out of billions, and perhaps trillions, of dollars. And they may be coming for your hard earned dollars sooner than you think.
A panel of ‘scientists’ (and I use that term very loosely because I think it is more likely they are more leftist political hacks than they are objective scientists) has recently presented to the U.N. a detailed plan for combating climate change that includes ‘a global tax on greenhouse gases’.
The panel’s recommendations include a series of steps to cut the rate at which temperatures are rising. Chief among them are a global agreement on an acceptable ceiling for temperature rise and finding ways of adapting to cope with the damage already done.
Holdren, however, says even these measure will achieve very little unless they are accompanied by a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions. “We don’t think ultimately society will get it right in terms of the full range and scope of activities needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, until there is an additional incentive in the form of a price on greenhouse gas emissions, either through a carbon tax or a cap and trade approach,” he said.
The United States is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses, but is not a party to the cap and trade system contained in the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.
Does anyone other than me find the notion of a bunch of bureaucrats setting a ‘global temperature ceiling’ just patently absurd? Only a liberal could think legislating our global climate trends and cycles was even possible. Government is omnipotent after all…
8 users commented in " Global warming’s real agenda revealed… "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackIt is simple: all the scientists are wrong. It is like when they claimed the evolution was true. They’re not fooling me!
This is one of the key differences between liberals and conservatives. Liberals try to effect change to human behavior through legislation and governmental control. Conservatives try to accept human behavior and adapt legislation to use human behavior to combat itself.
I agree with Dadman, this sort of approach is doomed to become a disastrous failure. One can only hope reason will prevail.
Pigou: Hmmm…I believe I detect a hint of sarcasm.
If you are confident that many of these ‘climate scientists’ predicting catastrophe are not politically motivated then more power to you. I will continue to be skeptical…
I am a firm believer in market forces. And I believe that the market is now creating very powerful forces to increase nuclear energy production and other means of generating power. I also believe that the market is pushing towards ways to offset the CO2 levels.
This is the way human progress has always gone. One advance in technology relieves humans of some great danger or inconvenience, and introduces another, usually far less severe, but eventually even that far less severe danger or inconvenience is too much to deal with and it is in its turn overcome with new technology.
Call me a technology optimist. I think we’ll see major advances that reduce CO2 generations significantly in our own lifetimes.
I am still hoping for the flying cars, by the way…
What is it with liberals and their fawning admiration of anything that abdicates our sovereignty? Why should we be accountable to unelected buereaucrats from the other side of the world? Who gave them the right to levy taxes on us?
Well, in retrospect that might be a little unfair. It was Clinton who refused to sign Kyoto.
He refused because the Republican congress would have overridden him.
ams and Kevin:
Clinton did not refuse to sign the treaty. He can’t sign it unless it is ratified first by the Senate. The Senate voted 95 – 0 to not ratify it. So even if Clinton had signed it, it would have meant nothing.
Al Gore did sign it, by the way, in a “symbolic” gesture. Which is sort of fitting since most of what Al Gore has done about the environment qualifies as “symbolic.”
To say that a “Republican Congress” would have overridden him is some pretty whopping spin when every Democrat in the place voted against it.
Leave A Reply