Carbon Tax Wins Stupid Contest

There is no contest as far as I know, but if there were one centering on stupidity, the Carbon Tax that French President Nicolas Sarkozy has proposed would take the cake indefinitely. And, out of all of the issues addressed in this week's episode, the proposed Carbon Tax is the most infuriating by far.

The very idea of taxing carbon is one of the most despotic and economically crippling ideas ever proposed. The idea of taxing individuals for the right to breath may sound like a far-off idea that would never actually be conceived, but Sarkozy's carbon tax proposition is almost synonymous.

With the issue of Global Warming becoming more and more shrouded each and every day, people seem prepared to offer help to solve this "problem" anyway that they can. Of course, these good-willed people are not entirely to blame. They've only been mislead, and last time I checked, a person cannot be held accountable for something he or she does not know about.

However, it is important to understand that the entire issue of Global Warming is no longer one of pertinence or personal well being as far as global community is concerned. On the contrary, it has become a valuable bureaucratic tool ideal for elitists the world over to not only put more money in their own pockets, but also to indeed control life itself.

Depending on your beliefs and personality, this allegation could seem unfounded and utterly improbable. Yet, a basic understanding of history and sociology is all it takes to realize the dangers of willingly giving up control under false and shrouded pretenses designed to appear as personal helpful. The carbon tax is one such despotic tool that appears as an angel of light.

The sad fact of the matter is that Sarkozy's scheme, which is becoming widely accepted and vehemently forced upon our global community by the U.N., will force nations importing products from "polluter countries" to pay a tariff on the goods or be literally obligated to purchase emission permits.

It is pertinent to understand that such a scheme would inevitably lower the standards of living within the whole of the industrialized world. Through the loss of industry and production that such a scheme would create, the developing world as we know it currently will fail to benefit in the least as it struggles to cope with crippling taxes and elevated export prices.

Trade lawyers have been divided over the legality of such a tax for sometime now and most of them agree that such a tax would infringe upon international trade rules.

Yet, this isn't all about money is it? After all, we have a global warming problem. Carbon emissions from us virus-like humans are destroying the earth and causing irreversible climate change. We need to sacrifice some things in order to protect Mother Earth - right?

Think again. Human activity accounts for only a small percentage of overall climate change and frankly, I think we're giving ourselves a little too much credit. Our activities, when paralleled to natural factors such as volcano emissions and natural solar activity, cannot even hold up the proverbial candle of comparison.

The only people who will benefit from a carbon tax will be the power-hungry bureaucrats that are pushing it - not Mother Earth, not you, not me.

The European carbon tax that Sarkozy is proposing and pushing is frightingly similar to that of the U.N., which has urged the adoption of a "global burden sharing system, fair with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations." Why not call it what it is? A global carbon tax.

The approximately $40 Billion dollars a year from this carbon tax will go straight into the grimy, power-grumbling hands of the coffers in the U.N.-controlled "Multilateral Adaptation Fund." Fun, fun.

Perhaps we need to pay attention to the words of MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen who warned last year, "Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life."

I don't know about you, but I'd rather be in full control of my life. Seems like a pretty good idea.

Lindzen, who is one of 100 prominent scientists that signed a letter last month criticizing the U.N. move as nothing more than a futile bureaucratic scheme, also pointed out the results of a recent study in the International Journal of Climatology. The study concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is largely a result of solar activity and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant.

When it's snowing in Baghdad as well as here in the deep south - Georgia - where I currently reside, then I just can't push myself to believe that the earth is warming beyond my control, nonetheless that it is caused by my ugly, green 1995 GMC conversion van.

Yet, only half of that number of previously mentioned prominent scientists - 52 to be exact - participated in the IPCC summary for Policymakers meeting in April 2007. A report funded by - gasp - the United Nations itself. For shame.

The letter addressed to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, which can be read in its entirety HERE, states the following:

"Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems."

"It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation."

"The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it."

Originally Posted Spot

As long as it's equally applied to interior industries, i'm pretty sure they could squeak by just barely with a law, as long as it's worded right. However, they are opening themselves to massive amounts of trade deflection due to EU trade harmonization. The EU could band together and get something passed at the WTO level that would enshrine this into trade rule, but how China would react would be interesting

And as much as the tax sucks, taxing consumption is really the only way to do it, as taxing industry just encourages industry to move to locations where they don't care so much.

I say drop the nukes and blow us back into the stone age. Atleast then if we get a piss-poor leader we can simple beat him in the head with a rock. Besides wildlife is recovering with a fury at Cherinobil.

Hey everybody, it's ThisWeekInTuningOutCrazy!

Tl;dr

What can I say, I watched Life after People last night on the History channel and it didn't seem all that bad.

05/08 4EVER

You lost me at "this week's episode".

Yeah... good points.

I don't get it.

I was a little dissappointed with that show. I was looking forward to it.

If anything, though, it shows me that we couldn't fuck the world up that bad if we tried. I mean really, to think that we're so dangerous is a little prideful, eh?

I don't know why you keep posting these, but please, never stop.

I loved it!

Skip over it. As you can see, I didn't include it.

It's where Atlanta get's its playas'

You should let your hat write an article. I might read that one.

OK.

Now there's some journalism I could get behind.

It's really drunk right now. Ask again later.

They start out selling Chronic at Barns & Noble. Then they move to Inman Park.

i read the article. i support your idea.

I propose a tax on terrible Hunter S Thompson wannabes. Per word, please.

Don't peg that on me.