Guest Post by Christopher Horner, CEI
In November, I and CEI sued the Department of the Treasury to produce emails and other records mentioning “carbon”. See Joint_Scheduling_Agreement PDF
I sought emails and other documents from two offices: Environment and Energy (really), and Legislative Affairs. This action after the administration first ignored us, which they followed with an unfortunate stumble, trying to delay us with fees — even absurd and surely anti-‘green’ ones, like $1,800 to photocopy electronic mail, typically copied on a disc for no charge — which fees, even when they’re not mindlessly trumped up like that one, not-for-profit groups which disseminate government information are exempt by statute from paying.
Delay can only work only so well once we file suit, and recently Treasury turned over a first production of approximately 770 pages of reports. Despite its better efforts Treasury managed to hand over some docs that in an attentive world should prove extremely useful, offering fantastic language if often buried in pointy-headed advice they received in Power Points and papers from the IMF, G-20 and, in graphic terms, an analysis from the World Bank on how to bring a carbon tax about.
These documents represent thoughtful advice on how to mug the American taxpayer and coerce them out of unacceptable and anti-social behavior, diverting at least 10% of the spoils to overseas wealth transfers. The major focus is language, how to sell it to the poor saps not by noting the cost or that it is a tax but as, for example, the way to be the leader in something like solar technology.
This expensive advice certainly does sound familiar. The best language came in a paper produced for World Bank clients (Treasury) that had been hiding in plain sight (incidentally, agencies are not supposed to turn over publicly available documents under FOIA; but this and other such entries provides the illusion of voluminous cooperation). The non-private nature of the advice does not diminish its utility to understand what’s going on, such as enjoyable excerpts such as these:
“Actively manage the political economy of reform. Managing the political economy of reform also entails measures that target those segments of the population that would otherwise oppose reforms. For example, in 2010 the Islamic Republic of Iran increased domestic energy prices by up to 20 times, reducing fossil fuel subsidies by some $50 billion–$60 billion. It offset them with $30 billion in cash transfers that benefited 80 percent of its population, thereby addressing the fact that opposition to the reform of such subsidies usually comes from the middle class. The combination of cash transfers with a well-orchestrated public relations campaign was critical to the success of the reform (Guillaume and others 2011).
Understanding the sources of resistance to a reform helps to design the reform process in a way that minimizes this resistance (box O.4)….”
As a result, how messages are framed, what values are appealed to, and how the needed efforts are presented are critical. …[F]raming green policies as a way to reach an ambitious and positive social goal (such as becoming carbon neutral by 2050 or becoming a leader in solar technologies) makes them more acceptable (and less prone to reversal at the next change of government) than if they are perceived as a constraint to economic development.”
And
“By priming or framing personal behavior as part of a larger social goal, the public and private sectors can induce people to behave in more environment-friendly ways, particularly when they act as groups, as group decisions have been found to be made with less selfishness than individual decisions (Milch and others 2007). By framing environmental protection as a “social project,” policy makers can make individuals think in terms of social and collective goals. … However, their willingness to do so depends partly on what the surcharge is called: simply relabeling a carbon “tax” as a carbon “offset” increases its acceptability (Hardisty and others 2010).
In addition, people are more likely to accept increases in energy prices if they perceive them as needed to reach an ambitious and positive social goal than if they perceive them as top-down government decisions to reduce oil imports or protect the climate…. This framing makes it more likely that the public will accept the resulting increases in the price of electricity. It also reduces the risk that the decision will be reversed by the next government.”
Obviously, Treasury is proceeding in the time-honored tradition of releasing those records that they deem least likely to be revealing, saving the best for last, after promiscuously heavy-handed redactions to be litigated later. This works hand-in-glove with the recent and seemingly coordinated chorus calling for a carbon tax.
Regardless, yesterday I received 253 pages of email, mostly chaff. This came after I indicated to Treasury’s counsel at the Department of Justice our plan to bring the court’s attention to the remarkable failure to produce even one email after claims of spending four months processing thousands of them.
Yesterday’s production of 253 pages of emails, which CEI will post shortly, mostly address boring old World Bank/project finance/forestry credit programs. Still, to see, e.g., the World Bank passing along WWF stances to its client the Treasury Department, and the State Department convening audiences for Nature Conservancy pitches at this stage is noteworthy.
It also includes a May 7, 2012 email from Treasury to a South Korean representative stating, “My colleagues here at the US Treasury are interested to learn more about the carbon trading legislation that was recently passed by the Korean parliament.”
Then the head of Treasury’s Office of Environment and Energy asks around among his colleagues for a briefing paper on Korea’s carbon tax (June 8, 2012). Korea really is where it’s at on this front. Spain is so…well, we don’t say Spain anymore apparently.
That all of them would participate in a “social cost of carbon” (What is that? Diamonds? Pencils?) session at EPA begs an invitation to a seminar on the social cost of their ‘carbon’ agenda.
Speaking of costs, the emails show Team Obama chatting up how to price ‘carbon’ and otherwise model the agenda last May; and how things are working in Europe for comparisons for the sweet-spot on price, in July 2012. Just in case someone…else…manages to bring such a thing into law here. Other emails expressed concerns that the EU price for CO2 ration coupons had gotten so low (July 2012).
One email harkened back to the World Bank’s advice on how to sucker the public into tolerating more energy taxes, in a wink to Harvard’s Joseph Aldy about it sure would be neat to see some work on what the public thinks about a “carbon charge”, instead of what he had presented to them, how they view a national renewable energy standard. In short, it’s all about getting the masses nodding.
Finally, I see the Obama Treasury staff subscribe to the oddest updates, like the Heinrich Boll Stiftung (Germany’s Green Party).
More updates later as the better, if far more heavily redacted documents come with monthly deliveries on or about the 22d, followed by litigating those redactions.
==========================
Christopher Horner is a fellow of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and author, his most recent book being “The liberal War on Transparency
”
They would tax us for breathing if they could get away with it.
And they may eventually try.
My first reaction is what plan worked on the agw scientist give them some money let them get fame and the government gets science backed reasons to tax tax tax. Now unleash it on the general population. For all the furious people out there it is not a grand conspiracy just greedy narcissistic people.
We were once a spacefaring nation. Now, we’re a once free nation.
Maybe not so surprising that the architects of a carbon tax look to the behavior of the theocratic dictatorship of Iran as their model. I see they left out the part where that government sent paramilitary forces into the street to brutally suppress any who opposed the way they were running things.
But this issue is why this issue is at its core a political fight using trumped up “scientific” claims as the fig leaf to allow those behind it to increase their revenue and thus their power.
It is ALL about gaining more power – notice how, as if on cue, Al Gore popped up yesterday to call for a carbon tax? And after the fact, when the weather started to cool again, they plan to say “look, it’s working! We can never repeal this wonderful, beautiful tax!”
fortunately, their scare tactics have run out of steam a little bit more quickly than they had thought.
That cursed Sun, refusing to cooperate with the best laid plans!
Oh Mike G, how sharp the tooth of awful truth!
Does the Obama administration really want to lead with the Islamic Republica of Iran as an example?
Who’s going to run that ad campaign?
wws says:
March 23, 2013 at 6:26 am
Rest assured: 1.6 billion rounds of hollow-point ammo in the hands of the DHS will teach Americans how to walk in the desired direction without resistance.
There goes America – one slice of freedom at a time…
And the MSM miss-informed public plods on…
In the UK we have had a CO2 tax for a long time now….it has no effect on the weather but gives the shysters money and power.
Yesterday I received my largest ever energy bill, at least 20% up on this time last year.
And why? because Al Gore and James Hansen wanted it that way and we have to many idiots of our own to see through the green bullshit…we meekly did as we were told.
In celebration of us stupid Brits allowing this to happen we had an awful lot of snow yesterday…..but no discussion other than we may run out of gas and could end up on rationing.
A Third World Country being brought to it’s knees by complete b…….s.
So where is the media to protect our “Democracy”?
Loving it…24/7 news and it’s nearly all about the weather.
Here in BC we have a carbon tax. It siphons public money out of schools that could otherwise be used to add insulation or replace aging furnaces and the CO2 they produce. This money is then given to companies for not producing CO2 – by not building manufacturing plants here in BC. Some of this money is then given back to the government as political contributions in appreciation.
And what has it done for tax revenues? Well the government tells us the CO2 tax is revenue neutral, and they tell us they have a balanced budget. But are they telling the truth? Looking at the figures one finds that in fact the government recently took $500 million out of BC Hydro and BC Insurance Corp to balance its books (following a 11.2% insurance rate increase). This is money that should have been used to build infrastructure or reduce rates. Instead it has been used to give the appearance of low taxes, while in fact it is simply hiding the tax via increased hydro and insurance rates.
And has the tax on CO2 cut CO2? Ask your local small business the effect it has when people stop driving to try and make ends meet, when there is nothing left after their paycheck disappears to pay the hydro bills and insurance bills. The government thinks cutting gasoline sales by 7% by increasing prices is a great measure of success. However, look at it the other way around. It means there is a whole lot less economic activity, which means less jobs and at the end of the year at lot less for the average person.
What it really means is that the CO2 we are saving in BC has simply been exported to China along with the jobs, where Chinese coal plants now take the place of BC energy that used to be produced from hydro and natural gas. Only when you consider BC in isolation can you imaging there is a benefit. When you consider the CO2 component of imported goods and services, there is no net benefit in the CO2 tax – unless of course you are a government insider.
Here is a paper explaining the background to how the whole thing got under way in the UK.
“Global Warming: The Social Construction of a Quasi-Reality” by Dennis Ambler, Energy & Environmet, vol 18, 2007
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/social_construction.html
Armageddon is “the end of the world as you knew it”.
For those still suffering from normalcy bias it should soon be apparent that the world as you “knew” is is based on a series of false paradigms. There is NO Carbon induced climate change. There is NO sustainable green energy. There is NO finite, dino-juice “peak oil” crisis. What does exist is a feudal banking system, imposed by European monarchs and monopolists in a bid to recreate the New Middle Ages. These demonic forces cannot be the omnipotent demigods of their dreams, without destroying the middle class and creating a universal slave state. Once you recognize that THIS is the world that you though you knew, you can participate in the end of feudalism for all humanity. The New Renaissance will trump the New Medieval and a thousand years of peace and light will uplift all. Find and share Truth….it is you duty as an Earthling.
The Sinister Underbelly Of The Climate Change Movement: Fear and Loathing Of Humankind; Greed; Useful Idiot True Believers and a good number of genocidal maniacs who believe population control by starving people via denying them affordable energy from fossil fuel is the way to go. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v… Higher Energy Costs = Less Income = More Poor = More Children Dying. Without Affordable Power From Fossil Fuel There is No Hope And Change
The fact that there are UNELECTED bureaucrats in the world who sit around dreaming this stuff up is scary enough, but those that modify the language to ‘sanitize’ it are the most frightening of all. A singularly unproductive pursuit for which they probably get paid handsomely. All without our permission.
Thread of continuity that weaves through the thieves? They’re students of human behavior. Master con-artists and manipulators of the masses. Colorado’s Legislative Session 2013 offers a glimpse of how con-artists perform. Warning! Because it’s X-rated junk, you may want your money back!
BRAVO to my friend Chris. “Gang Green Busters R us!”
Al Gore says:
“Energy consumption, on the other hand, is not an objective for anyone. Indeed, the negative externalities of energy use, including local pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, mean that, other things being equal, an economy that burns less fuel is better off.” (http://blog.algore.com/2013/03/time_has_come_for_a_carbon_tax.html)
Sorry Al, I strongly disagree, this is a bs statement in my humble opinion. An economy that has cheap and abundant energy is one that thrives and raises the standard of living for all. The cost of everything is influenced by the cost of energy. Driving up the cost of carbon (thru taxation and regulations) so that very expensive and unreliable wind and solar energy look like a bargain will destroy the middle class and lead to an impoverished nation.
Al Gore also says “While the adjustment to higher energy costs would have some negative impact, it would be offset by the benefits of cuts in other taxes.”
Patently NOT true. If you raise the cost of energy 50%, it will still mean people will be paying more for energy regardless of what rebates are given. Rebates are just smoke and mirrors. Look at it this way. If your energy bill is $1 now, and they increase the cost of that same energy to $1.50, but give you a $0.50 cent rebate to cover the cost of the increased cost of the energy, where do you think that $0.50 rebate came from? It comes from increased taxes you must pay. So Al and the like will take an additional $0.50 in taxes from you, give it back to you to cover the increased energy bill and claim you are now benefitting because your NET energy cost is the same $1 and the earth is better because you aren’t producing as much CO2.
Mathematically:
$1 original energy cost
Al Gore math:
$1.50 (energy) + $0.50(increased taxes) – $0.50(energy rebate) = $1.50
but Al Gorians will be claiming you are only paying $1 for energy now because of the rebate.
It is so sad that so… so many of us will fall for the Al Gorian math.
I only come to wuwt now to see if anyone has the balls to release climategate3. As usual, no. Pitiful.
Do you really think a cooler world will stop these people’s plans? These power-hungry bureaucrats are just using climate change to achieve their goals. When that fails, they will use something else. But each time they whittle a little more of our freedoms away. “And many strokes, though with a little axe, Hew down and fell the hardest-timbered oak.” — King Henry VI Part III. A little here, a little there and few notice because it is slow and gradual. A little more here, a little more there and eventually the tree is cut down.
Great work.
Ignorance of the consequences of their actions, is normal mindset for these minions.
Control of all, wonderful idea.
Responsible for all, not us.
The weeding will begin in earnest when the production of wealth, thats useful stuff, is ground to a halt by regulation. We are well on the way and why fight it? That will only prolong the tenure of the nonproductive.
If it is not regulated, it shall be prohibited.
Standard statist mentality.
Our problem and luck is the voluntarily nonproductive do not know what production or wealth really are, so they obsess over the symbols.
It depends what the meaning of is, is.
Any Canadians here familiar with the access to information procedure at Environment Canada?
They do not seem to be willing to name, their experts who evaluated the IPCC Reports and accepted them as good enough for government.
Nor how they have reevaluated their “science” in light of the exposure of the IPCC’s credibility problems. Any hints to avoid the standard shunts and denials of the bureaucratic weasels?
When you elect left-wing governments, they do their best to increase the number of people who rely on government for hand-outs. The more voters that live off the government, the more likely left-wing politicians get elected.
When you get up to 50% of the voters living off government programs, then only spending left-wing governments can get elected. This is one of the ways that Obama got re-elected. There are now so many people living off the government that an Obama-type candidate is guaranteed 49% of the vote even when they are doing a bad job.
Now throw in some Carbon tax redistribution system into the process and even more people are relying on government (especially after the job losses). Tax and spend and borrow and spend. It works in the short-term if you are a left-wing politician – until you run out of money – which is occurring quiten often today – how many countries are/have gone broke using this strategy.
Keep at ’em, Christopher. Exposure is necessary. People will only get angry about all this when they see the truth of these vile manipulations. I’m beginning to believe that only the people’s anger will bring us out of this madness (the world over). It’s coming. People are already fed up. Anger is not far behind. Fury is what these politicians and alarmists should be worried about, because that’s what coming too, if this nonsense doesn’t get turned around very quickly.
No matter what they try, no matter what language they use, the green activists are losing control over the masses, and they know it – hence their more extreme claims, their panic and their urgent push to get legislation in place before it’s too late for them. But it’s already too late for them and legislation can be changed. The people are waking up, and they are waking up angry.
Congratulations on some excellent work, and thanks for sharing it with us here. Funny how the same creatures turn up no matter which stone you look under.
Christopher,
You might also think about asking for FOI on all correspondence with the World Future Council.
They are a shadowy, marxist, one world govt outfit, who until December boasted the UK’s John Gummer (past Environment Secretary and now Chair of the Committee on Climate Change) as a leading, policy making Council Member.
Their policies are extremely dangerous to Westewrn democracy and need to be exposed.
More details on them here.
http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/
A pound to a penny, the Fed Govt is deeply involved with them.
The war on fossil fuel is a war on freedom. That is all it is.
I don’t think any of this comes as a surprise (does it?, really?) – it has been apparent from the very beginning that the eco-wars have been ‘force-fed’ by governments once they realised that they could gain additional control and taxation via a so-called socially and environmentally ‘accepted’ means (i.e. green taxes).
I have to say, in all honesty, that I don’t really care any more. The sheeple won’t listen, won’t question and do not have the interest or werewithall to be worth ‘saving’ from themselves IMHO. All they want is their next ipad or gadget or whatever consumer ‘fix’ is in vogue to make themselves feel ‘better’.
My current attitude is now to look after No.1 – yeah, it may be selfish to some – but the politicos are not gonna give a sh*t – so why should I? My medium term plan, which I hope will come to fruition, is to be virtually self sufficient, and to be away (i.e. in the sticks!) from the main populus when the sh*t really hits the fan. The bottom line is – there is nothing can be done to help Joe Ordinary – the patient has keeled over and is just waiting for the machine to be switched off by those who have the power!
There simply comes a time when you are in your boat, trying to help the survivors from the shipwreck of the good ship ‘SS Not Listening’, but it is getting overrun with clutching and grabbing scumbags desparate to climb onboard another ship and make that sink too! Sorry, but it really is time for us to try and protect ourselves and our families futures.
as the saying goes – ‘Save yourselves’ – ‘cos you know for sure that the politicos and leaders will not!
Alcheson says:
March 23, 2013 at 9:59 am
….. If you raise the cost of energy 50%, it will still mean people will be paying more for energy regardless of what rebates are given. Rebates are just smoke and mirrors. Look at it this way. If your energy bill is $1 now, and they increase the cost of that same energy to $1.50, but give you a $0.50 cent rebate to cover the cost of the increased cost of the energy, where do you think that $0.50 rebate came from? It comes from increased taxes you must pay. So Al and the like will take an additional $0.50 in taxes from you, give it back to you to cover the increased energy bill and claim you are now benefitting because your NET energy cost is the same $1 and the earth is better because you aren’t producing as much CO2…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You missed the KEY POINT.
The USA does not have the tax money to cover the rebate so it borrows the $0.50 cent rebate from the bankers. The bankers create the $0.50 cent out of thin air but charge the tax payers for the $0.50 cent AND INTEREST. On top of that are all the administrative costs of the program.
The underground economy…..
Edgar Feige, a widely cited Professor Emeritus of Economics at University of Wisconsin-Madison shows the underground economy is alive and well and growing. Quote from an Edgar Feige paper:
As taxes increase evasion of tax also increases via the underground economy until you are getting less tax revenue than you would if you had not increased taxes.
Therein lays reason enough to abolish taxes on ones “income” and move to the American Consumer Tax.
Government bureaucracies loathe having their internal machinations opened up to the public view.
In this case, the reluctance to provide the documents requested under FOIA is: i) partly ecoloons not wanting to be shown up as being ecoloons, and ii) partly because bureaucrats do not want to have their plots and general incompetence publicly aired.
Never forget, bluster and time wasting is an essential part of the syllabus taught in Training Bureaucrats 101.
How long to get all the documents requested? Answer: 5 years if you are lucky. In the meantime, the policy will be one of drip feeding non-essential documents.
Great quote: “Government bureaucracies loathe having their internal machinations opened up to the public view.” May I post on http://www.LandAndWaterUSA.com
I had calculated a couple of years ago that there is 1.24 E-10 ppmv/tonne of atmospheric CO2. If you use this and compare it to the tables compiled by the DOE on carbon emission country by country here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
you can see very quickly that any effort to STOP the growth of atmospheric CO2 by any reduction strategy will fail unless the oceans cool FIRST. But according to failed climate models that is impossible without a reduction in atmospheric CO2.
As a reminder to everyone here, you can also use this constant I derived along with the simple ocean uptake model in another WUWT article that was published by Steve Fitzpatrick here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/22/a-look-at-human-co2-emissions-vs-ocean-absorption/
and see for yourselves that not only must CO2 atmospheric temperature sensitivities by “climate models” be gravely in error, the carbon taxes and strategies put forth by academia and the World Bank and governments regarding “carbon footprints” and attempts to stop the growth of atmospheric CO2 are grounded in complete fraud and deception. This is a shameful money and power grab and the public needs to shout back loudly a resounding NO! to the idea.
Also, as a rejection of earth hour at 8:30 PM in every time zone tonight, I advise any who are inclined to turn ON every light in your home as a symbol you reject this fraudulent nonsense and the radical envirowhacko’s that would like to turn human civilization back into the dark ages.
Chuck F. Wiese
Meteorologist
The EU shows a great example of unelected bureaucrats sitting around all day, dreaming this sort of gas-taxing stuff up, When elected governments do it, something is seriously wrong. In Australia the Gillard government introduced a ‘carbon-tax’ which is causing fuel-poverty and complaints. There is an election coming in September and the loud grinding noise coming from out of suburbia is the sound of people sharpening their knives for voting-day when they will remove the problem. The same thing will follow in the US.
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
“Caring about the environment” is just a cover. What they want is more revenue, and “fighting climate change” is the fig leaf used to hide it.
Alcheson says: March 23, 2013 at 9:59 am
……
“Mathematically:
$1 original energy cost
Al Gore math:
$1.50 (energy) + $0.50(increased taxes) – $0.50(energy rebate) = $1.50
but Al Gorians will be claiming you are only paying $1 for energy now because of the rebate.
It is so sad that so… so many of us will fall for the Al Gorian math.”
You forgot to account for all the jobs that are going to be created to administer the various tax and rebate programs- lets just skip these folks carbon footprints as that would make the costs to administer the program(s) a bit more then they would be if we just ignore them. A lot of very colorful brochures are going to be purchased by the administrators to explain why the Plan is good. It takes a lot of effort to design taxes fairly. Hence a lot of attorneys, energy experts, and social scientists will need to be hired to make sure the details of the plans are sustainable and fair. If I had to make a SWAG at the administrative costs I say it would be about 30% of the total funds collected from the taxes and fees. Your total is now up to $1.50 + $.45 (Administrative cut) = $1.95.
ferdberple –
re the farce in BC,
20 March: Vancouver Observer: Carrie Saxifrage: British Columbia set to export mega amounts of carbon dioxide. Is that a plan?
We plan to export 19 times as much carbon by 2020
Under the current climate plan, B.C. committed to reduce carbon emissions by 21 million tonnes between 2007 and 2020. Yet if current proposals for fossil fuel infrastructure are approved, B.C. will increase its export emissions by 640 million tonnes. In other words, the overall emissions tied to the B.C. economy would nearly quadruple…
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/earthmatters/british-columbia-set-export-mega-amounts-carbon-dioxide-plan
Here’s a lot of money they ain’t gonna get now, because we were many steps ahead of them this time. And the would have gotten away with it too if it wasn’t for them damn bloggers.
“There’s the G-20 report titled “Mobilizing Climate Finance,” which pegs the price tag at $2.1 trillion “of investment requirement” in a “global carbon market.””
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/21/here-comes-team-obama-carbon-tax/#ixzz2OPjSMHqG
“By priming or framing personal behavior as part of a larger social goal, the public and private sectors can induce people to behave in more environment-friendly ways…..”
That would be plan AK-47, right? Did I get that right?
@ William MacClenney, Well it seems to be the universal round, maybe that will be the next unit of world currency.
“These documents represent thoughtful advice on how to mug the American taxpayer and coerce them out of unacceptable and anti-social behavior, diverting at least 10% of the spoils to overseas wealth transfers.”
All of the mass production capacity, infrastructure, and energy necessary for any viable replacement of our transportation, electricity, and food supply will be gone with coal and oil. Once you kill coal and oil, there can be no replacement technology. Any replacement will never be affordable or available enough without the use of our mass production and shipping capacity. And liars trying to kill coal and oil know that perfectly well.
So that is the ultimate in “anti social behavior.” Anti-social and unacceptable behavior is abusing science and deceiving people by promising that they can all eat cake and drive space ships on wheels once coal and oil is gone.
And the carbon tax does get sent overseas to the UN, as PM Julia Gillard has already done. The Carbon tax is a World Government Tax.
” pat says:
March 23, 2013 at 6:10 pm
ferdberple –
re the farce in BC,
20 March: Vancouver Observer: Carrie Saxifrage: British Columbia set to export mega amounts of carbon dioxide. Is that a plan?
We plan to export 19 times as much carbon by 2020
Under the current climate plan, B.C. committed to reduce carbon emissions by 21 million tonnes between 2007 and 2020. Yet if current proposals for fossil fuel infrastructure are approved, B.C. will increase its export emissions by 640 million tonnes. In other words, the overall emissions tied to the B.C. economy would nearly quadruple…
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/earthmatters/british-columbia-set-export-mega-amounts-carbon-dioxide-plan“
So, BC is going up its bud production and export, huh? 🙂 Between that and oil for China, that’s a lot of carbon….
In the context of the FOIA material, ponder a bit on why there’s so much interest in gun control by liberals, leftists and Democrats. “For the children” is the sizzle, not the steak. When PR, and enforced economic pressure might not keep pesky middle-class aspirants to elitism at bay.you need a fallback plan. Disarmament is ALWAYS in the mix. The downside to being an elitist, is there are always pretenders who want it too. Can’t let them have the tools to actually push you out of the way… Yanks, treasure the Second Amendment. That and a basement full of ammo will keep you free. The world and history is full of examples of the consequences of not having the leverage…
The “ratchet effect”:
http://tvpclub.blogspot.com/2013/01/ratchet-effect.html?showComment=1358705848508
The ratchet cannot go back — only (temporarily) stopped or forward. The only outcome is eventually the ratchet strains to the breaking point & — snap!
First cup o’ coffee and wondering- is this the thread, or have I wandered off into Tripnuttia?
The current US government is taking policy from the Islamic Republic of Iran ?
Now we know where the Hussein comes in.
Valerie Jarrett is the person who runs the White House and the country by proxy of Barak Obama. She is ethnically Iranian. Get to know this shadow player, she’s guiding your future.
You have to go back to Larry Summers when he was Treasury Secretary and follow from there his work at DE Shaw and his ownership stake in First Wind (UPC/IVPC/et.al.). Treasury was used (among others) to pick the so called (crony) winners.
Just saw a piece here in the MSM in New Zealand ‘National Government taking New Zealand down Highway to Climate Hell’.
Extraordinary language huh?
Thanks, Chris. (I guess). Very good article.
A tax by any other name will anyway be a tax.
Great work Chris Horner, there are many who support your effort.
Its all about implementing “progress” while keeping people away from thinking with “feelings”?
Stop feeling and start thinking!
I really don’t like it when my government “frames” me, or the arguments …
Perhaps the US government will be watching when the Australian government gets thrown out in September this year, and the first thing to go will be the much-hated carbon tax.
They have left it too late- nobody falls for this crap anymore, and I do hope the good citizens of the USA are onto their representatives now to tell them their votes walk with the implementation of a carbon tax.
A carbon tax raises prices on domestic production, acts as a reverse tariff (taxing domestically produced goods more htan imported) and hits the poorest the hardest. It creates gigantic bureacratic merry-go-rounds and the net tax paid back out to people is *always* less than the tax taken in. If you’re ‘rich’ you won’t get anything but higher electricity bills.
Don’t fall for it. Fight it with every word and every step. Energy taxes are insidious, hateful creations.
I might add, the current Australian PM lied to the electorate two days before the election, and famously directy ruled out a carbon tax. She then turned around and announced a carbon tax about a month later. She has never returned to an election winning lead in the polls since. Carbon taxes are electoral poison these days, and they knew it going into the election, which is why they had to lie. No wonder they can only find Iran as an example of how to bring one in – not a lot of freedom to speak out there.
Bless you once again Chris for the informative article, however:
? ? ?
If you’ll reflect for a moment, I think you’ll agree that, far from being mindless, these are completely mindful, with the purpose of discouraging FOIA actions.
brc says: “I might add, the current Australian PM lied to the electorate two days before the election, and famously directy ruled out a carbon tax.”
That has to have been one of the most outrageous political lies in Australian history! I wish there was a way to NAIL politicians who openly lie like Julia Gillard did. If only there was some sort of new election law giving us a “candidate promise accountability challenge card” so political candidates had a means to challenge their opponent(s) during a campaign to be willing to commit their term in office, ( should they win), to that very campaign promise – given that opponent is willing to make the same promise. It would be something like an NFL coach being able to throw a red flag but the review waits until after the election.
Something like this – Julia Gillard promised she would not impose a carbon tax. Under the new law, Howard could have then made the very same promise and challenged her to join him in accepting responsibility for it thus nullifying that issue in the campaign – and – subjecting the winner of the election to keep the promise or be forced to resign their office over to their opponent, (or next place runner up who also made the promise as the case may be).
True, maybe a good reason arose later to have justified breaking the promise so okay, the challenger taking over is then free to keep the promise .. or not. Only the winner need be held accountable. It’s the price they accepted when they accepted the challenge in the first place.
What government employees and elected officials – including President Obama – have forgotten, is that “NO one…is above the law!” Problem is, we’ve let these people get away with being lawless…and are working catch up to hold them “personally” accountable.