The success penalty

Sheryl Crow and her Mercedes Bluetec Diesel SUV - click for story

New climate strategy: track the world’s wealthiest

Source: Reuters

* World’s richest emit about half of Earth’s carbon

* Tracking the wealthy could break climate impasse

* New method would follow individual greenhouse emissions

By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent

WASHINGTON, July 6 (Reuters) – To fairly divide the climate change fight between rich and poor, a new study suggests basing targets for emission cuts on the number of wealthy people, who are also the biggest greenhouse gas emitters, in a country.

Since about half the planet’s climate-warming emissions come from less than a billion of its people, it makes sense to follow these rich folks when setting national targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions, the authors wrote on Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

As it stands now, under the carbon-capping Kyoto Protocol, rich countries shoulder most of the burden for cutting the emissions that spur global warming, while developing countries — including fast-growing economies China and India — are not required to curb greenhouse pollution.

Rich countries, notably the United States, have said this gives developing countries an unfair economic advantage; China, India and other developing countries argue that developed countries have historically spewed more climate-warming gases, and developing countries need time to catch up.

The study suggests setting a uniform international cap on how much carbon dioxide each person could emit in order to limit global emissions; since rich people emit more, they are the ones likely to reach or exceed this cap, whether they live in a rich country or a poor one.

For example, if world leaders agree to keep carbon emissions in 2030 at the same level they are now, no one person’s emissions could exceed 11 tons of carbon each year. That means there would be about a billion “high emitters” in 2030 out of a projected world population of 8.1 billion.


By counting the emissions of all the individuals likely to exceed this level, world leaders could provide target emissions cuts for each country. Currently, the world average for individual annual carbon emissions is about 5 tons; each European produces 10 tons and each American produces 20 tons.

With international climate talks set to start this week in Italy among the countries that pollute the most, the authors hope policymakers will look at the strong link between how rich people are and how much carbon dioxide they emit.

“You’re distributing the task of doing something about emissions reduction based on the proportion of the population in the country that’s actually doing the most damage,” said Shoibal Chakravarty of the Princeton Environment Institute, one of the study’s authors.

Rich people’s lives tend to give off more greenhouse gases because they drive more fossil-fueled vehicles, travel frequently by air and live in big houses that take more fuel to heat and cool.

By focusing on rich people everywhere, rather than rich countries and poor ones, the system of setting carbon-cutting targets based on the number of wealthy individuals in various countries would ease developing countries into any new climate change framework, Chakravarty said by telephone.

“As countries develop — India, China, Brazil and others — over time, they’ll have more and more of these (wealthy) individuals and they’ll have a higher share of carbon reductions to do in the future,” he said.

These obligations, based on the increasing number of rich people in various countries, would kick in as each developing country hit a certain overall level of carbon emissions. This level would be set fairly high, so that economic development would not be hampered in the poorest countries, no matter how many rich people live there.

Is this a limousine-and-yacht tax on the rich? Not necessarily, Chakravarty said, but he did not rule it out: “We are not by any means proposing that. If some country finds a way of doing that, it’s great.”

This week’s climate talks in Italy are a prelude to an international forum in December in Copenhagen aimed at crafting an agreement to follow the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. At the same time, the U.S. Congress is working on legislation to curb U.S. carbon emissions. (Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

(h/t to Curious George)

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
anna v
July 6, 2009 10:18 pm

It is what the Chinese have been saying.

Scott in Minnesota
July 6, 2009 10:24 pm

Who is John Galt?

July 6, 2009 10:26 pm

Yeah, like Al Gore is going to pay for our carbon dioxide. LOL

July 6, 2009 10:33 pm

So basically we need to punish “rich” people. That strikes me a typical socialist agenda, ergo global warming believers are communists. That fits with the simplified cause and effect login used by AGW supporters.

July 6, 2009 10:35 pm

The troublesome thing here is how do you determine what means rich? Is it everyone over a certain personal income, everyone over a certain business income, do you adjust for currency valuation, et cetera. It could lead to the international tracking of large groups of US citizens. I am not a fan.

Kirk W. Hanneman
July 6, 2009 10:49 pm

But will those whose fortunes were made via selling or trading carbon credits be exempt? Inquiring minds want to know.

Richard Heg
July 6, 2009 11:01 pm

“Rich people’s lives tend to give off more greenhouse gases because they drive more fossil-fueled vehicles, travel frequently by air and live in big houses that take more fuel to heat and cool.”
Are they refering to Al Gore?
The idea is so stupid there is no need to comment further.

spangled drongo
July 6, 2009 11:01 pm

But if a rich person owns and preserves a hundred acres of forest s/he is forgiven?

Johnny Honda
July 6, 2009 11:19 pm

If somebody tells me to reduce my carbon footprint, I tell him that I promise never to have a larger carbon footprint than Al Gore

July 6, 2009 11:25 pm

rich people tend to have much less children than poor, and this is the decisive consumption factor in the long run:
take a rich couple consuming 5 units compared to a poor couple consuming 1 unit during their life. let’s assume for simplicity, the rich couple has 1 child the poor couple 5 and the children are assumed to consume and reproduce accord to their parents.
cumulative consumption rich lifestyle
1. generation 5
2. genearation 5+2,5=7.5
3. genearaion 5+2.5+1.25= 8.75
4 . geneartion 5+2.5+1.25+0.625=9.375
5. generation 5+2.5+1.25+0.625+0.3125=9.6875
cumulative consumption poor lifestyle
1. generation 1
2. genearation 1+5=6
3. genearaion 1+5+25= 31
4 . geneartion 1+5+25+125=156
5. generation 1+5+25+125+625=781
over a century (approx 5 generations), the rich lifestyle will lead to a reduced consumption of approx. a factor of 80, though each individual consumes 5 times more. I don’t think this study will help to “save the world”.

July 6, 2009 11:38 pm

The Chinese and Indians have through dint of their own effort become the nations who will be able to afford more of the fossil fuel pie. What is happening now in Europe and America is a battening down of the hatches by those who want to hang onto their wealth and lifestyle against the interests of their poorer compatriots.
Since keeping warm uses more fuel than driving, it will be the temperate latitude urban commuting lower middle class who will be hit by this scam. The rich will simply buy a chunk of forest or buy creds from those who can no longer afford to run a car or heat their homes.
This is fuel rationing by the back door, with a de facto exemption for the rich. This is not a socialist scheme, this is the reinforcing and codification of the wealth divide in the face of diminishing fuel supply.
The ugly face of the plootocracy is becoming sufficiently confident to remove it’s mask. They have spirited away the wealth of nations through investment scams, refilled their accounted coffers from the public purse, and will now impoverish those who are ordinary decent honest working people.
Time to start beating ploughshares into swords before burning coal in the local smithy becomes illegal.
Seryl Crow tells us all to use less loo paper and sings songs about being poor, while buying a posh new Mercedes Benz to cruise about in.
She needs to pay a visit to and have a think about the word ‘hypocrite’.

Indiana Bones
July 6, 2009 11:41 pm

Mostly OT but heartfelt – Ms. Crow is hot… er, warm. And sings well.

July 6, 2009 11:49 pm

Manfred (23:25:50) :

Great demonstration!
I have been saying something similar to this for a long time. If you want to control pollution, CO2, population, etc… Make them wealthy, not poor! Prosperity is ALWAYS cleaner and more efficient in the long run.

James Alison
July 6, 2009 11:51 pm

Har har har.
Who will be the next celebrity that leaps onto the greenie bandwagon.

July 6, 2009 11:51 pm

The idea that there are people stupid enough to even propose such a concept is frightening.

Greg Cavanagh
July 6, 2009 11:56 pm

Well, at least they’ve the cause of Global Warming down to known billion people. Now all we’ve got to do is track these people and keep tabs on them. The problem is almost solved.

Greg Cavanagh
July 7, 2009 12:00 am

Alas poor edit button, where art thou. * at least they’ve narrowed the cause down to a known billion *.

July 7, 2009 12:02 am

What a load of rubbish.
So in other words, if say I run a large developing nation, I just need to maintain a higher percentage of “low emitters” to maintain my per capita quota to sustain development. Basic law of unintended consequences!
Sounds like “low emitters” will be a highly valued commodity. Perhaps even a new visa class …. low emission migrant…. Oh isn’t it wonderful to be poor. Pat them on the head and say good boy, keep those emissions down er .. or is that up? Wouldn’t it be lovely to live in a mud hut and gather fruits and berries all day long …. ok but I digress.
But then I suppose if you look at life as them and us, you probably also believe that Government is the source of wealth and prosperity .. but I am rambling and Orwell wrote a book about it.

July 7, 2009 12:08 am

If the Feds are so concerned with the disastrous effects (hurricanes and sea level come to mind) associated with global warming, why are they rebuilding New Orleans?

July 7, 2009 12:24 am

From a scientific point of view I’ve never quite understood the direct correlation being asserted between “wealth” and “CO2 emissions.”
Take me, for example. I’m a fairly successful individual, a software developer. I have the luxury of living in a very nice neighborhood in the Los Angeles area, and the luxury of power over my work condition for the company I work for. Those two facts alone seem to establish that I’m a high CO2 emitter, someone who burns fossil fuels at a higher rate than my lesser-well-to-do friends.
One of the luxuries of my neighborhood is a local shopping district walking distance to my house, complete with a neighborhood butcher and general grocery store. And the luxury of power over my work condition means I get to work at home most of the time rather than driving 20 miles into the office. Because of this I have the luxury of being able to walk and ride a bike rather than drive–and my total commute is the walk from my bedroom to my home office–except perhaps once every two weeks when I have to drive in for in-person meetings.
My point is that relative wealth and power (I’m certainly not in the 5% of salary makers in the US, but compared to some I’m doing pretty well) has permitted me the luxury of a lifestyle where I can live in an area where I am able to walk to the grocery–most people in Los Angeles live too far away–and I’m able to telecommute.
Yet my salary is presumed to result in a net consumption of fuel and a net set of emissions–regardless of how I earned it (writing software is not the same as heavy manufacturing) or how I spend it (on produce from the neighborhood farmer’s market).
It strikes me as absurd.
And unscientific.
It’s almost as if we have drawn the conclusion that the United States emits 25% of the CO2 in the world because we have 25% of the world’s economy–and by Marxist economic thinking, 25% of wealth means 25% of raw material consumption, regardless if we’re talking about $1 million in software (virtual patterns of electrons on a platter) or $1 million in coal tailings.
Am I missing something here? Because it sure feels to me like someone baked the conclusion to support the thesis, in order to advance a political agenda here…

Juraj V.
July 7, 2009 12:33 am

For every citizen, a clerk will be assigned, following his carbon footprint. Green youth groups will roam the streets in Mao Cultural revolution style, burning down suspects houses. Maybe mass move of people from cities to the rural regions in Pol Pot style would help as well.
I have desire to punch somebody as Mr. Buzz did.

July 7, 2009 12:34 am

It’s a rubbish idea, but it has the benefit of shutting up all the hollywood hypocrites.

Jack Hughes
July 7, 2009 12:35 am

I love the idea of a celebrity paycut.
Not rich people – just the airheads who preach to us. I’m looking at you, Bono.

July 7, 2009 12:54 am

And this from the “Land of the Free”!
Where, Oh, where is America, once the great shining beacon of hope and freedom to the world, now going?
Slavery to an ideology that is increasingly intent on destroying all individualism and the dreams and hopes of all men.
And all in the name of an earth worshipping ideology that is founded on a on nothing more than a vaporous collection of totally unproven and mystical computer models.

July 7, 2009 1:10 am

the not so hidden agenda of the greenies is to exterminate half of the world population and make the rest live in the middle ages. they probably realized that their current systems are contributing to exterminate the wrong half of the population (the poor), eliminating the rich would make the whole process a whole lot faster.

Martin Fluck
July 7, 2009 1:16 am

Yes, the global warming alarmists’ real communist agenda is becoming apparent. But natural justice demands that rich people who have fallen for AGW and who moralize to the rest of us – while being able to afford brand new Mercedes diesels and offset their carbon on the way to the Caribbean – should be stripped of all their worldy chattels and sent to live in a labour camp in Siberia.

Jimmy Haigh
July 7, 2009 1:29 am

This article was posted on Tips & Notes to WUWT earlier by Curious George.
Curiousgeorge (16:43:35) :
Here’s a really stupid idea : .
My response then was:
I’ve finally figured out what causes “global warming”.
It’s the moon.
It’s got to be involved when they come up with lunacy like the article CuriousGeorge posted.

July 7, 2009 1:44 am

It would be interesting to do a survey amongst the great and the good who will be discussing this proposal-politicians-as to:
a) What % of the atmosphere they believe to be comprised of co2
b) What % is emitted by humans
c) What % ALL co2 represents of ALL Greenhouse gases.
d) What they believe will be the replacement energy source that will cut co2 by the levels planned.
e) How many of them believe that temperatures are unprecedented and ice levels are at their lowest level ever.
f) How many tens of billions of dollars will need to be spent to theoretically reduce temperatures by each tenth of a degree.

anna v
July 7, 2009 1:53 am

This is an Interesting link that sets the perspective of this cap and trade within the economy. I quoted from it extensively in the Spencer thread.

July 7, 2009 2:15 am

The rich people are already paying more because they are using more gas and buy more stuf wich already has a tax on it. Our goverment(Netherlands) has a tax on each Liter(0.28 gallon) of 0,70 euro. That is the highest in Europe and probaly the Highest in the whole world. They is no need to punish us more on driving a car than they are already doing.

July 7, 2009 2:17 am

So how will this work?
All the electricity I use is wholly hydro – carbon free. I don’t travel overseas much any more and my favourite vehicle (BMW Z3 2.8), even with six cylinders, is as economical and pollution free as the old bangers that some of the genuinely poor people down the bay are forced to use.
I’m progressively growing my own vegetables and buy almost everything from the local farmers’ market. I burn manuka – a native NZ hardwood with a 20 year cropping cycle that, effectively, is carbon neutral. I don’t buy Chinese plastic novelties or unnecessary appliances. I do this because I want to, not because of some ideological ‘carbon footprint’. Apparently, I am deemed to be ‘rich’; not that I noticed.
I can think of people who are the antithesis of this.
In terms of income many people of very different backgrounds, even in our small country (NZ), or even my local region, appear the same but live lives that are vastly different in their ‘carbon’ consumption and emission.
So, there are two alternatives. Tax me because I am ‘rich’ and therefore a ‘polluter’ or tax those who ‘pollute’ the most. The former is just envy, the latter would require a policing system that is orders of magnitude beyond the various income tax systems around the world.
Envy or control – maybe both could be accommodated.
As it happens, I don’t believe a word of the AGW scam (thanks, especially, to this site) but isn’t it a wonderful excuse for shifting wealth around as the mythical ideologies dictate.

Reply to  Purakanui
July 7, 2009 2:22 am
July 7, 2009 2:31 am

When you punish the rich they pass the costs on to you plus a little bit more profit on the top that they weren’t making before. Hence much of the global warming alarmism comes from the elites themselves. The interest they earn on their money is plenty to cushion any climate costs against them, but the costs they pass on to working class people is punishment. That’s how they maintain the status quo.

July 7, 2009 2:32 am

“Rich people’s lives tend to give off more greenhouse gases because they drive more fossil-fueled vehicles, travel frequently by air and live in big houses that take more fuel to heat and cool.”
Hmm, I suspect the article focused on fossil fuels and ignored or minimized wood- and dung fuels, commonly used for heating and cooking in the tropics.
Say, if it turns out, ten years down the road, that there’s no catastrophic warming going on, and that on the contrary CO2 is raising agricultural yields while protecting the planet against a worrisome cooling trend, maybe the rich can be given a bonus for their contribution.

July 7, 2009 2:52 am
July 7, 2009 3:04 am

Can I sign up to stalk I mean monitor Cheryl..

July 7, 2009 3:16 am

Well, I’m all for issuing a 10 Ton Carbon Card and when you reach your limit you are done for the year…
Cap and Tirade would be repealed in about 2 months when the congress critters could no longer fly anywhere…

Pierre Gosselin
July 7, 2009 3:18 am

The Sheryl Crow / celebrity report about Mercedes doesn’t appear to mention anything about the fuel mileage of the Blutec’s powerful V6 engine.
Sure it probably consumes less than the average SUV, but it is still profligate.
I’m sure these stars also live in Blutec mansions with energy saving bulbs, fly in Greentec Gulfstreams, eat organic food and gobble only green power when having concerts.
How much of a sucker does one have to be to fall for this?

July 7, 2009 3:21 am

My friend the communist
Holds meetings in his RV
I can’t afford his gas
So I’m stuck here watching tv
I don’t have digital
I don’t have diddly squat
It’s not having what you want
It’s wanting what you’ve got
— Sheryl Crow – Soak up the Sun —
Oh Lord, won’t you buy me a Mercedes Benz?
My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends.
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,
So Lord, won’t you buy me a Mercedes Benz?
— Janis Joplin – Mercedes Benz —
Woollyhead starlets driving round the car lots
In their new Mercedes Benz.
Looking for a dunny down which to flush their money
Just to impress their new friends.
— tallbloke 2009 —

July 7, 2009 3:32 am

Purakanui (02:17:37) :
my favourite vehicle (BMW Z3 2.8), even with six cylinders, is as economical and pollution free as the old bangers that some of the genuinely poor people down the bay are forced to use.

Genuinely poor people don’t have cars. Some of them carry the water they need several miles daily from a hole they share with the animals.

July 7, 2009 3:48 am

“To fairly divide…”
Ouch, that split infinitive!

July 7, 2009 3:49 am

Unfortunately, this is what is to be expected from the Obama Administration; they were, are, and always will be about income redistribution. They have never been about preventing (almost non-existent) man-made global warming. The only way this over-arching scheme could be implemented is by an additional tax on “the wealthy” based on assumptions of consumption that cannot be proven to be accurate (kind of like long-term climate models). It saddens me to see the path this country has started to follow under the pseudo-socialist leadership of the Obama Adminstration.

Skeptic Tank
July 7, 2009 4:01 am

deadwood (22:26:08) :
Yeah, like Al Gore is going to pay for our carbon dioxide. LOL

He’ll be selling the fraudulent credits and offsets. I’m thinking of getting into the business myself. The money you’ll have to pay for producing CO2 must go somewhere. That’s what climate change legislation is all about. Taking money from you and giving it to someone who’s not you.
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can count on a lot of support from Paul.
– George Bernard Shaw

July 7, 2009 4:01 am

Someone up thread questioned the definition of “rich” in this brave new world being proposed. I believe that was defined for us a few months ago by none other than Pres. Obama. $250,000 annual taxable income for U.S. citizens is apparently the cutoff, although that seems to be falling ever lower lately.

July 7, 2009 4:02 am

gianmarco (01:10:57) : the not so hidden agenda of the greenies is to exterminate half of the world population and make the rest live in the middle ages.
Whilst that can sound outlandish, there are many groups in the world who simply detest modern life and modernity in general. We can recall that Enlightenment dictum to “think for yourselves” was an advance, it was something quite new for us. Hundreds of years earlier, the Moslem world had its Golden Age of scientific and philosophical advancement. But then other forces put a stop to that, and they never recovered, and are still struggling to drag themselves into the modern world (equal rights for women, democracy, freedom from dogma, etc.) to this day.
The planet is full of groups who’d prefer the “comforts” of pre-modern life, where people were not self-serving individuals, but rather were God-fearing, community participating members of a greater order of things, where we were all part of one organic mass of humanity. People still romanticize that age as one where we were more “connected” to fellow men and to Nature and to God. Some groups are even willing to blow things up to achieve that.
These people fail to realize that there is a terrifying difference between a post-industrial world and a pre-industrial world.

July 7, 2009 4:07 am

That’s good news; now we can use our many hundreds of years’ worth of coal with a clear conscience. We have something like a millennium’s worth of thermal power and motor fuel just under the surface. To date we have declined to burn it (of course, we did export it to clean-burning, guilt free China, but that’s different). There might be an awful lot of oil offshore here as well.
Would we get credits for declining to dam more rivers and even more for giving them back to fishing, rafting and kayaking?

July 7, 2009 4:12 am

A further thought or 2. The idea does have considerable appeal to those who would control the proletariat: From each, to each , etc. Mssr’s Marx and Engels would love this. Personally, I’m wondering if my septic tank is large enough to accommodate this load.

July 7, 2009 4:23 am

The point is that an absurd concept “carbon credits” and an absurd faith position “carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant” leads inexorably to an absurd solution, and all in the name of “fairness” and “global equity”.
The posters who point out that this is very close to communism are correct. Once we assume that Western modern society is the sickness that is killing the planet then the logical conclusion is global mandatory poverty and a massive bureaucracy to keep us that way.
We’re near the end of the road for the climate change scare, which means that its going to get very much worse before people stop talking about climate change. Unemployment in the US is 10% and still rising, and people will not stand for any more “sacrifice” to save the planet when they’re about to lose everything.

layne Blanchard
July 7, 2009 4:38 am

BTW, with the highest standard of living in the world, the first 200-250M of that 1B are living in this country. I think we have more to worry about than energy taxation. It seems to me the extreme faction of this zealotry seeks to lead the malleable into a worldwide eco-religio dark age, complete with carbon emitter witch hunts, and burnings at the stake. Avid Warmers are the new Moonies, each with a bota bag of koolaid ready to serve.

layne Blanchard
July 7, 2009 4:43 am

….and I forgot to add, they’re now running the world’s most powerful government.

July 7, 2009 4:50 am

And now finally we see what this is ALL about …… the real truth .. the real chip on the shoulers of those who would wish to control. Eco-mentalism … the perfect (but equally flawed) replacement for socialism and its nasty cousin communism. I won’t spell it out here … but for anyone who is any doubt … PLEASE read Vaclav Claus’s book “Blue Planet in Green Shackles”. And for anyone who says this man is not qualified .. this is a man (who until the 30th of June) was the President of the Euoperan Union, is the democratically elected President of the Czech Republlic and who has spent most of his life under the yoke of a flawed political system .. whose EXACT aim was to do what is being described above.
Please get the book !

July 7, 2009 5:05 am

ohioholic (00:08:31) :
If the Feds are so concerned with the disastrous effects (hurricanes and sea level come to mind) associated with global warming, why are they rebuilding New Orleans?

Because they don’t believe a word of the story they are using to gouge us. They are rebuilding New Orleans for the same reason they are deepening the Suez and Panama Canals: they are expecting sea levels to drop.
If everyday people can see through the shoddy excuses for this agenda, so can the politicians. They aren’t stupid. Those who politically support this, however, are naive to the nth degree over the reckless abandon and destructive path on which it places nations.

July 7, 2009 5:23 am

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I want the US to remain independent of any sort of world government. If I had my way, we’d withdraw money from then UN but continue to go to meetings just to see what the rest of them are saying.

July 7, 2009 5:35 am

What they don’t want you to know — So I assume wood fires for cooking and wood fires for heating are out?
Have you ever looked at the number of agricultural and land clearing fires that are burning on a daily basis in the third world? While not specifically targeting that aspect, the FIRMS ‘Fire Mapper” has a neat graphic to view that.
View it here —
It would seem to me the poor third world countries need some modern coal fired power plants and some modern fossil fuel burning farm implements.

July 7, 2009 5:44 am

“Unemployment in the US is 10% and still rising, and people will not stand for any more “sacrifice” to save the planet when they’re about to lose everything”
My prediction is that by 2012, any mention of Climate in any context will become a political liability. As the above quote reminds us, unemployment is approaching a critical stage -both politically and economically. Politicians have generally skirted around the issue. Most of the happy talk since Jan 2009 has been about government spending or expanded government control of the private sector. Employment has only been discussed as an after thought to these activities. The President and his party believed that enough short term spending would slow job loss. Obviously they estimated incorrectly. The time is approaching quickly where unemployment will become THE ISSUE.
Anyone with half a brain realizes that the Waxman-Markey Bill is a job killer. There are some (not many) who believe that what Smoot-Hawley was to Hoover and the GOP, Waxman-Markey will be to Obama and the Dems. What could have been a short but sharp recession has the potential to expand to a deep (very deep) and prolonged Depression.
Climate and AGW has always been an upper middle class/wealthy issue. It is pure fantasy. But like most causes, it has taken on a life of its own. Future Historians will wonder about the political insanity that consumed so many people of this generation.

July 7, 2009 5:47 am

Only the consumer of the product (or service) should be tagged with the CO2 label. I’m sure the controllers wouldn’t want to practice double counting.
Following this position, I would imagine that a rich person like Sheryl Crow would have a lawyer to argue that most of her high lifestyle carbon footprint was to support the singing service/products she provides. Even to the extent that she has to buy the big house because the consumer expects it. She would say she really wants to live in the stone cave but the consumers don’t want her to. She might even be able to cite an example where she bought a smaller house and noticed the correlation with her sales going down. The consumers were telling her the image of a poor singing star was unacceptable, so they forced her to move up.

Leon Brozyna
July 7, 2009 5:53 am

The rich? In the U.S. you might think of the East Coast power elite or the West Coast celebrities. For the rest of the world, Americans are the rich. And how would this all play out?
It was said that Ayn Rand made stuff like this up. This is Directive 10-289 (from Atlas Shrugged) for the planet, except only one single part of the planet is the target. Just look at how it’s laid out:
“no one person’s emissions could exceed 11 tons of carbon each year.”
“the world average for individual annual carbon emissions is about 5 tons; each European produces 10 tons and each American produces 20 tons.”
From this it sounds like the rest of the world is in fine shape, it’s just us ‘rich’ Americans who need to cut our production of carbon in half. What about the rich in the rest of the world? They’ll doubtless be in good shape as their own country’s average will keep their penalty low and they’ll be able to plant a few trees to get off. As for Americans, I wonder who’ll pay? A Congress critter on a fact-finding junket to the Islas Galápagos? Silly me – that’s public necessity. Hollywood or its celebrities? How could I be so foolish – that’s also public necessity – morale building for the masses.
So what happens when Obama gives everything away in Copenhagen? As bad as it is, does anyone really think that, with a new election in 2010 staring them in the face, the Senate will ever ratify any such treaty next year? The political scene in the U.S. over the next year or so could become quite interesting.

July 7, 2009 5:59 am

AGW is a social movement that used climate science to achieve its policy goals. Its policy goals, as every policy goal instituted on AGW demands shows. do nothing for the climate. AGW is about acquiring and exercising political and economic power.
Here is another example of what to expect more of as AGW gains power in the public square:

Ron de Haan
July 7, 2009 5:59 am

As CO2 has no proven effect on climate we should stop any publication that “keeps the hoax alive”.
The fact that “Hollywood” is sharing the “AGW/Climate Change bed” with Washington,
combining the biggest carbon footprints with the ultimate green hogwash about our climate, tells us we are dealing with the biggest bunch of hypocrites ever seen in the history of the USA.
I think this is the core message of this article.
If the climate treaty makes it through the Senate, which I doubt, nothing will change for those who have the big bucks.
They can afford it.
It’s Middle Class America and the poorest of the poor who will pay the price.
Some call it “socialism”, or “spreading the wealth”, I call it the biggest robbery in history.

July 7, 2009 6:02 am

I have one question: is the current administration trying to screw up the economy or is it just plain incompetence? “The economy is bad”, they say, “We need another stimulus.” Uh-huh. Who is going to pay for it? “The rich.” Uh-huh. Explain to me again how taking more money away from people who spend a lot of money to begin with is GOOD for a capitalist economy?
The only to fix the recession is to have people spend more money. If you keep taxing those who are likely to spend more money, they won’t have less money to spend and the problem becomes worse. Anybody with half a brain should see this! And what is worse, they are using something that anybody with an a quarter of a brain knows is false as an excuse!
Guess who likely will be exempt from this rich tax? The enlightened members of Congress and their buddies. Instead of having a climate Czar, we are going to have a real Czar. The royals will be back. The media is not this administration propaganda machine like in North Korea and Iran. They worship the President, literally.
This ain’t over. Even if they do not succeed with climate change, they will try again with something else. People will more likely fall for the big lie than the small one. I didn’t say that, Adolph Hitler did. And he was right. Just look at the country we live in.

July 7, 2009 6:14 am

One billion rich people in the world?
Does the U.S. population constitute one third of that number by some chance? Despite saying the target should be rich individuals the article also notes:

By counting the emissions of all the individuals likely to exceed this level, world leaders could provide target emissions cuts for each country. Currently, the world average for individual annual carbon emissions is about 5 tons; each European produces 10 tons and each American produces 20 tons.

I suspect the threshold for “rich” is low.

Les Francis
July 7, 2009 6:41 am

Doesn’t everyone love that Robin Hood character?
Bah.Humbug to the mean old sheriff.
Takes from the rich and gives to the poor!
The old socialist creed: You are rich, I am poor. That means you should be poor also and I should tell you what to do.

Les Francis
July 7, 2009 6:48 am

Don’t you love those celebrities.
How they must be squealing with delight now that they don’t have to be seen driving a daggy Prius. M.B. has come to the rescue with a “green” SUV.
(Daggy. Australian slang word. means: that which comes out of a sheeps bottom and gets caught up in it’s tail)

July 7, 2009 6:57 am

Curiousgeorge (04:12:08) :
A further thought or 2. The idea does have considerable appeal to those who would control the proletariat: From each, to each , etc. Mssr’s Marx and Engels would love this.

You’ve obviously never read either of them, but don’t let that stand in the way of having an opinion.
“Capitalism can buy it’s way out of any crisis, providing the worker is willing to pay.”

Mark N
July 7, 2009 7:02 am

Lets help push it further to the ridiculous. To be honest, I feel that with what I’ve learnt I could be come a very extreme environmentalist! Woof, woof, rrrrr.

Mark N
July 7, 2009 7:05 am

Would that include Prince Charles?

Ron de Haan
July 7, 2009 7:07 am
Richard deSousa
July 7, 2009 7:15 am

It’s a sad day in science when the National Academy of Sciences believes that CO2 is dangerous greenhouse gas. It’s a pitiful exhibition of ignorance from what was once a prestigious organization.

Jack Green
July 7, 2009 7:26 am

The Bluetec converts emissions into harmless nitrogen and water. Wait a minute: isn’t the largest greenhouse gas water? 98% Hypocrites.

A. Robertson
July 7, 2009 7:26 am

Who says history never repeats? Here we have the teachings of Rousseau(James Hansen) his disciple Robespierre (Al Gore). Using the National Convention(National Academy of Sciences) to bring on the Reign of Terror, let the tumbrils roll!

July 7, 2009 7:38 am

The photo reminded me … nearly 20 years ago, a rootless school music teacher from Missouri arrived in LA. She did odd jobs and flailed and failed in one attempt after another, to “break into the scene.”
By dumb luck, via a friend of a friend, she essentially stumbled upon an eclectic group of musicians, who would jam at least once a week in a cramped, decrepit rehearsal space in a back alley of Burbank. This motley group referred to themselves as “The Tuesday Night Music Club.”
Neither a formal band nor a completely ad hoc group of session musicians and club moonlighters, nonetheless, they had a body of work they had developed. Key contributors were a guitarist / bassist / keyboardist, a singer / keyboardist / song writer and a drummer, who all knew each other from their earlier years, playing in various groups 350 miles to the north, in the southeastern suburbs of San Francisco.
Having an additional “voice” would allow the existing singer to focus more on keyboards on certain songs and do deeper development of the songs. A demo tape was cut. It got airplay on KROQ and other “alternative” stations, as well as, significantly, hearings in various recording companies. A proper recording and release would be funded. Now who are these folks? Strangely, and, in keeping with the dog eat dog nature of this at times sordid business, only the new Missourian signer would sign, along with a completely different band than the one who cut the demo. C-ya later, suckers!
This story is 100% true. I shall reveal nothing more.

Pieter F
July 7, 2009 7:42 am

If the rich liberals were”punished” for carbon emissions, I wonder if they would begin realizing and expounding the fact that global warming does not exist. Imagine Leonardo di Caprio saying, “Ah, Mr. Gore. I didn’t realize this was going to hurt me financially. Is it okay to begin speaking the truth now?”
On the verge Waxman-Markey and amidst a financial crisis in the States and the supposed climate crisis in the world due to excess CO2 emissions, Ms. Obama took her two kids, a 757, and all the support vehicles and personnel on a shopping trip to Paris. Did I miss something?

July 7, 2009 7:45 am

Could a “Carbon Police State” be in our immediate future?

The study suggests setting a uniform international cap on how much carbon dioxide each person could emit in order to limit global emissions…

Goodbye EPA…Hello Enviro-Gestapo!
In the meantime…The Earth continues to be no warmer now than it was 30 years ago…UAH Lower Trop
And quite possibly, no more than 0.2C warmer now than it was in 1850…
HadCRUT3 Low Frequency Trend

July 7, 2009 7:45 am

You guys have the science backwards.
Repeat with me: CO2 is plant’s food.
The bigger your carbon footprint, the more you are contributing to feed starving pants.
Thanks Sheryl Crow for feeding our crops.

July 7, 2009 7:46 am

Ops. sorry, I meant ‘plants’, not ‘pants’

July 7, 2009 7:46 am

I think the SPAM filter blocked my last post because of a WFT link and a WUWT link.

Ron de Haan
July 7, 2009 7:51 am

How mad green policies could turn against water front property owners has become evident in Australia.
I wonder if Al Gore’s waterfront property will be demolished as well?
Aussies Surrender to Hoax:
A moonbat council in Byron Bay in New South Wales has decided that not only is global warming real, but that it cannot be beaten.
MILLIONS of dollars worth of luxury waterfront homes at Byron Bay will be demolished in the name of climate change following a council decision to enshrine “planned retreat” in law. The radical step to block homeowners protecting their property from rising sea levels was contained in a coastal planning policy released by the Greens-run Byron Bay Council yesterday.
It would be the first time in NSW that the idea of planned retreat – where nature is allowed to take its course – will be imposed on existing dwellings under state law.
Dutch people should be grateful that the Greens aren’t running their country, or the dikes that protect the lowlands would not exist.

Ron de Haan
July 7, 2009 8:05 am

The Washington Ad Campaign from
Download these great ads and spread them around.

David Ball
July 7, 2009 8:14 am

IMHO, it is about waste and not wealth. Wastefulness is the problem. How big a house does one need? How many Maine Lobster can be flown in “live” for dinner? Do you need to eat tenderloin every time you eat beef for dinner? How many cars does one person need? Further to that, how many products do you buy that are built for the bottom line and not to last. Products that last and work do not help the bottom line. Why not build products to last? Planned obsolescence: these 2 words should never have been combined.

J. Peden
July 7, 2009 8:32 am

“The study suggests setting a uniform international cap on how much carbon dioxide each person could emit in order to limit global emissions;”
Ironically, the penultimate Communist’s wet dream – or do their dreams of control even have any bounds whatsoever, save regression unto death? ‘Would that these Obsessive Compulsive Controllists had stuck to merely washing their own hands over and over like the many respectable obsessive-compulsives do, but no, they need to “save the World” in order to achieve “meaning in life”, at our expense of course.
Well, from me to all you self-annointed “elite”, thanks a pantload [= a diaper load]! Hey, that would only be “fair”, since that’s apparently all we’re getting from your “peer review” process.

Antonio San
July 7, 2009 8:36 am

Why do you think they were very disappointed when their satellite failed to launch? Because it was precisely what they wish to do, tracking each household CO2 emissions and tax. Oh no, it was for science… yeah right…

John G
July 7, 2009 8:37 am

I’m all for it as long as it is ruthlessly enforced on potentates and peons, billionaires and bimbos, congress and cretins (but I repeat myself), yes everyone must be in the queue. While we’re at it let’s pass universal, single payer, everything included health care . . . same provision as above. Mr. President get in line with the winos. I suspect the prospect would cause a lot of people to discover how wonderful the old system was.

July 7, 2009 8:57 am

So, how will this ‘solve’ global warming again?
Offsets? So, I give someone a bucket load of cash for ‘offsets’? What are there ‘offsets’? I give this cash to a company, who gives it to the government, who gives it to a company who then, theoretically, gives it to another company that plants trees?
I’ve tried tracking down where these offsets go (specifically, Al Gore states he buys said offsets) but it dead ends with various companies whose statements are ‘invest in green technology’ without seeming to actual make or doing anything.
Meanwhile, China and India can continue to run their factories without any regulation – or emissions controls – pumping pollutants into the air? All because they are ‘poor’? Seems like China and India have a vested interest in keeping poor people poor…didn’t someone mention the ‘poor commodity’?

July 7, 2009 9:00 am

Why not go after people who live in colder climates — they use far more energy to heat their homes.
Here in San Francisco, where it is temprate, I never use air conditioner nor do I use the heater more than 2-3 times a year.
Tax the crap out of people in the northern and southwestern states — nail the Swedes too!

July 7, 2009 9:08 am

I’m currently reading “The Bruntland report – aka “Our Common Future” and so far it looks like a blueprint for global socialism. Interestingly, the communist Russian government hosted some of the meetings on this in the mid-’80’s which to me is a big “red” flag.
In just about every environmental article I have read so far (from left wing policy centers, various UN sites and various academia sites) that are about reducing global warming, there is a common theme of developed nations paying for past damages (eco-reparations) to the “commons” (i.e. the atmosphere) as well as paying for the constructing of infrastructure so that developing countries can enter the modern world.
One of the recent phrases I came across is “contraction and convergence” where the contraction is developed nations using less energy and the convergence is the converging of everybody having an equal per-capita CO2 footprint. I’ve also come across this phrase in regards to convergence of both national per-capita GDPs and incomes both among nations and within nations.
Next on my reading list is the UN’s “agenda 21.”

J. Peden
July 7, 2009 9:17 am

I might come out pretty good under these new “peer reviewed” “study” recommendations attaching penalty to personal wealth, except that I’ve got some real estate I wouldn’t sell for any price even though I could, so I must therefore be infinitely wealthy! And by now I guess we can all figure out what that would mean. Either I’d be revered by the “elite”, or I’d be killed by them, depending upon how much I screamed about “saving the World”, praised other “elites”, and blamed other people for the sad mental state the elites find themselves in – you know, from having been born and having to live in an “unfair” World which by definition has foisted this very sad thing we know as existence upon them.

July 7, 2009 9:27 am

Millionaires feed the planet. For the many pigs out there who indulge in jets and wastefull travel, there are thousands of farmers that have a million or more in assets. 1 large tractor, quarter of a million. One large combine, also a quarter million. 2 large trucks, 1/4 of a million. One large air seeder, 120,000 dollars. Several circles, that is a million. (circle is 160 acres of land with a sprinkler system) This mid sized enterprize uses irrigation pumps and has fuel delivered by thousands of gallons per delivery. There is a very high correlation between fuel consumption and tons of yield. We have to raise millions of bushels to keep the non working classes obese. As long as america is the bread basket to the world, we will be required to consume a lot of energy including hundreds of trainloads of grain. Yes and a lot of farmers have a plane and fly to buy parts when equipment breaks down because time is money. A harvest crew on my fathers farm runs with 5 combines 30′ wide, 20,000 dollars an hour. People like algore live in their ideologies. Yes we can ride bicycles. Yes we can drive small dangerous cars. No we are unable to use tiny tractors and small combines and reduce costs of fuel consumption per ton of grain. 3 small cattle trucks use more fuel than 1 large truck.

Indiana Bones
July 7, 2009 10:29 am

Here’s a simple question: If Cap N’ Trade and carbon taxes are such wise, egalitarian proposals – why do they require a deceitful foundation? Why must the warmist agenda rest on the lie that CO2 is a “pollutant?”
Don’t bold, progressive ideas have the strength to stand on their own? Without the lies of global warming and the alien belief that CO2 is “toxic??”
tallbloke (03:21:14) :
You win the virtual Grammy! (Yank music award)

July 7, 2009 10:42 am

This is not socialism, as many posters have suggested, nor is it communism.
Socialism attempts to redistribute from the wealthy to the poor, usually by taxation or nationalisation. But wealth is not simply measured in currency, it is measured in goods and services that can be purchased. It should be clear from this description that the poor will be able to purchase less goods and services because the energy that underpins their creation will be artificially made scarce. The wealthy don’t care because they can afford to purchase carbon certificates.
There is yet a further benefit for the wealthy. The extra cost of purchasing these certificates may seem on the surface to be a penalty, a cost they have to incur to consume. But this ignores the fact that this cost actually buys something else. It buys the exclusion of the poor from rivalrous goods. By rivalrous I mean something like a vacation resort in which, beyond a certain number, individuals become crowds that compete with each other for limited services, like airports, beach space, restaurant etc. A system that imposes energy rationing by pricing will push the poor into marginal facilities, while the rich will be able to enjoy their new found exclusivity. The poor will be marginalised for the benefit of the rich. This is not socialism, it is the complete opposite.
A few generations ago, the UK labour party was a party that unashamedly promoted socialism. Their vision then was more and bigger factories, bigger and better wages for the working class, and more and better vacation opportunities. Their vision was one of optimism towards ever greater consumption by the working classes. By stark contrast, the UK is ruled by a twisted mutation of that former party, now calling itself New Labour. The vision of this party is the exact opposite now. After waiting half a century for the ability to enjoy affordable travel to any country in the world, a New Labour government is now telling the working classes this must stop. A Labour government! This is a government that is unashamedly promoting less consumption for the poor, and the rich can do what they want as long as they buy their carbon certificates from the government.
This is the government of the UK, but it will soon be the government of the US.
This is not socialism. The closest history can offer is the plutocracies of ancient rome, or the feudal barons of the middle ages.
Workers of the world unite!
BTW, I am not a socialist.

Les Johnson
July 7, 2009 12:05 pm

Vincent: your
A few generations ago, the UK labour party was a party that unashamedly promoted socialism.
Under these socialists (Labour), personal income tax on the very rich went up to 75%, and even over 90% of income (1950-1963).
Of course, the rich, being sensible folk, and able to afford it, moved away from the UK. And took their money with them.
Which brings up the subject of “leakage”. If government legislation makes it more expensive to do business, then the object of that legislation will “leak” to jurisdictions where conditions are less onerous (see example above).
What you will find with a carbon tax based on wealth, is the rich moving to poorer regions, to avoid the tax. ( I am assuming that a countries emissions cuts will be dictated by the per capita amount of wealth in the country).
So, you heard it here first. Buy land in North Korea. Prices are sure to sky rocket.
Did I hear you say that eventually all countries will be equally wealthy? Lets forget for a moment that even in communist regimes, there were internal regions that were poorer than the group. Instead, think of a CO2 Switzerland, where there are no CO2 reporting laws. And that’s where the rich will be.

July 7, 2009 12:30 pm

Les Johnson,
I agree with your argument entirely, but I did not say that eventually all countries will be equally wealthy.
The point I was trying to make is not that socialism worked, it obviously did not. Dennis Healey famously bragged that he would tax the rich until the pips squeaked, and promptly raised the higher band of income tax to 80%, with another 18% surcharge for unearned income (aka interest). Unsurprisingly, this drove those wealthy enough to afford it to emigrate.
No, I was trying to highlight how a government that purports to represent the working classes has passed legislation to penalise their consumption, and that in the wider, global sense, the proposed cap and trade legislation marginalises the poor and benefits the rich. Therefore it is the antithesis of socialism.
An unstated hypothesis is that people like Gore are like the plutocrats and barons of old who lorded it over the poor. In the middle ages there were usury laws. In the po mo age we will have carbon credits. Perhaps one would have more success with ones senators if these simple truths were pointed out.

Tom in Florida
July 7, 2009 12:31 pm

Mark (09:00:49) : “Why not go after people who live in colder climates — they use far more energy to heat their homes…. Tax the crap out of people in the northern and southwestern states — nail the Swedes too!”
Don’t forget about the IOC, International Olympic Committee. Not only do they hold these carbon intensive games every 4 years but they spend the preceding year running carbon intensive qualifications.
Don’t forget about FIFA. Constantly holding international events of 22 players running constantly for 90 minutes exhaling all that polluting CO2. Not to mention all the elites that attend the events to scream and sing at the top of their CO2 exhaling lungs.
Then there’s the NCAA, MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA, CFL, MLS, IRL, NASCAR and the Ringling Brothers & Barnum and Bailey Circus!!!!

July 7, 2009 1:04 pm

David Ball (08:14:40) :
Planned obsolescence: these 2 words should never have been combined.

I wonder if Sheryl Crow has considered how much co2 spewing energy went into producing her fat new Merc. Or how much went into crushing her old car.
More than she’ll ever save in emissions control I’ll bet.

July 7, 2009 1:07 pm

Indiana Bones (10:29:12) :
tallbloke (03:21:14) :
You win the virtual Grammy! (Yank music award)

Aww Geeee, thank you!
I’d just like to say I couldn’t have achieved this without my tireless hardworking support staff, and my BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!

July 7, 2009 1:09 pm

Lettuce begin by taxing 90% of Hollywood’s money.
Then continue by taking all of New York’s money earned – say, just picking an arbitrary source – by speculating in stocks.
Then we could tax 50% of any money given by the federal government to any receiptant of a non-defense federal W-2, starting with a 75% surcharge on Congress and the White House.

John Galt
July 7, 2009 1:47 pm

Somehow, it almost seems right when we’re talking about preachy celebs and other elitists who live jet-setter lifestyles while telling the rest of us to live with less.
But I don’t believe in class warfare or in punishing success. Nor has anybody ever found direct evidence that ‘carbon’ is causing any climate changes, so the whole thing is just a load of crap anyway.

July 7, 2009 1:54 pm

Vincent (12:30:08) :
is not that socialism worked, it obviously did not. …. drove those wealthy enough to afford it to emigrate.

Yeah. The aim of the Club of Rome lurking in the background (Tony B Liar is a member) is to institute world government. There will be no co2 tax havens to emigrate to. In the big scheme, it’s felt that we’re better off having all the dirty industry and the concomitant pollution, health and social welfare issues around it hived off to the near and far east. This will leave the west to thrive on hi tech services and research and development. Ho Ho.
The truth is, the populations of the west are going to get shafted, and the jet setters will go to live somewhere warm and tropical when the going gets cold.
I’m saving hard for a bit of land within 9 degrees of the equator, in a culturally rich, religiously tolerant country with no oil reserves to worry about defending. I like walking anyway.

July 7, 2009 2:18 pm

@ John Galt (13:47:12) :
“………………………. Nor has anybody ever found direct evidence that ‘carbon’ is causing any climate changes, so the whole thing is just a load of crap anyway.”
Hence, my earlier comment about my septic tank capacity. 🙂

George E. Smith
July 7, 2009 2:39 pm

I hate to ask; but who the blazes is Cheryl Crow; and what is her relationship with Daimler Benz company; is this something I need to know ?

July 7, 2009 3:10 pm

George, Cheryl is a country singer who gained notoriety a while back for a comment she made about how much toilet paper should be used per sitting. One sheet. Various conservative talk shows ridiculed her for weeks, and she became the poster girl for liberal hippocracy.

July 7, 2009 3:54 pm

Re, Vincent (10:42:05):
You said “It should be clear from this description that the poor will be able to purchase less goods and services because the energy that underpins their creation will be artificially made scarce. ”
Well, this is true. However, you’re missing the other part of this and that is that part of those massive energy revenues will be most likely redistributed back to low-income people within developed nations. You don’t seriously believe that governments are going to make it harder for low-income people by making things more expensive for them, do you?

July 7, 2009 3:59 pm

Johnny Honda is onto something. Perhaps we should turn it into a “pledge.” “I pledge to keep my carbon footprint smaller than Al Gore’s.”
I like it!
It’s high time that Gore and his Hollywood Hypocrites got called on it. May the shovel-ready material hit the fan.

July 7, 2009 5:02 pm

How big a house does one need?
About 20 sq ft per person. Room enough for a bed a chair and a very small cook stove.

July 7, 2009 5:05 pm

You don’t seriously believe that governments are going to make it harder for low-income people by making things more expensive for them, do you?
Actually – yes I do.
We have the example of Zimbabwe to show what can be done if we really get serious.

July 7, 2009 6:21 pm

M. Simon (17:02:02) :
How big a house does one need?
About 20 sq ft per person. Room enough for a bed a chair and a very small cook stove.

And if they feed you at the communal tables down the corridor, your cell (er, house) for you and youe entire family only needs to be 6 ft wide x 8 ft long …

July 8, 2009 4:21 am

Mark, you wrote: “However, you’re missing the other part of this and that is that part of those massive energy revenues will be most likely redistributed back to low-income people within developed nations.”
You are probably right, but therein lies the dilema. If energy is taxed to make it too expensive, and the revenue from this tax is then given back to those who would be unable to purchase it, then suddenly they will be able to purchase it, thus defeating the whole purpose of the exercise. Emissions will never decrease under this scenario.
When I said that cap and trade marginalises the poor, I was referring to the idealized or pure concept of cap and trade. I understand that the current bill is loaded with just such contingencies that you refer to. Therefore it won’t work.

Mike M
July 8, 2009 2:02 pm

Is that a GL320 SUV that Sheryl is driving? It’s EPA rating is 17/23 MPG. About the same as my 99 Ford Taurus … whoop dee doo Sheryl, here, have another square on me!
I think what cap n’ trade (or “tax n’ crap”, whatever) might do is expand welfare to a global scale whereby the people of the 3rd world will become totally dependent receiving money to NOT use their own energy resources, (by them selling us their “carbon credits”), so that rich elitists can then take control of those resources. That will prevent 3rd world countries from having any hope of ever becoming rich thus sentencing them to huge populations, poverty and disease forever. Add in the bio-fuel mandate and you can add starvation to the list.
Are you listening in Nigeria? Why wait, start printing up those carbon credits right now! (and to show respect for Sheryl, print them on toilet paper).

July 8, 2009 3:47 pm

Ann’s New Friend (15:59:27) : said
“Johnny Honda is onto something. Perhaps we should turn it into a “pledge.” “I pledge to keep my carbon footprint smaller than Al Gore’s.”
I hereby volunteer to keep my carbon footprint below that of Sting and Bono.
Obviously we are setting ourselves tough targets but someone needs to take a lead. 🙂

%d bloggers like this: