Saturday, December 15, 2007

United Nations raison d'struction

"A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources ... ."
Duh
Demver Bound

Here's some pleasant news  from the United Nations global warming conference.  With virtually no fanfare or press coverage,   this ...

... a panel at the IPCC conference titled "A Global CO2 Tax" took a step that will have a more lasting impact than an empty agreement. It urged the U.N. to adopt taxes on carbon dioxide emissions that would be "legally binding to all nations."

And guess who would be hit the hardest? That's right, the tax, if levied, would put an especially high burden on the U.S.

"Finally, someone will pay for these costs" related to global warming, Othmar Schwank, a global warming busybody from Switzerland, told Sen. James Inhofe's office. We imagine Schwank, a panel participant, took great glee in saying the U.S. and other developed nations should "contribute significantly more to this global fund."

Schwank estimates the CO2 tax would generate "at least" $10 billion to $40 billion a year in revenues; but anyone who believes that has not paid attention.


I'm trying to figure out how this band of dictators and third world swamp dwellers have the right to impose any "legally binding" anything on the United States?  Even with Barbara Boxer's approval?  But wait, there's more.

Eco-activists have been so successful in distracting the public from their real intentions that they're becoming less guarded in discussing their ultimate goal.

"A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources," Emma Brindal, a "climate justice campaign coordinator" for Friends of the Earth Australia, wrote Wednesday on the Climate Action Network's blog.

Which of course is why the MFCS Democrat party has been so eager to climb aboard this Trojan Horse.  Lock and load if ya gottem. That be for you, Othmar Schwantz.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

There's even more: Coyote Blog has yet another example of the confluence of Marxism and climate change.

You should be reading Coyote Blog anyways because Warren Meyer knows of what he speaks. He's like Charles Krauthammer: he's always worth listening to. Always.

Jake said...

It is no coincidence that all solutions for "global warming" involve raising taxes that will burden the poor.

But that is what dictators and Democrats do best.

Anonymous said...

I may have missed one, but in my experience every NGO with "justice" in its name is a commie group and all its members should move to North Korea where they can freely practice their beliefs. Those that choose not to move should be flogged while the US Constitution is read aloud to them to encourage them to move or repent, and if they fail that test, they should be hanged and fed to their cousins the hyenas.
Lt. Col. Gen. Tailgunner dick

Anonymous said...

I've got 'em. They're locked. They're loaded.

Timbeaux said...

It has been that way since the beginning of course. Anyone who is in the environmental business (I consult industrial clients) knows that Kyoto has a clear fatal flaw which exposes it as anything but a treaty with the environment in mind.

If you accept the mythology of global warming, then some questions have to be asked, such as who is doing the "worst job" in creating the problem. The metric that should be used to determine that is called carbon intensity, a measurement of carbon dioxide generated per unit of GDP. Basically, think of it is a measure of how energy efficient a particular economy/industry/facility is. The US has an overall CI of about 0.5 tons CO2 per $1000 GDP. India is at about 1.8. China is at 3.2.

So what is the effect of a treaty that places an economic burden on the US or EU, while not placing one on the "developing" economies of China, India or Brazil. In a global economy, it drives economic activity to those countries that do not impose the burden (assuming constant consumption). The EU is already seeing this, where companies are moving their "hot" facilities to India or Brazil, and all that remains in-country are the finishing ops, due to their caps.

In effect, a Kyoto-style regime pushes production to countries with considerable higher CI, more than 6 times the US in the case of China. Therefore in a logical assessment, Kyoto would actually cause global warming instead of solving it. Of course, it's a whole load of crap, but it goes to show that they are not only crazy, but also illogical.

Rodger the Real King of France said...

That was a 3 credit short course Tim. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

"I'm trying to figure out how this band of dictators and third world swamp dwellers have the right to impose any "legally binding" anything on the United States?"

.....Well, there's the difference...
With the dems coming into power, they'll blindly GIVE away our money with no strings attached.

Grab your savings accounts and prepare for REAL depression when this hits.

Anonymous said...

Caption:...Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to twerp we go...

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.