Flashback: UN and IMF Push for Global Financial Transaction Tax and Carbon Tax to Finance World Government

Globalists Push World Transaction Tax At UN Summit

Final move for world government and destruction of middle class begins

September 19, 2010

Prison Planet.com - Globalists representing 60 nations will meet at the UN this coming week to push a tax on world financial transactions in the name of solving poverty and climate change, formally launching a massive program to bankrupt the middle class and enrich the coffers of global government.

“Spearheaded by European Union countries, the so-called “innovative financing” proposal envisages a tax of 0.005 percent (five cents per $1,000), which experts estimate could produce more than $30 billion a year worldwide for priority causes,” reports CNS News.

As Ira Stoll, editor of FutureCapitalism.com, points out, new taxes always start off small so as to not be resisted by the people forced to pay them, and are then always gradually increased.

“When people suggest taxes, they always start out ‘small,” said Stoll.

“But once the door is opened to the idea of ‘global taxes,’ you can bet they won’t end small. Never mind all the issues about whether development aid actually helps poor countries or just winds up empowering corrupt local dictators and their cronies.”

The call for a global transaction tax arrives in the aftermath of a leaked UN blueprint which outlined how elitists plan to re-brand global warming in an effort to dismantle the middle class by instituting a “global redistribution of wealth” via carbon taxes.

Flashback: Robin Hood Tobin Tax is an Transaction-Tax Scam

Robin Hood Tax: Occupy Movement Now Marching Straight into the Globalist Trap

The Robin Hood Tax is an identical transaction-tax scam to the one proposed by globalists at the 2009 UN COP15 Climate Summit in Copenhagen

October 25, 2011

Patrick Henningsen, Infowars.com - It was inevitable that a movement which has struggled to agree on a manifesto, in the end, would do the bidding of the very elite globalist powers that they are demonstrating against to begin with.

Instead of achieving freedom from Central Bank debt enslavement, naive Occupiers appear to have taken the bait, pulling the mob towards endorsing a global taxation system, and one to be administered… by a brand new global government body.

As the Occupy Movement sets its sights on the upcoming G20 Summit in France on November 3-4, its globalist handlers behind the scenes have succeeded in carefully directing its crowds towards the Holy Grail of all socialist super-states — the celebrity supported, trendy “Robin Hood Tax”, also known as a Tobin Tax, a financial transaction tax levied on all transactions involving shares, bonds and derivatives.

It’s likely that such a blanket tax will eventually end up on the end of things like cash withdrawals and the like.

They claim that the resulting funds, counted in the hundreds of billions of dollars per year, would go toward popular Bono-led liberal heart-string fantasy causes like ‘reducing poverty in the third world’, social programs and— surprise, surprise — “combating climate change” and perhaps even saving polar bears — a move that would surely please desperate men like Al Gore (but a complete waste of money seeing that man-made global warming has already been thoroughly discredited).

The rallying cry for this globalist wet dream is coming directly from the supposed brain-child of the Occupy Movement, the globalist foundation-funded organization, Ad Busters, quietly shepherding its flock towards one of the biggest revenue spinning and control scams ever conceived.

Reuters reported yesterday:

“Canada-based Adbusters wants the Occupy Wall Street protest movement against economic inequality to take to the streets to call for a 1 percent tax on such deals ahead of a November 3-4 summit of the Group of 20 leading economies in France.

“Let’s send them a clear message: We want you to slow down some of that $1.3 trillion easy money that’s sloshing around the global casino each day — enough cash to fund every social program and environmental initiative in the world,” the activist group said on its website, www.adbusters.org.

Adbusters put out the initial call for Occupy Wall Street and since protesters set up camp in a park in New York City’s financial district on September 17, they have inspired solidarity demonstrations and so-called occupations around the world.”

In many ways, the Robin Hood Tax is an identical transaction-tax scam to the one proposed by globalists at the 2009 UN COP15 Climate Summit in Copenhagen, where a number of new taxes on financial transactions and new carbon taxes would be put into a giant “slush fund” to be handled by none other than the World Bank.

Ultimately, any Robin Hood Tax will most likely end up in a giant fund to “ensure that banks are adequately capitalized”, and one which will be used to bailout, or insure big bank losses and trillions in gambling derivative bets gone bad.

In reality, a Robin Hood Tax does just the opposite of what its name represents. Rather than stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, it is designed to steal more money through taxation from working people — money which will end up directly in the hands of institutions like the US Federal Reserve and its cartel of Wall Street banks.

Rich Countries (or Their Populations Anyway) Will Have Their Standards of Living Reduced Significantly Under Carbon Taxing Schemes

The Climate Protection Act of 2013 (S.332) and its companion bill, the Sustainable Energy Act (S.329), introduced by Sanders and Boxer on February 14, 2013, are currently before the Committee on Environment and Public Works. This bills will pave the way for a new carbon tax and cap and trade scheme.

S. 332: "A bill to address climate disruptions, reduce carbon pollution, enhance the use of clean energy, and promote resilience in the infrastructure of the United States, and for other purposes."

S.329: "S. 329. A bill to eliminate certain fuel subsidies and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain energy tax incentives."

Opening a packed Capitol Hill press briefing, Sanders inveighed against partisan squabbling which he insisted must yield before the ineluctable laws of physics. Earlier scientific projections were wrong, Sanders said, “the crisis facing our planet is much more serious than they previously believed.” Sanders and Boxer conveyed alarming warnings of “global climate disruption” from a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee briefing on Wednesday. The panel of four scientists had concluded that without aggressive action, the earth will warm by 8 degrees Fahrenheit within a century, with consequences including 3 – 6 feet of sea level rise, more frequent and forceful damaging storms, drought, extreme crop loss and submerging of coastal cities.

Reporters immediately questioned how the two bills could move forward. Boxer said she has just begun seeking co-sponsors and hasn’t conferred with Majority Leader Harry Reid about scheduling. But she expects to conduct hearings and markup in Environment & Public Works and to bring the measures to the Senate floor. Replying to a question about EPA greenhouse gas regulations, she said, “We’ve beaten back” Republican repeal efforts. “The Clean Air Act is the law of the land” which the President “must carry out.” Boxer suggested that public opinion on climate is “far ahead” of Congress, “no one is asking for dirtier air or water.” But she offered no plans to reach across the aisle to enact their bills, either in the Democratic-controlled Senate or the Republican House. She called on environmental and public interest organizations to build support for climate legislation. Sanders suggested that the public hold accountable “Republicans who refuse to even recognize the reality of climate change.”

The Climate Protection Act certainly is the most potent climate legislation ever introduced in the Senate. 

The status of the two bills has not changed since their introduction in February 2013: both are still assigned to the Committee on Environment and Public Works and have not been sent to the House or Senate as a whole.

"The World Bank/IMF is owned and controlled by NM Rothschild and 30 to 40 of the wealthiest people in the world. For over 150 years they have planned to take over the world through money. The IMF/World Bank are systematically tearing nations apart. It's not privatization. They steal from the people and hand it over to themselves. The World Bank/IMF pays off politicians to transfer a nation's water systems, railways, telephone companies, nationalized oil companies, gas stations, etc. to IMF-backed transnational companies, which they later destroy after transferring the assets to dummy corporations." [Rothschild Bankers Looting Nations Through the IMF and World Bank]



As of the year 2000, there were seven countries without a Rothschild-owned Central Bank: Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Iran. Then along came the convenient terror of 9-11 and soon Iraq and Afghanistan had been added to the list, leaving only five countries without a Central Bank owned by the Rothschild Family: Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Iran. America's true reason for intervention and missile attacks against Libya became very clear on March 29, 2011 with a sudden creation by the rebels of a new Central Bank. Libya was one of only five nations remaining who did not a Central Bank owned by the Rothschilds. Now there are only three countries left without a Rothschild-owned Central Bank: Cuba, North Korea and Iran. And guess who immediately became target number one after Gadhafi was killed? Iran. 

Cap and Trader Demands Carbon Derivatives Bubble

October 18, 2009

Infowars - In The Guardian, Nicholas Stern argues for poverty, misery, and the latest bankster scam. He says the “rich countries” not only have to reduce emissions significantly but also tax their not-so rich populations and give the money to developing countries. Current efforts to reduce carbon emissions are not enough, according to Stern.

“By 2050, the global population is projected to rise to 9 billion, so average per head emissions will have to be lower than 2 tonnes per year on average. For rich countries, this will require a cut in annual emissions by at least 80% by 2050,” he writes.

In other words, between now and 2050, the “rich countries” (or their populations anyway) will have their standards of living reduced significantly. They will be forced under international treaty to fork over $100 billion a year to developing nations [money which will not go to the people but into the pockets of the ruling elite].
 
Stern suggests “high-ambition” commitments, including a rollback of international shipping and aviation. He says a the transition to a low-carbon economy will “create a new era of prosperity and growth.”

Lord Stern, who is chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, says a reduction in carbon emissions can be realized through the operation of carbon markets.

Carbon markets and trading are another bankster bubble scheme.

“This system would create whole new classes of financial assets, which financial firms could securitize, derivatize, and speculate on,” writes Eoin O’Carroll for The Christian Science Monitor. “Many critics are pointing out that this new market for carbon derivatives could, without effective oversight, usher in another Wall Street free-for-all just like the one that precipitated the implosion of the global economy.”

Wall Street is already on the move. The Center for Public Integrity noted in February that banks have been sending climate change lobbyists to Washington in earnest and are attempting to get the American Clean Energy and Security Act rammed through Congress. It passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 219-212 in June. It now moves to the Senate.  

The American Clean Energy and Security Act “is about profits, not environmental remediation,” writes Stephen Lendman. “Its emissions reduction targets are so weak, they effectively license pollution by creating a new profit center to do it.”

“Wall Street banks like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase, insurance companies like AIG and private equity firms had virtually no reps on Capitol Hill working on global warming policy in 2003; by last year, they had about 130 climate lobbyists, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis of Senate lobbying disclosure forms shows. About 20 additional lobbyists worked for firms and organizations wholly dedicated to carbon marketing last year,” writes Marianne Lavelle.

It is estimated that the “carbon market” and its securitized, derivatized, and speculated financial assets will ultimately be worth trillions a year to Wall Street and the bankers. It will inflate a massive bubble designed to burst like all the bubbles that came before it.

“If you think the housing and credit bubble diminished your financial security and your community, or the bailouts, or the rising gas prices did as well, hold on to your hat for what’s coming. Carbon trading is gearing up to make the housing and derivative bubbles look like target practice,” warns Catherine Austin Fitts.

“Carbon markets can and will be manipulated using the same Wall Street sleights of hand that brought us the financial crisis,” notes Rep. James Sensenbrenner.

Dennis Kuchinich cited Matt Taibbi’s Rolling Stone article on the Goldman Sach’s bubble machine: “Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression — and they are about to do it again.”

Goldman Sachs is confident Obama and Congress will pass cap and trade legislation. On October 12, The New York Times reported that Goldman Sachs has completed a $12 million carbon offsets transaction, described as “the largest deal of its kind in the United States.”

The “transaction reflects growing confidence in a regulated carbon market in the United States, even though the concept is still the subject of much debate in Congress,” according to the newspaper. 

Finally, Lord Stern is hardly a neutral observer merely concerned with climate change and the fate of the planet. On June 16, 2008, Dow Jones Financial News Online announced that Stern “is set to launch a rating service for carbon credits in an attempt to boost investment in the nascent market.”

EU Mulls Carbon Tax to Fight Climate Change

October 3, 2009

China View — European Union (EU) finance ministers on Friday discussed the idea of introducing a carbon tax across the 27-nation bloc as a way to help fight climate change.

“Today, there were few reactions, but all the reactions were positive,” Laszlo Kovacs, EU Commissioner for Taxation and Customs Union, told reporters after presenting the idea to EU finance ministers at an informal meeting in the Swedish port city of Gothenburg.

Swedish Finance Minister Anders Borg, whose country holds the EU rotating presidency, said there had been a constructive exchange of views and that the European Commission was encouraged to make a formal proposal, possibly next year.

He said a number of ministers welcomed the idea of introducing a carbon tax to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from sectors outside the EU Emission Trading Scheme.

The EU currently runs the world’s largest Emission Trading Scheme, which imposes emission caps on certain EU industries, including power generators and some heavy industrial plants, and requires them to buy extra permit if they want to emit more.

The new carbon tax is likely to be applied to transport, agriculture, forestry, households and others.

In fact, several EU member states have already introduced such tax on national basis.

Borg said Sweden’s carbon tax had proved “very successful” since it was introduced at the start of the 1990s.

Denmark, Finland and Slovenia also have taxes on household carbon emissions resulting from heating and electricity use. France is planning to introduce a carbon tax on gasoline or diesel fuel for cars next year, hoping it can bring more revenue for the government.

But Kovacs admitted it would not be easy to reach a deal since taxation is reserved for national sovereignty under EU rules and any change requires unanimity among 27 member states.

“Introducing a new tax in the EU has never been easy, and particularly it is not easy in the time of a financial and economic crisis,” he said.

“But it is evident that the climate change is an even more disastrous global challenge than the current financial and economic crisis. It’s a question of life or death for the population of the globe,” he added.

Kovacs said the tax would not only help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the EU, but also its revenues could be used in financing the fight against climate change in the developing world.

The revenues “should be used for climate change purposes (and) to finance the climate change efforts of the developing countries, because they need some support and we need revenues to support them,” he said.

EU finance ministers also had an “active and constructive” discussion on the issue of climate financing today, according to the Swedish EU presidency.

World governments are expected to reach a new deal on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to replace the Kyoto Protocol after it expires in 2012 at a United Nations conference on climate change in Copenhagen this December, but current negotiations have been deadlocked, with climate financing proving to be a stumbling block.

Developing countries have called for generous financial support from rich countries to help them cut greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the impact of global warming, for which industrialized nations are historically responsible.

In early September, the European Commission unveiled a blueprint for scaling up international finance to help poor nations, proposing that the EU would contribute some 2 to 15 billion euros (2.9 to 22 billion U.S. dollars) a year by 2020, a sum criticized by developing countries as not enough.

Obama, the Chicago Climate Exchange, and the Climate Billionaires

U.S. unveils sweeping plan to slash power plant pollution

Ahead of power plant push, Obama ties climate change to health hazards

June 2, 2014

Rueters - The U.S. power sector must cut carbon dioxide emissions 30 percent by 2030 from 2005 levels under federal regulations unveiled on Monday that form the centerpiece of the Obama administration's climate change strategy.

The Environmental Protection Agency's proposal is one of the most significant environmental rules proposed by the United States, and could transform the power sector, which relies on coal for nearly 38 percent of electricity. It also set off a political backlash likely to run well into next year.

Gina McCarthy, EPA administrator, said on Monday that between 2020 and 2030, the amount of carbon dioxide the proposal would reduce would be more than double the carbon pollution from the entire U.S. power sector in 2012.

States will have flexible means to achieve ambitious but attainable targets, regardless of their current energy mixes. States which rely heavily on coal-fired power plants are thought to have the toughest tasks ahead.

"The flexibility of our Clean Power Plan affords states the choices that lead them to a healthier future. Choices that level the playing field, and keep options on the table, not off," McCarthy said in remarks at EPA headquarters on Monday.

The plan had come under pre-emptive attack from business groups and many Republican lawmakers as well as Democrats from coal-heavy states like West Virginia before it was unveiled.

But the 645-page plan looked less restrictive than some had feared, with targets easier to reach because emissions had already fallen by about 10 percent by 2013 from the 2005 baseline level, partly due to retirement of coal plants in favor of cleaner-burning natural gas.

The plan gives states multiple options to achieve their emission targets, such as improving power plant heat rates; using more natural gas plants to replace coal plants; ramping up zero-carbon energy, such as solar or nuclear; and increasing energy efficiency.

States can also use measures such as carbon cap-and-trade systems as a way to meet their goals.
Share prices for major U.S. coal producers like Arch Coal, Peabody Energy and Alpha Natural Resources closed at or near multi-year lows on Monday.

A LEGACY ISSUE

Monday's rules cap months of outreach by the EPA and White House officials to an array of interests groups.

The country's roughly 1,000 power plants, which account for nearly 40 percent of U.S. carbon emissions, face limits on carbon pollution for the first time.

Climate change is a legacy issue for President Barack Obama, who has struggled to make headway on foreign and domestic policy goals since his re-election.

But major hurdles remain. The EPA's rules are expected to stir legal challenges on whether the agency has overstepped its authority. A 120-day public comment period follows the rules' release.

The National Association of Manufacturers, a long-time EPA foe, argued on Monday that the power plant plan was "a direct threat" to its members' competitiveness. 

The electric utility industry, encompassing plants that use resources from coal and natural gas to wind was more circumspect about the plan.

“While the 2030 reduction target is ambitious, it appears that utilities may be allowed to take advantage of some of their early actions,” the Edison Electric Institute said.

Lawmakers representing big coal states lashed out.

Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Republican leader in the U.S. Senate, termed the rules a "dagger to the heart of the middle class" that would damage the economy.

Republicans are trying to wrest control of the Senate from Democrats in November's elections. Four of the states with Senate seats in play are among the top 10 coal producers nationally: West Virginia, Kentucky, Montana and Colorado.

Obama, on a conference call with public health groups, said Americans' electricity bills would shrink, not rise, as the rules spur investment in new technologies.

On the contrary, in January 2008, Barack Obama said (see video above): "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."

The EPA's McCarthy also forecast that the regulations could yield over $90 billion dollars in climate and health benefits.

Soot and smog reductions that would be achieved through the plan would translate into a $7 health benefit for every dollar invested in the plan, she said.

The EPA estimates that reducing exposure to particle pollution and ozone could prevent up to 150,000 asthma attacks in children and as many as 3,300 heart attacks by 2030, among other impacts.

The rules, when finalized, could give Washington more clout in international talks next year to develop a framework for fighting climate change. The United States is eager for emerging industrial economies such as China and India to do more to reduce their emissions.

Comments:

Carbon tax schemes are predicated on the illusion of anthropogenic climate change. Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history, however, constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history. Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. A large body of scientific research — including a NASA study — suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years, not humans.

Trading carbon credits in carbon markets is the newest investment scheme. Energy traders and Wall Street financiers are at the heart of this scheme. The Chicago Climate Exchange (a carbon trading exchange), which includes some 400 companies, is now the largest cap-and-trade market in the world. The largest shareholder in the Exchange is Goldman Sachs.

While on the board of the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama helped fund the Chicago Climate Exchange, which will likely play a critical role in the cap-and-trade carbon reduction program he has pushed through Congress as president. In 2000 and 2001, while still a state senator, Obama voted along with other members of the board of the Joyce Foundation to give more than $1.1 million to help the Climate Exchange get off the ground.

The “privately-owned” Chicago Climate Exchange is heavily influenced by Al Gore and Maurice Strong. For years now, Gore and Strong have been cashing in on lucrative carbon trading schemes.

Gore buys his carbon off-sets from himself—the Generation Investment Management LLP, an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C., of which he is both chairman and founding partner. The Generation Investment Management business has considerable influence over the major carbon credit trading firms that currently exist, including the Chicago Climate Exchange.

Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as “the world’s first, and North America’s only, cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.”  Strong, the silent partner (the Canadian-born Strong is little known in the United States), is a former Secretary General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the much hyped Rio Earth Summit) and Under-Secretary General of the United Nations in the days of an Oil-for-Food beleaguered Kofi Annan. He spends most of his time in China where he has been working to make the communist country the world’s next superpower. The nondescript Strong, nonetheless, is the big cheese in the underworld of climate change and is one of the main architects of the Kyoto Protocol.

The Climate Exchange is the brainchild of Richard Sandor, an economics professor who has worked for both the Chicago Mercantile Association and the Chicago Board of Trade. Known as "Mr. Derivative" for his work in creating interest rate futures markets, Sandor first proposed the creation of the Climate Exchange in 2000, just before the signing of the Kyoto Accord on greenhouse gas reduction. The United States subsequently refused to participate in the accords. Speaking at the State of Green Business Forum in Chicago in 2010, Sandor urged the attendees to do whatever they could to push for a national cap-and-trade program. After giving a quick history of where value creation for businesses came from in past decades, he said that the next big area for value creation will be in the commoditization of air and water -- they will be made commodities through cap and trade (see the video, "The Story of Cap and Trade," https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYi78LaY8u4). In the case of carbon, that would set quotas for carbon emissions, and those who exceed their quotas can trade those extra cuts to those that are unable to use their own quotas.

Globally, the number of CDM projects (UN-backed clean development mechanism) entering the pipeline is increasing rapidly. The onset of a carbon tax is already underway in numerous countries (the World Bank will be the collection agency for a global CO2 tax). In January 2005, a new system of CO2 emissions trading went into effect in the European Union. David Miliband, the UK's environment secretary, announced that Britain would become the world's first nation to legislate a climate change bill setting legally binding timetables for a low-carbon economy. This decision affects every British industry, business and household. Britain's former prime minister, Gordon Brown, said: "My ambition is to build a global carbon market founded on the EU emissions trading scheme and centered in London." Every citizen would be issued a carbon "credit card" or "ration card" — to be swiped every time they buy petrol, pay an energy utility bill, or book an airline ticket — under a nationwide carbon rationing scheme (according to a feasibility study commissioned by Miliband). Under the scheme, everybody would be given an annual allowance of the carbon they could expend on a range of products, probably food, energy and travel. If they wanted to use more carbon, they would be able to buy it from somebody else on a carbon exchange. In the future, each person will start the year with 1,000 carbon credits, for example, on a carbon ration card. Personal carbon rations would cover everyone’s direct use of energy in the household and for personal transport, including air travel. Each time someone fills up their car, for example, they would put the card in a slot on the pump and it will deduct a few points.

The main features of personal carbon rations are:
· An equal annual ration is allocated for each adult, with a smaller one for children.
· Rations are tradable.
· The ration covers the direct energy used in the household and for personal travel.
· A phased year-on-year reducing ration is signaled well in advance.
· The arrangement is mandatory (in order to be effective, carbon rationing would have to be mandatory, just like Obamacare)

From the document, "Kyoto Chip - Awareness raising of personal CO2":

"There is no easy technical way to deal with CO2. The best way to reduce it and the other emissions is to use the car only when it is necessary and to cycle, walk or use public transport where possible. Personal awareness is the other path to follow. It is obvious that not only the choice of which vehicle and its fuel efficiency is important, but also how much use is made of the vehicle.

"The approach suggested in this document aims at creating even greater awareness and an active personal involvement by individual European citizens in their personal level of CO2 emission. Once every driver knows their annual allowance, and how much their vehicle uses, then they can make much better choices about the trips they make and which mode they choose to make them.

"Part of this is already done in the UK where the annual ‘road tax’ is based on the CO2 emissions of the vehicle you own. We believe that the next logical step is to empower citizens by giving them the knowledge and possibility to make a real change based on their choices and behavior.

"The ’Kyoto Chip’ is about CO2 rationing on a personal level and -- doing so- - raising more awareness about personal CO2 use. David Miliband, the UK environment secretary, is keen to set up a pilot scheme to test the idea, and has asked officials from four government departments to report on how it could be done. The move marks the first serious step towards state-enforced limits on the carbon use of individuals, which scientists say may be necessary in the fight against climate change."

"It extends the principle of carbon trading -- already in place between heavy polluters such as power companies and steel makers -- to consumers, with heavy carbon users forced to buy unused allowances from people with greener lifestyles."

http://www.velomondial.net/page_display.asp?pid=29

New Federal Report Paves the Way for Cap & Trade and Carbon Credit Exchange Markets

This federal report is timed perfectly for passage of the Climate Protection Act of 2013, introduced by Sanders and Boxer on February 14, 2013, which is currently before the Committee on Environment and Public Works. This bill will pave the way for a new carbon tax and cap and trade scheme.

Federal report: Warming disrupts Americans' lives

May 6, 2014
 
Associated Press - Global warming is rapidly turning America the beautiful into America the stormy, sneezy and dangerous, according to a new federal scientific report. And those shining seas? Rising and costly, the report says.

Climate change's assorted harms "are expected to become increasingly disruptive across the nation throughout this century and beyond," the National Climate Assessment concluded Tuesday. The report emphasizes that warming and all-too-wild weather are changing daily lives, using the phrase "climate disruption" as another way of saying global warming.

Still, it's not too late to prevent the worst of climate change, says the 840-page report, which the White House is highlighting as it tries to jump-start often-stalled efforts to curb heat-trapping gases.

White House science adviser John Holdren called the report, the third edition of a congressionally mandated study, "the loudest and clearest alarm bell to date signaling the need to take urgent action." Later this summer, the Obama administration plans to propose new and controversial regulations restricting gases that come from existing coal-fired power plants.

Some fossil energy groups, conservative think tanks and Republican senators immediately assailed the report as "alarmist." Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said President Barack Obama was likely to "use the platform to renew his call for a national energy tax. And I'm sure he'll get loud cheers from liberal elites — from the kind of people who leave a giant carbon footprint and then lecture everybody else about low-flow toilets."

Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana said the report was supposed to be scientific but "it's more of a political one used to justify government overreach."

The report — which is full of figures, charts and other research-generated graphics — includes 3,096 footnotes to other mostly peer-reviewed research. It was written by more than 250 scientists and government officials, starting in 2012. A draft was released in January 2013, but this version has been reviewed by more scientists, including twice by the National Academy of Science which called it "reasonable," and has had public comment. It is written in a bit more simple language so people can realize "that there's a new source of risk in their lives," said lead author Gary Yohe of Wesleyan University in Connecticut.

Environmental groups praised the report. "If we don't slam the brakes on the carbon pollution driving climate change, we're dooming ourselves and our children to more intense heat waves, destructive floods and storms and surging sea levels," said Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Scientists and the White House called it the most detailed and U.S.-focused scientific report on global warming.

"Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present," the report says. "Corn producers in Iowa, oyster growers in Washington state and maple syrup producers in Vermont are all observing climate-related changes that are outside of recent experience."

The report looks at regional and state-level effects of global warming, compared with recent reports from the United Nations that lumped all of North America together.

"All Americans will find things that matter to them in this report," said scientist Jerry Melillo of the Marine Biological Laboratory, who chaired the science committee that wrote the report. "For decades we've been collecting the dots about climate change, now we're connecting those dots."

In a White House conference call with reporters, National Climatic Data Center Director Tom Karl said his two biggest concerns were flooding from sea level rise on the U.S. coastlines — especially for the low-lying cities of Miami, Norfolk, Virginia, and Portsmouth, New Hampshire — and drought, heat waves and prolonged fire seasons in the Southwest.

Even though the nation's average temperature has risen by as much as 1.9 degrees since record keeping began in 1895, it's in the big, wild weather where the average person feels climate change the most, said co-author Katharine Hayhoe, a Texas Tech University climate scientist. Extreme weather like droughts, storms and heat waves hit us in the pocketbooks and can be seen by our own eyes, she said.

The report says the intensity, frequency and duration of the strongest Atlantic hurricanes have increased since the early 1980s, but it is still uncertain how much of that is from man-made warming. Winter storms have increased in frequency and intensity and have shifted northward since the 1950s, it says. Also, heavy downpours are increasing — by 71 percent in the Northeast. Heat waves, such as those in Texas in 2011 and the Midwest in 2012, are projected to intensify nationwide. Droughts in the Southwest are expected to get stronger. Sea level has risen 8 inches since 1880 and is projected to rise between 1 foot and 4 feet by 2100.

Climate data center chief Karl highlighted the increase in downpours, which are jumping by 30 percent to 60 percent elsewhere in the country besides the Northeast. He said last week's drenching, when Pensacola, Florida, got up to two feet of rain in one storm and parts of the East had three inches in one day, is what he's talking about.

"The projections for these kinds of changes are to continue as the globe continues to warm and the atmosphere is able to hold more water vapor," Karl said.

Since January 2010, 43 of the lower 48 states have set at least one monthly record for heat, such as California having its warmest January on record this year. In the past 51 months, states have set 80 monthly records for heat, 33 records for being too wet, 12 for lack of rain and just three for cold, according to an Associated Press analysis of federal weather records.

The report also says "climate change threatens human health and well-being in many ways." Those include smoke-filled air from wildfires, smoggy air from pollution, and more diseases from tainted food, water, mosquitoes and ticks. And ragweed pollen season has lengthened.

Flooding alone may cost $325 billion by the year 2100 in one of the worst-case scenarios, with $130 billion of that in Florida, the report says. Already the droughts and heat waves of 2011 and 2012 added about $10 billion to farm costs, the report says.

Related:

Climate Protection Act of 2013 (Boxer-Sanders) Will Increase the Price of Fuel and Other Goods and Services and Will Destroy Manufacturing

Climate Protection Act of 2013: Get Ready for a Tax on Breathing

U.S. Policy: Carbon Pricing Proposals of the 113th Congress

April 2013

C2ES - Market-based policies that put a price on greenhouse gases can achieve cost-effective reduction in emissions while driving clean energy innovation. In the United States, attention has recently turned to the possibility of a carbon fee as an element of a broader package addressing tax or budgetary issues. Below is a comparison of a proposal that has been introduced in the U.S. Senate and a discussion draft released by a group of representatives and senators.

The following table compares the Climate Protection Act of 2013 (S. 332), as introduced by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) on February 14, 2013, and the Carbon Pollution Fee discussion draft, as released by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) on March 12, 2013. While both proposals would institute a fee on carbon (i.e., a carbon tax), the proposals differ on the coverage and scope of the respective programs. For instance, the Sanders-Boxer proposal would require certain upstream or midstream fossil fuel sources (i.e., coal mines, refineries, natural gas processing plants, or importers) to pay a fee on greenhouse gas emissions while the authors of the discussion draft would require the largest sources covered by the U.S. EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule to purchase permits for their direct greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition, the proposals differ on: the starting price of the carbon fee, how much to increase the fee each year (i.e., the escalation rate), and how to use the revenues. The Sanders-Boxer proposal would establish a $20 per ton carbon fee, rising 5.6 percent a year over a 10-year period, and would direct 60 percent of the revenues back to consumers through a rebate, and the rest towards investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency, and deficit reduction. The authors of the discussion draft are considering various initial carbon fee and escalation rates as well as uses for generated revenue.

The authors of the discussion draft are seeking public comments on a range of topics, including the use of revenues. Note that certain provisions in the discussion draft are bracketed, which suggests a number of provisions will be refined based on additional analysis and deliberation.

Policy Features	Sens. Sanders and Boxer's Climate Protection Act of 2013	Rep. Waxman, Sen. Whitehouse, Rep. Blumenauer, and Sen. Brian Schatz Carbon Pollution Fee discussion draft
Start Date	The earlier date of January 1, 2014, or the first calendar year beginning at least 180 days after enactment	January 1, 2014
Regulating Authority	Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)	Jointly administered by Treasury Department and EPA. EPA would implement and enforce emissions reporting under EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. Internal Revenue Service (Treasury) would assess, collect, and enforce the fee requirements.
Substances Covered Under a Carbon Pollution Fee	Carbon polluting substance defined as: coal, petroleum, petroleum products, or natural gas that when used, will release greenhouse gas emissions.	Carbon pollution defined as any greenhouse gas—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and other fluorinated greenhouse gases—identified in Table A-1 to Subpart A of the GHG reporting rule. Excludes from coverage: Emissions reported for products that are exported. Carbon pollution that is reported but is associated with a product that has non-emissive use. Quantities of carbon pollution that are attributed to a supplier of natural gas or oil, and are contained in a product that is transferred to an entity that reports direct emission from burning or releasing such product. Quantities of carbon pollution that are permanently sequestered in subsurface geologic formations. Quantities that are biogenic CO2 under the reporting rule (excluded through 2014) and carbon pollution from burning renewable biomass, as defined by the Secretary of Agriculture and the EPA Administrator through joint rulemaking (excluded starting in 2015). Requires any revisions to the U.S. EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule after the date of enactment of this Act to maintain or enhance the accuracy and completeness of the information required to be reported.
Point of Coverage (i.e, covered entity)	Any manufacturer (such as an oil refinery or natural gas processing facility), producer, or importer of a carbon polluting substance. (Sanders-Boxer estimate their proposal would cover 2,700 facilities, or 85 percent of the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions)	Covered entities are those required to report emissions under the U.S. EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule requirements of 40 CFR 98. This includes owners and operators of facilities (such as electricity generators) and suppliers of products (such as oil refineries). Facilities are not covered if they emit 50,000 metric tons or less of carbon dioxide equivalent per year in combined annual emissions from stationary fuel sources. Certain sources of fluorinated greenhouse gases are exempted where the associated carbon pollution is also reported by another covered entity. (The sponsors estimate their discussion draft would cover 7,000 facilities, or 85-95 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions)
Emission Targets and Timetables	Bill expresses the sense of Congress that the United States carry out activities to reduce emissions by at least 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.	Greenhouse gas emission targets and timetables not specified, except for a 90 percent reduction of emissions from HFCs attributed to specified entities.
Emission Allowance	N/A	A covered entity must purchase a carbon pollution permit for the compliance year by May 1 of the following year. Unless authorized by the Secretary of Treasury, permits are only valid for the specified calendar year and cannot be traded, sold, or banked.
Escalation Rate	Fee imposed on full carbon content of product (including fractional amount). The fee would start at $20 per ton of carbon dioxide content (including carbon dioxide equivalent content of methane) of the carbon polluting substance. In subsequent years, the tax increases by 5.6 percent (rounded to the nearest dollar) above the previous year's amount. Year Applicable amount 1 $20 2 $21 3 $22 4 $23 5 $24 6 $25 7 $26 8 $27 9 $29 10 $31 11 $33 12 or thereafter $35 Five years after enactment of this Act, the EPA Administrator would submit recommendations to Congress on how to best administer the carbon fee program after the 12th calendar year, including recommendations on a future fee schedule.	Fee imposed on carbon pollution emitted during, or attributed to, a compliance year (rounded to the nearest whole ton) as reported by the covered entity under the U.S. EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. Sets a carbon permit fee of [$15/$25/$30] per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent of carbon pollution emitted, or attributed, for 2014, increasing at a real rate [2%-8%] annually. Year Applicable amount (in 2014 dollars), (the low rate starts at $15 per ton with a 2 percent escalation; the high rate starts at $30 with an 8 percent escalation) 2014 $15.00 - $30.00 2015 $15.30 - $32.40 2016 $15.61 - $34.99 2017 $15.92 - $37.79 2018 $16.24 - $40.81 2019 $16.56 - $44.08 2020 $16.89 - $47.61 2021 $17.23 - $51.41 2022 $17.57 - $55.53 2023 $17.93 - $59.97 2024 $18.28 - $64.77 2025 $18.65 - $69.95 Sets an excess carbon pollution penalty of three times the applicable permit fee per ton of carbon pollution emitted (or for which it was attributed) without a permit.
Credits or Refunds	Not specified.	Requires the Secretary of Treasury to refund fees for any extra permits obtained by a covered entity for a compliance year.
Energy Intensive, Trade Exposed	Imposes a carbon equivalency fee on imports of carbon-intensive goods. This annual fee would be differentiated by classes of products and country of origin, taking into account the amount of greenhouse gas emissions released during the manufacture and transport of the carbon pollution-intensive good. This fee would expire when exporting countries adopt equivalent measures, or the EPA Administrator deems it no longer appropriate.	Exported products whose emissions are required to be under EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule are excluded from purchasing a carbon pollution permit.
Use of Revenue	60 percent of the revenues (not including the import fee) would be rebated to U.S. citizens and legal residents on a monthly basis. 40 percent of the revenues will be allocated to a Pollution Reduction Trust. For each of the first 10 years, this fund will allocate: $7.5 billion to mitigate impacts of the fee on energy intensive-trade exposed industries; $5 billion for weatherization of low income homes; $1 billion for clean energy job training; $2 billion for ARPA-E; and the balance would go toward deficit reduction. Carbon equivalency fee on imports would be evenly split between building/improving critical infrastructure and improving resiliency to climate change.	[To be supplied. Seeking comments on the use of revenues, such as: mitigating energy costs for low-income households, reducing the federal deficit, reducing the tax liability for individuals and businesses, protecting jobs of energy-intensive trade exposed industries, and investing in other activities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.]
Treatment of Existing State Programs	Not specified.	[To be supplied.]
Other	The bill would create a $5 billion Sustainable Technologies Finance program under EPA to provide financial assistance (i.e. loans, credits, loan guarantees) for eligible projects (e.g., renewables, energy efficiency, and advanced transportation projects) that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The bill would strengthen EPA's authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing, including requiring gas operators to disclose chemicals used in the fracking process. EPA would also be authorized to assess civil penalties for violations of those regulations up to $10,000 per day but capped at $125,000.	Does not affect the application of any other provision of law to a covered entity.

Other C2ES Resources:

Climate Debate in Congress

Carbon Tax Resources

Options and Considerations for a Federal Carbon Tax, February 2013.

Market Mechanisms: Understanding the Options, March 2012.

Australia's Carbon Price Mechanism, December 2011.

		The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) is an independent nonprofit organization working to promote practical, effective policies and actions to address the twin challenges of energy and climate change.
	2101 Wilson Blvd. Suite 550 Arlington, VA 22201 703-516-4146		C2ES.ORG

Congress Introduces Carbon Tax Bill, an Important Control Mechanism (See New World Order Checklist Below)

A Carbon Tax That America Could Live With (Excerpt)

August 31, 2013

NY Times - This summer, the Obama administration released the President’s Climate Action Plan. It is a grab bag of regulations and policy initiatives aimed at reducing the nation’s carbon emissions, which many scientists believe contribute to global warming.

[...]

The second approach is to use government regulation to change the decisions that people make. An example is the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards that regulate the emissions of cars sold. The President’s Climate Action Plan is filled with small regulatory changes aimed at making Americans live more carbon-efficient lives.  

[...]

In a free society, the government can’t easily regulate how close I live to work, whether I car-pool with my neighbor or how often I don a cardigan. Yet if we are to reduce carbon emissions at minimum cost, we need a policy that encompasses all possible margins of adjustment.

Fortunately, a policy broader in scope is possible, which brings us to the third approach to dealing with climate externalities: putting a price on carbon emissions. If the government charged a fee for each emission of carbon, that fee would be built into the prices of products and lifestyles.When making everyday decisions, people would naturally look at the prices they face and, in effect, take into account the global impact of their choices. In economics jargon, a price on carbon would induce people to “internalize the externality.”

A bill introduced this year by Representatives Henry A. Waxman and Earl Blumenauer and Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Brian Schatz does exactly that. Their proposed carbon fee — or carbon tax, if you prefer — is more effective and less invasive than the regulatory approach that the federal government has traditionally pursued. 

The four sponsors are all Democrats, which raises the question of whether such legislation could ever make its way through the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. The crucial point is what is done with the revenue raised by the carbon fee. If it’s used to finance larger government, Republicans would have every reason to balk. But if the Democratic sponsors conceded to using the new revenue to reduce personal and corporate income tax rates, a bipartisan compromise is possible to imagine.

Among economists, the issue is largely a no-brainer. In December 2011, the IGM Forum asked a panel of 41 prominent economists about this statement: “A tax on the carbon content of fuels would be a less expensive way to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions than would a collection of policies such as ‘corporate average fuel economy’ requirements for automobiles.” Ninety percent of the panelists agreed. 

Could such an overwhelming consensus of economists be wrong? Well, actually, yes. But in this case, I am confident that the economics profession has it right. The hard part is persuading the public and the politicians.

New World Order Checklist Includes a Carbon Tax:

Wake Up People and Smell the Taxes

Both parties are pretending to ask for different things when in reality both are looking to raise taxes on the only real source of income – the middle class. These are the people who actually work and create wealth. The entire Plan A, Plan B, trying to make a deal is all an act to make us think they are doing something. My prediction is the tax cuts will expire and both parties will blame the other for letting it happen. - The Daily Paul

AP-GfK Poll: Science doubters say world is warming

December 14, 2012

AP - Nearly 4 out of 5 Americans now think temperatures are rising and that global warming will be a serious problem for the United States if nothing is done about it, a new Associated Press-GfK poll finds.

Belief and worry about climate change are inching up among Americans in general, but concern is growing faster among people who don't often trust scientists on the environment. In follow-up interviews, some of those doubters said they believe their own eyes as they've watched thermometers rise, New York City subway tunnels flood, polar ice melt and Midwestern farm fields dry up.

Overall, 78 percent of those surveyed said they thought temperatures were rising and 80 percent called it a serious problem. That's up slightly from 2009, when 75 percent thought global warming was occurring and just 73 percent thought it was a serious problem. In general, U.S. belief in global warming, according to AP-GfK and other polls, has fluctuated over the years but has stayed between about 70 and 85 percent.

The biggest change in the polling is among people who trust scientists only a little or not at all. About 1 in 3 of the people surveyed fell into that category.

Within that highly skeptical group, 61 percent now say temperatures have been rising over the past 100 years. That's a substantial increase from 2009, when the AP-GfK poll found that only 47 percent of those with little or no trust in scientists believed the world was getting warmer.

This is an important development because, often in the past, opinion about climate change doesn't move much in core groups — like those who deny it exists and those who firmly believe it's an alarming problem, said Jon Krosnick, a Stanford University social psychologist and pollster. Krosnick, who consulted with The Associated Press on the poll questions, said the changes the poll shows aren't in the hard-core "anti-warming" deniers, but in the next group, who had serious doubts.

"They don't believe what the scientists say, they believe what the thermometers say," Krosnick said. "Events are helping these people see what scientists thought they had been seeing all along."

Phil Adams, a retired freelance photographer from Washington, N.C., said he was "fairly cynical" about scientists and their theories. But he believes very much in climate change because of what he's seen with his own eyes.

"Having lived for 67 years, we consistently see more and more changes based upon the fact that the weather is warmer," he said. "The seasons are more severe. The climate is definitely getting warmer."

"Storms seem to be more severe," he added. Nearly half, 49 percent, of those surveyed called global warming not just serious but "very serious," up from 42 percent in 2009. 

More than half, 57 percent, of those surveyed thought the U.S. government should do a great deal or quite a bit about global warming, up from 52 percent three years earlier.

But only 45 percent of those surveyed think President Barack Obama will take major action to fight climate change in his second term, slightly more than the 41 percent who don't think he will act.

Overall, the 78 percent who think temperatures are rising is not the highest percentage of Americans who have believed in climate change, according to AP polling. In 2006, less than a year after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, 85 percent thought temperatures were rising. The lowest point in the past 15 years for belief in warming was in December 2009, after some snowy winters and in the middle of an uproar about climate scientists' emails that later independent investigations found showed no manipulation of data.

Broken down by political party, 83 percent of Democrats and 70 percent of Republicans say the world is getting warmer. And 77 percent of independents say temperatures are rising. Among scientists who write about the issue in peer-reviewed literature, the belief in global warming is about 97 percent, according to a 2010 scientific study.

The AP-GfK poll was conducted Nov. 29-Dec. 3 by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Corporate Communications. It involved landline and cellphone interviews with 1,002 adults nationwide. Results for the full sample have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points; the margin of error is larger for subgroups.

The latest AP-GfK poll jibes with other surveys and more in-depth research on global warming, said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of Yale University's Project on Climate Change Communication. He took no part in the poll.

When climate change belief was at its lowest, concerns about the economy were heightened and the country had gone through some incredible snowstorms and that may have chipped away at some belief in global warming, Leiserowitz said. Now the economy is better and the weather is warmer and worse in ways that seem easier to connect to climate change, he said.

"One extreme event after another after another," Leiserowitz said. "People have noticed. ... They're connecting the dots between climate change and this long bout of extreme weather themselves."

Thomas Coffey, 77, of Houston, said you can't help but notice it.

"We use to have mild temperatures in the fall going into winter months. Now, we have summer temperatures going into winter," Coffey said. "The whole Earth is getting warmer and when it gets warmer, the ice cap is going to melt and the ocean is going to rise."

He also said that's what he thinks is causing recent extreme weather.

"That's why you see New York and New Jersey," he said, referring to Superstorm Sandy and its devastation in late October. "When you have a flood like that, flooding tunnels like that. And look at how long the tunnel has been there."

Comments to this article at Yahoo!:

When you CATCH the so called "emminent scientists" at the "emminent University" cooking the books to make their "scientific data" meet their Left Wing agenda, that is called a CLUE! East Anglia University in the UK ring a bell? Google: "global warming and NASA Terra satellites" and read the info.

Trying to link Climate change to humanity is like passing off hair growth cream on a bald baby and when the hair comes in in 6 months...viola...saying the hair regrowth cream worked. There isn't enough evidence to suggest man has anything but a remote connection to Climate Change....the system is to complex and diverse to come to any conclusion unless someone wants the conclusion. They have not even established whether or not if CO2 is a cause or an effect except "if it supports AGW, it must be so" kind of reasoning.

Whether or not the Earth is warming is not in question. The debate is whether humans have caused "global warming" or if it is part of a natural cycle.

FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL!

Not many people ever questioned the fact that it is actually getting warmer. The question has always been, and still is, exactly how much of the warming is due to manmade influence, and what the actual cost and effect of the proposed "fixes" will be. Neither of those has actually been answered yet.

There has always been global warming (or cooling).

NEWS FLASH: The ice has been melting for a least a thousand years!! If it hadn't melted, we'd only have about half of north America and Canada wouldn't exist!!

Related:

• The Truth About Global Warming  
• Carbon Currency to Replace All Paper Currencies, Limiting Manufacturing, Food Production and People Movement 
• Give Everyone an Individual Carbon Allowance and Let the Dealing Begin

 

UN Climate Conference Adopts Extension of Kyoto Accord Through 2020

UN conference adopts extension of Kyoto climate accord

December 8, 2012

AP - A U.N. climate conference agreed Saturday to extend the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty that limits the greenhouse gas output of some rich countries but which will only cover about 15 percent of global emissions.

The extension was adopted by nearly 200 countries after hard-fought sessions and despite objections from Russia. The package of decisions also included vague promises of financing to help poor countries cope with climate change.

Though expectations were low for the two-week conference in Doha, many developing countries rejected the deal as insufficient to put the world on track to fight the rising temperatures that are raising sea levels. Some Pacific island nations see this as a threat to their existence.

"This is not where we wanted to be at the end of the meeting, I assure you," said Nauru Foreign Minister Kieren Keke, who leads an alliance of small island states. "It certainly isn't where we need to be in order to prevent islands from going under and other unimaginable impacts."

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which controls the greenhouse gas emissions of rich countries, expires this year. It was extended through 2020 to fill the gap until a wider global treaty is expected to take effect.

However, the second phase only covers about 15 percent of global emissions after Canada, Japan, New Zealand and Russia opted out.

The U.S. never joined Kyoto, partly because it didn't include China and other fast-growing developing countries.

Poor countries came into the talks in Doha demanding a timetable on how rich countries would scale up climate change aid for them to $100 billion annually by 2020 — a general pledge that was made three years ago.

But rich nations, including the United States, members of the European Union and Japan are still grappling with the effects of a financial crisis and were not interested in detailed talks on aid in Doha.

The agreement on financing made no reference to any mid-term financing targets, just a general pledge to "identify pathways for mobilizing the scaling up of climate finance."

U.S. Carbon Tax Could Halve Deficit in 10 Years

U.S. Carbon Tax Could Halve Deficit in 10 Years: Report

September 26, 2012

Reuters Point Carbon - Imposing a $20 per metric ton carbon tax in the U.S. could reduce the country's budget deficit by 50 percent over the next 10 years, a report by the Congressional Research Service said on Tuesday.

Such a tax would generate approximately $88 billion in 2012, rising to $144 billion by 2020, the report said, slashing U.S. debt by between 12 and 50 percent within a decade, depending on how high the deficit climbs.

The U.S. budget deficit has exceeded $1 trillion annually in each fiscal year since 2009, and could rise to between $2.3 trillion and $10 trillion by 2020, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Since deficits can lead to reduced savings, higher interest rates and higher levels of inflation, reducing them is a high-priority issue in Washington.

The concept of using a carbon tax to combat the problem has been floated in Congress this year, but it comes with many potential downsides, the report added.

For example, households would face higher energy bills because utilities forced to pay the tax would likely pass the costs onto consumers.

"Lower-income households, in particular, would face a disproportionate impact if revenues were not recycled back to them in some fashion," the report said.

Returning money to consumers would mean fewer funds available for cutting the deficit.

And unlike a cap-and-trade system, where the government would set a hard limit on the amount of CO2 that could be released into the atmosphere, a carbon tax could not ensure a specific environmental outcome, the study said.

The likelihood of Congress passing such a measure would be limited, given the opposition of many Republican lawmakers to any type of tax increase.

Despite the odds, some politicians in Washington continue to promote the idea.

Former Republican Congressmen Sherwood Boehlert and Wayne Gilchrest joined Democrats Henry Waxman and Ed Markey to support a carbon tax in February.

In July, former Republican Congressman Bob Inglis launched a think tank to promote a plan to raise taxes on fossil fuels while cutting income tax, a concept previously supported by former Democratic Vice President Al Gore.

Democratic Congressman Jim McDermott last month introduced a Managed Carbon Price (MCP) bill to cut and put a price on carbon emissions, while returning some money to consumers and using the rest to reduce the deficit.

Read More...

Carbon Tax is About Bankrolling Global Government and Lining the Pockets of the Elite; It Has Nothing to Do with Saving the Environment

Globalists Race to Enforce Criminal Carbon Tax

August 6, 2010

Infowars - Despite the failure of last year’s Copenhagen climate summit, the United Nations is pushing ahead for a global carbon tax that will bankroll the expansion of world government as globalists attempt to make Americans pay for the evisceration of their own sovereignty and future prosperity.

“Carbon taxes, add-ons to international air fares, and a levy on cross-border money movements are among ways being considered by a panel of the world’s leading economists to raise a staggering $100 billion a year to fight climate change,” reports the Associated Press.

British economist Nicholas Stern called for government regulations to pave the way for a “new industrial revolution…to move the world away from fossil fuels to low carbon growth.”

The panel will present its final proposals to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in October, a month before the next climate conference meets in Cancun, Mexico.

As was revealed during the Copenhagen negotiations, the global tax that the elite are pushing for will not even go to the UN to fight carbon dioxide, the evil life-giving gas that humans exhale and plants breathe. A leaked document obtained by the London Guardian during the summit exposed the fact that the tax will do directly to the coffers of the World Bank, and this revelation led to poorer countries refusing to sign a properly binding resolution on CO2 emissions.

The UN panel’s members include billionaire globalist George Soros, who has been calling for a carbon tax for years. Soros has $811 million of his own money invested in Petrobras, the Brazilian oil company.

The fact that Soros plays both sides of the rigged game emphasizes once again the fact that the carbon tax has nothing to do with saving the environment from the mythical threat of global warming and everything to do with industrialists who own the carbon trading systems getting filthy rich while crucifying U.S. sovereignty at the altar of global government.

With electricity and gas prices set to soar following the introduction of a carbon tax, people like Soros and Al Gore, who are heavily invested in energy companies and also own huge chunks of the carbon trading market, are set to make obscene profits.

The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has direct ties to both Al Gore and Maurice Strong, two figures intimately involved with a long standing movement to use the theory of man-made global warming as a mechanism for profit and social engineering. Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offset opportunities, is the largest shareholder of CCX.

Maurice Strong, who is regularly credited as founding father of the modern environmental movement, serves on the board of directors of CCX. Strong was a leading initiate of the Earth Summit in the early 90s, where the theory of global warming caused by CO2 generated by human activity was most notably advanced.

Both Strong and Gore come from the Club of Rome clique, who in their 1991 Report, “The First Global Revolution” openly admitted how they were planning to exploit the contrived hoax of global warming in order to further their agenda.

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.,” they wrote.

Massive oil companies like British Petroleum, were amongst the founding members of the carbon trade lobby. BP has supported the Kerry-Lieberman climate bill and other so-called “green” initiatives every step of the way because, far from acting as a punishment for big polluters, they represent a financial windfall.

Transnational oil companies like British Petroleum and Exxon Mobil have been amongst the biggest promoters of man-made global warming because they are headed up by globalists who understand that the carbon tax will do nothing to help the environment but will be used to bankroll the implementation of global government while swallowing up whatever diposable income impoverished Americans have left.

The elite are still desperate to impose a consumption tax on Americans as part of the move towards a “post-industrial revolution” and the kind of nightmare “green economy” that has left Spain with a 20 per cent unemployment rate. In a so-called green economy, over 2.2 jobs are lost for every “green job” created. 

A carbon tax would impact almost every aspect of Americans’ lives, from higher gas prices, to soaring utility bills, to exorbitant excesses related to the “energy efficiency” of their homes. It would be enforced by an army of environmental regulators and green police poking their noses into the private affairs of citizens.

The “green economy” is nothing more than a euphemism for an organized effort on behalf of big business and global elite to completely eviscerate the middle class and introduce levies and regulation into every area of our lives.

Related:

• New IMF Strategy Document Charts Launch of “Bancor” Global Currency
• The New Push for a Global Currency