Its not global warming , it is redistribution of wealth
The left is very disappointing anymore. Their rants and tantrums for mythical causes no longer hold ones attention and unfortunately they know it to. It used to be that they would disguise their true agenda in some sort of calamity that had universal apocalyptic consequences. Now they barely make the effort to disguise their true agenda.
Take this new climate strategy. With the minimal effort to make a false relation to any sort of climate control they let loose the real agenda. That is the redistribution of wealth from those who earned it to those who want it without the work.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N06427635.htm
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.
Lie number one. The government is the biggest emitter of green house gases through its vehicles and contracting of heavy equipment for infrastructure projects.
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
Lie number 2. It is not the rich who have these emissions. Think about the small business that runs construction or shipping. I have yet to see a millionaire get up at 4 in the morning to sit behind the wheel of a 972 cat loader.
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.
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.
Note how they claim the average American has twice and then four times the individual emissions of anyone else. Hard to believe after visiting countries like China, India, or any industrial emerging third world nation.
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.
AHA! Note how it is the rich who automatically pollute more just because they are rich. It is assumed that they travel more. I think that when they travel that they also stay in one location longer as well, thus less emissions?
When directly asked about this being a tax, just to tax the rich. Spokesman Shoibal Chakravarty of the Princeton Environment Institute said.
Is this a limousine-and-yacht tax on the rich? Not necessarily, 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."
So a tax on the wealthy just because they are wealthy is welcomed. This smacks or redistribution of wealth. Not only is it being proposed but cheered and encouraged to happen.
This is what we have to look forward to with leftist in charge. So called enlightened progressives want what you earned by hook or crook. In this case through mythical global warming alarms.
Take this new climate strategy. With the minimal effort to make a false relation to any sort of climate control they let loose the real agenda. That is the redistribution of wealth from those who earned it to those who want it without the work.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N06427635.htm
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.
Lie number one. The government is the biggest emitter of green house gases through its vehicles and contracting of heavy equipment for infrastructure projects.
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
Lie number 2. It is not the rich who have these emissions. Think about the small business that runs construction or shipping. I have yet to see a millionaire get up at 4 in the morning to sit behind the wheel of a 972 cat loader.
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.
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.
Note how they claim the average American has twice and then four times the individual emissions of anyone else. Hard to believe after visiting countries like China, India, or any industrial emerging third world nation.
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.
AHA! Note how it is the rich who automatically pollute more just because they are rich. It is assumed that they travel more. I think that when they travel that they also stay in one location longer as well, thus less emissions?
When directly asked about this being a tax, just to tax the rich. Spokesman Shoibal Chakravarty of the Princeton Environment Institute said.
Is this a limousine-and-yacht tax on the rich? Not necessarily, 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."
So a tax on the wealthy just because they are wealthy is welcomed. This smacks or redistribution of wealth. Not only is it being proposed but cheered and encouraged to happen.
This is what we have to look forward to with leftist in charge. So called enlightened progressives want what you earned by hook or crook. In this case through mythical global warming alarms.
