« | »

US Carbon Tax Could Spark ‘Revolution’

From the UK’s Telegraph:

Barack Obama faces ‘revolution’ if he imposes tough carbon targets, warns IPCC

Barack Obama faces a "revolution" if he imposes emission cuts on the US similar to those set in Europe, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has conceded.

By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent in Copenhagen
11 Mar 2009

But Rajendra Pachauri, head of the United Nation’s body tasked with leading the fight against climate change, also questioned the value of a new global climate deal without such a US pledge.

He said political constraints such as creating new jobs made it impossible for the new president to announce the measures that scientists believe are necessary…

Obama has said the US will work to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Europe has pledged to cut them by 20-30 per cent on 1990 levels in the same period.

The IPCC said developed nations should aim for 25-40 per cent cuts by then to avoid dangerous climate change.

Speaking on the fringes of a high-level scientific conference on climate change in Copenhagen, Mr Pachauri told the Guardian: "He [Obama] is not going to say by 2020 I’m going to reduce emissions by 30 per cent. He’ll have a revolution on his hands. He has to do it step by step."

Mr Pachauri’s remarks echo those of Todd Stern, the US president’s new chief climate negotiator, who said last week that it was "not possible" for the US to aim for 25-40 per cent cuts by 2020…

For once Mr. Pachauri is right.

The Stamp Act of 1765, the Townshend Acts of 1767 and the Tea Act 1773 were nothing compared to the invasiveness and expense of these proposed carbon taxes.

And look what happened back then.

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, March 11th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

27 Responses to “US Carbon Tax Could Spark ‘Revolution’”

  1. Consilience says:

    Steve, I sense the “revolution” is exactly what TAO is seeking. I believe he wants to provoke a crisis and then use the media against the Constitutional revolutionaries (not his ACORN nitwit fellow-travelers).

    • sheehanjihad says:

      That is why, should it happen, that it happens with purpose, and targets those responsible. Not just a right wing willy nilly show of force….but masses of pissed off people who render any attempts at enforcing prevailing laws moot. Those in power cannot be in power once the people they purport to rule stop letting them rule. It’s quite simple, really. It’s our country, not a group of elitists’ private reserve. Oh, to be sure, any counter protestors would be beaten beyond recognition….they are responsible for keeping these socialists in power to start with. The people have the means, they just lack the will. So far.

      If “they” were stupid enough to suspend constitutional law, all of them would then be subject to a wide open field of opponents who are no longer fettered by rules of engagement. They would also find out how many in our military and law enforcement wont obey orders against people they agree with. Yeah, go ahead. “They” are on the cusp of getting a rude awakening”.

    • Consilience says:

      sheehanjihad I tend to agree. I suspect the Alabama and Germany shooting incidents (tragedies) will be linked to HR45 and anti-Second Amendment-types. Alabama will stay in the news cycle for about 36 hours under normal conditions—I’ll be watching to see if the media latches-on (I wouldn’t be surprised).
      As I’ve said before, I’m guessing the left will infiltrate one of these Tea Party events and create news/crisis.

  2. proreason says:

    When the current government is deposed, false reporting should also be made a crime.

    Every publication should have warning labels declaring it’s bias and stating that all information should be understood according to the bias. A publication could also declare “objectivity”, and if they did, they would be subject to criminal procedings if that can be proven false.

    And university professors should be treated like the media. They should have to state their bias.

    Trogdor’s comments about lawyers is also a good one. There should be a cap on lawyers in legislatures. Maybe 1%?

    Those are changes we can believe in…….and will go a long way toward preventing another coup like we are currently experiencing.

    • Enthalpy says:

      proreason, I think you’re on to something! Limits to certain things have an appeal, but so do bounties. What about caps on law school admittance?

    • proreason says:

      Enthalpy, all humor aside, the practice of law has taken a path in this country that does serious damage to us all.

      It’s an example of the truism that anything taken to an extreme is dangerous.

      Who doesn’t want to have the protection of people trained in the law in a complex society? But when you get presidents whose only skill in life seems to be parsing words to change the meaning, when businesses are so hamstrung that they can no longer provide goods and services the public wants, when “debates” in our legislatures boil down to arguments among lawyers about one preposterous set of outcomes vs another preposterous set……something is SERIOUSLY wrong with the legal system.

      Maybe it’s so hopeless that it just needs to be blown up and started over.

      But then, that is also true of “journalism”, “education”, “government” and so many other systems that are conspiring to squeeze the life out of the country. What seemed like such a great system a few months ago sure looks like an evil serpent in the hands of people who lust to destroy the country.

    • DGA says:

      Got to add term limits for senators and congress in general. These lowlifes build up such massive connections over the years that it’s just too tempting to not go with the pork, to have the burning desire to kep themselves in what might possibly be the ultimate power trip. The vast connections were the main reason I didn’t want to see hillary get into a position of power, it would bring all of bill’s cronies back online. Sadly, they’re back regardless.

    • TwilightZoned says:

      Enthalpy, no kidding, I have always believed lawyers have been the downfall of this country. What are most politicians? Lawyers! When 80% of the world’s lawyers practice in the U.S. that should raise several red flags.

      DGA, I agree with term limits however, pay needs to stop at the end of the term also. Otherwise we’d be paying on boat loads of term-limited politicians retirement. They already make WAY too much money for part-time work which should be classified as a civil duty, not a paid job for life.

  3. GuppyNblue says:

    I’m already there regardless of a carbon tax.

    It’s interesting that Obama’s chief climate negotiator says that it’s “not possible”. Remember when Clinton and Gore had the Kyoto treaty in their lap and did nothing with it? Democrats know this would throw our economy over the edge but they don’t want it on their record.

  4. Rusty Shackleford says:

    After writing/signing a bill that had such a deleterious effect on our economy, they are now “working the other side” on how to make up the losses. In equal, “Oh, they won’t notice” fashion, they come up with this.

    What, exactly will a carbon tax accomplish other than more money in someone’s control who has no business controlling it? Will carbon emissions lessen as a result of it? No. Will people drive less? No. Will automakers produce hydrogen-fueled cars because of it? No.

    No. No. No. No.

    Then, like any tax who’s initial inception was founded in some sort of cause/effect rationale, no matter how wonky that rationale might be, the funds garnered by said tax will be redirected for use on the flow rate of ketchup or go to assisting homosexual fish find homes and avoid persecution by unfair lending practices.

    Remember the 55mph speed limit brought to you by “Jimmy Who?”. And remember how long it took to get rid of it? And how about all that it “accomplished”?

    And then, once again, the difference between a conservative and a liberal…a conservative who is concerned about the environment would most likely find ways to provide incentives for manufacturers and private citizens to move in a more environmentally friendly direction.

    A liberal will PUNISH the EVIL parties involved and sell it to the masses using scare tactics and blame.

    Stick vs. carrot…or is it “schtick” vs. carrot?

    I’m not changing my CF….that new and revolutionary term that stands for “Cleverly F*****”

  5. Colonel1961 says:

    ‘Could?’ Ever, the optimist, Mr. Unpronounceable… Let me correct you: it ‘would’ and it looks like it ‘will’.

  6. Reality Bytes says:

    I propose we send a can of beans to The President as a sign of protest against the taxation of man made gases.
    Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Gas!!! Who’s With Me?!

  7. proreason says:

    What nutjob tree-hating global warning denier said this:

    “Remember, we are dealing with a small amount of warming (concentrated in two relatively brief episodes) in an inadequately observed system. The proper null hypothesis is that there was no need whatsoever for external forcing in order to produce such behavior. The unsteady and even turbulent motions of the ocean and atmosphere are forever moving heat from one place to another on time scales from days to centuries and, in doing so, they leave the system out of equilibrium with the sun, leading to fluctuations in temperature.”

    The fruitcake is Dr. Richard Lindzen, who, when he isn’t denying global warming, the Holocaust, the single bullet JFK explanation, or propagandizing Jetti and Bigfoot, is the MIT Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology.

    The quote is from the keynote address he was giving to the looneys at this year’s International Conference on Climate Change.

    Some birdbrains just don’t get that the scienfic debate on global warming is over. Al Toad says so, and the Toad’s theory wins. Centuries from now, when mankind has the ability to measure global warming and separate out the impact of the infinitesmal amounts of Co2 from other trivialities like vulcanism, the impact of the Sun, Solar Winds, the impact of other planetary bodies and the moon, the changing distance of the Earth from the Sun and the wobbling of the Earth’s orbit and axis, the consensus that the quarter degree or so increase in global warming is caused by human beings exhaling will be proven correct..

    • Reality Bytes says:

      Does that mean you’re sending a can o beans to Obama too or not?

    • proreason says:

      I’m sending a can of beans with a suggestion for where to put it.

    • Reality Bytes says:

      Sending Obama a can of white beans myself – typical white beans that is. I suggest every American do the same.

    • TwilightZoned says:

      There’s chatter about everyone sending tea bags to DC, however, no food stuff is allowed. Probably has something to do with the anthrax scare. Some suggest sending a picture of a tea bag. My suggestion…do something similar to Woodstock on July 4th. Have it somewhere centrally located in the U.S. with food, bands, etc. That would draw attention. The only drawback would be ultra libs showing up and WW III breaking out.

    • Reality Bytes says:

      Thanks for the head’s up TZ. So, change o’ plans. Instead of canned beans, we send Obama “Farts In A Jar” as a sign of protest against taxing greenhouse gases. You’d probably have to put a label on it though. I dunno know, maybe some kind of Surgeon General warning or something.

    • TwilightZoned says:

      RB-I think the label should read, SBD…Silent But Deadly.

    • Reality Bytes says:

      TZ – possible labels for the JarOfarts:

      “Uncle Joe doesn’t ask me to pull his finger anymore cause he can’t afford the offset credit tax)

      “Caution: Do not open in Barney Frank’s presence. It makes him Hot.”

      “Did you say something Joe?”

  8. pdsand says:

    Of course this article doesn’t say that Obama shouldn’t cap carbon emissions and reduce them by 25-40% by 2020, it just says that he just shouldn’t come right out and say that’s what he’s doing.
    Profile in Courage!

  9. Perdido says:

    “The Stamp Act of 1765, the Townshend Acts of 1767 and the Tea Act 1773 were nothing compared to the invasiveness and expense of these proposed carbon taxes.

    And look what happened back then.”

    Please. “Back then”, the country had a much smaller percentage of fat, stupid, self-serving jack-asses.

    There’s not going to be any revolution. We’re headed for 70 years of Soviet style thuggery and corruption.

    Sigh. How’re you gonna get all these “revolutionaries” off the damned couch?

  10. Reality Bytes says:

    IMPORTANT: Here the first Disney “Chicken Little” – note the movie guy doing the intro points out the anti Nazi morale to the cartoon. Gee, I didn’t know Al Gore was German?!

    Check it out.


    • TwilightZoned says:

      Oh, boy did I have fun with this!

      Foxy Loxy= “To influence the masses, aim first at the least intelligent.” I think we all
      know who that pertains to.
      “Undermine the faith of the masses and their leaders.” Rush Limbaugh
      “By the use of flattery, the insignificant can be made to look at themselves
      as born leaders.” Citizen watch. (aka-Brown Shirts) OBAMA

      Cocky Locky= “Head chicken inspector.” Rahm Emanuel. The name says it all.

      Henny Penny=”She pokes her beak into everyone’s business.” Hillary Clinton. China.

      Turkey Lurkey= “The smart set who discuss all long day what is wrong with the world.”
      Biden. (Obviously ‘smart’ is a loose term.)

      Jitter Birds=”The pretty feather-brained crowd.” Pelosi and her crowd.

      Goosey Poosey, Ducky Lucky and the rest of the gay ducks=”They’re always
      around where there’s plenty to drink.” or spend. Congress.

      Chicken Little= “The sky is falling!” Wall street.
      Do you think the crew at Disney realized they were psychics?

    • Reality Bytes says:

      Glad you liked it. I’m more a Looney Tune fan, but thought that one was strikingly similar to the bird brains running the country.

      God how I would love David Petraeus to run for President.

  11. brad says:

    People revolted back in the day, BUT TODAY, people don’t have the guts to have a Revolutionary War Part II.

    First: People would be dumb enough to join a huge anti-government organization, which would be infiltrated (or possibly organized) from top to bottom with government agents, waiting to pounce once people decided to get violent.

    Second: Americans are in general too dang lazy to do much else but watch television. I can’t imagine people getting off their duffs to do anything—-especially if they could be imprisoned or shot doing it.

    Third: Our government can only be overthrown by people with more guts (Arabs) and better access to nuclear weapons (Arabs).

    If you hate Washington and our oppressive lawyer/kings, and Washington hate the terrorists who threaten it, then the saying, “My enemy’s enemy is my friend” goes into effect. Don’t hate on Al Qaida too much, they are the only ones who could do what some of you only dream of doing.

  12. wirenut says:

    How in the Hell can you properly ” TAR and FEATHER ” elected critters if we have to put up with the latest P.C. crap? P.E.T.A. needs to know, D.N.R. needs to know where those feathers came from . As for the tar,it came from “BIG OIL ” . So we need a cap-n-trade deal to make sure the “GREENS” get their cut also . Next would be wood .You can’t tar and feather without riding out on a rail . The “rail” is made of wood, sooooo, back to the “GREENS” to harvest said wood .After permitting and taxes, I find that I can’t touch the KINGS trees or anything else that I own and pay taxes on . Need I say more? OH! don’t be dump’n any teabags in the bay anytime soon, we need a E-statement to find out if a snail-darter would object . Jimmy-Crickets!

« Front Page | To Top
« | »