A tax on Thin Air

[HankD]

Cap and trade, a tax on thin air?

In a potential preview for America, the Australian Senate has just defeated that country's version of cap-and-trade by a vote of 42-30.

From University of Adelaide’s geologist/author Ian Plimer’s book Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science.

He concludes:

A tax on thin air is what we are being asked to approve.

Found in the Public Domain at:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3882&linkbox=true

HankD

 

[SeekingTruth]

Hey, don't remind the Dems that they haven't taxed air yet. They will probably do that next in order to pay for the O's huge debts.

 

[HankD]

Hey, don't remind the Dems that they haven't taxed air yet. They will probably do that next in order to pay for the O's huge debts.

IMO, that's exactly what Cap and Trade is meant to be, which is why can't it be called what it is: A tax on thin air.

HankD

 

[billwald]

No, it is a tax on the industries that pollute the air I breathe. Would you good Republicans like to go back to the old days when the LA smog was like a London fog?

 

[HankD]

No, it is a tax on the industries that pollute the air I breathe. Would you good Republicans like to go back to the old days when the LA smog was like a London fog?

First, I am not a Republican. They have all (Palin excepted) thrown in the towel as far as I am concerned. True, a lot of "barking" but not much "biting".

I am a staunch pro-life Independent with many liberal leanings including protection of the environment, entitlements for the poor and needy including illegal aliens (No abortions though). I have voted on both sides of the aisle.
I also contribute to environmental causes.

Second, Bill, IMO, you have fallen for the smog "smoke screen" of the human secularists. Watch and mark my words and many others as the Cap and Trade agenda miraculously changes before our eyes after it passess (if by chance it passes) (DeJaVu The Stimulus package).

If I actually thought the agenda was to clean up the environment or they can somehow prove that is what it is actually meant to do, then it might get my support.

At the moment I don't trust anyone apart from Sarah.

But where are the men?

Why do we need a Huldah or Deborah who asked the same question.

Under another venue:

Where are the men to legislate righteousness instead of spending money on the science of eugenics (Ezekiel Immanuel).​

Obviously they can't use that term (eugenics) any more than they can use the phrase "death Panel". The truth (IMO) is hypocritically veiled under words like "death with dignity" and "hospice counseling" for those with little or diminished "investment value".​

While it is true that Dr. Immanuel's writings are coldly true statistically and his decisions are based upon naked logic, they are without compassion. I believe President Obama was refering to his writings when he said "some hard decisions will have to be made.

Who knows what the real agenda of "Cap and Trade" really is? When Australia researched the version given to them they rejected it because it was in their opinion a tax on thin air.

I'll be studying the bill documents very carefully. I don't trust the current administration because of the bait and switch semantics tactic.


HankD

 

[RAdam]

You gotta love the straw man arguments the leftists continually throw out. No, I'm not in favor of environmental pollution. But I also do not think cap and trade is the way to go. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Revmitchell]

You gotta love the straw man arguments the leftists continually throw out. No, I'm not in favor of environmental pollution. But I also do not think cap and trade is the way to go. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

They always pretend that their ideas are the only solutions. But no one is buying it.

 

[targus]

No, it is a tax on the industries that pollute the air I breathe. Would you good Republicans like to go back to the old days when the LA smog was like a London fog?

If reducing pollution is the purpose why not simply outlaw polluting?

Why allow a company to pollute just because they are willing to pay a tax instead?

Why allow a company to pollute just because they are willing to buy a pollution credit from another company?

How does the government collecting taxes reduce pollution?

It's just another revenue stream to the government - that's all.

 

[rbell]

No, it is a tax on the industries that pollute the air I breathe. Would you good Republicans like to go back to the old days when the LA smog was like a London fog?

Not that bill is much into facts...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/74019.html

The gist of the article: We're getting cooler. That's a measurable thing. Of course, there are some that claim, "this is just a temporary dip...temps are going up!" Keep in mind, though, that meteorologists can't manage to forecast weather three days from now...and so they think they can tell us about 2100??

 

[rbell]

you guys are making good points.

but remember, with Billwald...the better your point made, the less likely he is to show back up on the thread.

 

[billwald]

Did I write anything about climate change or manufacturing in Red China or anyone's balance sheet? I'm old enough to remember photochemical smog and apparently no one else on this list is.