Nanny Bloomberg calls for carbon tax at the U.N.
Because there aren’t enough politicians singing from the Big Government, eco-fearmongering, enviro-nitwitization hymnbook, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg spoke at the United Nations today in favor of his pet cause: A carbon emissions tax on Americans. The NYTimes reports on the speech here. WCBS has video.
Reminder: Where John McCain stands…
Speaking outside the statehouse, McCain was cheered by a group of sign-wielding environmentalists. McCain cheered them back: “Way to go, global warming folks!” A hoarse-sounding McCain told the crowd: “I want to assure you I will make this planet clean … we will hand to you a cleaner planet than the one you were living in before I became president of the United States, I promise you that.”
Recent U.S. Senate hearings into alleged global warming, chaired by Arizona Republican John McCain, were among the “most biased” that a noted climatologist has ever seen - “much less balanced than anything I saw in the Clinton administration,” he said.
Patrick J. Michaels is the author of a new book “Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.” He is an environmental sciences professor at the University of Virginia who believes that claims of human-caused “global warming” are scientifically unfounded.
Michaels spoke with CNSNews.com Thursday following a panel discussion sponsored by the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., where Michaels also serves as a senior fellow in environmental studies.
“John McCain, a Republican, has probably held the most biased hearing of all,” Michaels said. McCain is a big proponent of limiting greenhouse gas emissions, which he believes are causing “global warming.” The Arizona senator also “is trying to define himself as an environmental Republican, which he is going to use to differentiate himself from his rivals for the (presidential) nomination in 2008,” according to Michaels.
Meanwhile, in Congress, the cap-and-trade charade moves forward. One Democrat says “there is a sense of inevitability.” Not if some Republicans can help it:
“There is a sense of inevitability, which is pervasive in corporate America, that the control program is coming,” said Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., chairman of a House subcommittee on energy and air quality.
“I would predict with a high degree of certainty that if it does not pass this year, it will certainly pass in the next,” he said.
The energy industry is divided about how to address climate change. Some of the country’s biggest polluters, including Irving-based Exxon Mobil, still oppose mandatory caps on emissions. And many coal-mining companies are lobbying against mandatory controls.
Republicans stand poised to argue that greenhouse gas limits would raise electricity and fuel costs as the country faces a recession.
Rep. Joe Barton, R-Ennis, has assembled a task force to “fight the Democrats” by challenging climate science and the impact of coal regulations on rates and energy independence, according to a December memo he sent to fellow Republicans.
“There is this sense that with the Democrats back in the majority, the environmentalists are such a powerful force that they can ram some of these things down the throat of the economy,” said Mr. Barton, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
“When push comes to shove, I don’t believe a majority of the House and Senate will pass it,” he said.
Outside the Beltway, a fight is brewing in the heartland over the carbon tax juggernaut:
Legislation to allow the building of two coal-fired power plants is drawing criticism from some legislators and conservative groups because it includes a tax on new plants that fail to meet emissions standards.
The separate but identical bills before the House and Senate utilities committees would allow the construction of the two plants in southwest Kansas. The legislation also would set the state’s first rules on carbon dioxide emissions, which many scientists link to global warming.
The CO2 standards would apply to new power plants, and utilities that failed to meet them would pay a tax of $3 on each ton of excess emissions. The legislation would make Kansas among a handful of states to set limits on greenhouse gas emissions.
Critics, including Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, argue that the rules would be so weak that utilities would have no trouble complying without reducing emissions. Utilities could offset their emissions by investing in technology to make coal burn cleaner, upgrading transmission lines or taking other steps. Critics also have said companies that have had projects blocked in other states would be encouraged to build them in Kansas.
But some legislators, particularly conservative Republicans, don’t want to impose any carbon tax. The Kansas Chamber of Commerce worries a tax would hurt the economy, and it has been joined by anti-tax groups such as Americans for Tax Reform and Americans for Prosperity.
‘It’s not a precedent that Kansas ought to be setting,’ Alan Cobb, director of Americans for Prosperity’s Kansas chapter, said Wednesday. ‘California doesn’t even have a carbon tax.’
***
“Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon, you control life.” — MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, via Sen. James Inhofe’s website.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Enviro-nitwits
Stop The ACLU
» The Treacherous PatriotHot Air
» Hillary bets short on Obama?Belmont Club
» Obama and the SwanGateway Pundit
» Call off the Kooks... MEDIA MISTRANSLATES MALIKI!Hotline On Call
» Gore Makes Surprise Visit To Netroots NationGateway Pundit
» Democrats Nix Gas Tax Holiday-- Offer Gas Tax Hike InsteadNewsBusters.org
» Bozell Column: A Guide to the Movie GalaxyNewsBusters.org
» Hannity to Obama: Do You Have The Guts To Come On My Show?protein wisdom
» Medicrap [Dan Collins]
‘man-made’ global warming is the biggest crock of crap that the counter-culture has ever tried to get over on the voting consumer.
Wind, waves, solar, nuclear are all fine with me. Hyannisport is a good place for any of them…;)
Did he buy any carbon credits before he spewed this cow gas?
Now, there seems to be more of a warning about global cooling. Have we reached that point of time already…to switch back to cooling? Seems like every 20-25 years we switch back and forth. I always remember the man in his 80s talking about seeing a newsreel in the 1930s, about the demise of polar bears due to global warming. Being young he had to ask his mom about it.It wasn’t all that long ago, that we were going to “freeze to death” under miles of glaciers. Anything for a buck and power….
This is scary. On the other hand, we can’t control immigration, and Hillary can’t control Bill, so I’m thinking failure is inevitable.
Soon we’ll be taxed to breath the air.
What is the going rate for oxygen these days?
In related news, Gov Corzine of NJ has proposed a transit noose west of NYC, promising to raise highway tolls on every major NJ road that goes to NYC.
We could wish him luck…
Bloomberg and Corzine agree that cars are just for the rich anyway.
It’s all Bush’s fault.
That fits, RINO McCain seems like a creepy control freak to me…
Bloomberg should be immediately removed from office for speaking on behalf of a governing body hostile to the United States. I am sick of everyone genuflecting at Turtle Bay.
Enough already.
Take Al Gore and go somewhere else. We prefer freedom!
Took the words right out of my mouth. It boggles the mind to think man is helpless to change the weather but we’re supposed to believe we will be able to control temperature on earth. Oh, but man is responsible for it.
Another explanation I’m waiting for:
Why given all the advanced technology available to science, nobody can accurately predict the weather a couple days from now but we are supposed to swallow predictions of weather 20 years from now. Think about that.
One more….I sit in a place that was once covered in ice but no humans caused that change. IT IS THE SUN! Humans cannot reposition the earth to adjust to changing cycles with the sun. It is so friggin simple if people would apply an ounce of logic and rational thinking!
This is INSANE!
what a clueless lot, the Global Warming crowd.. and all those at the front. and all those who pander to them.
Well first I want to see all meat eaters pay the carbon emissions tax on steaks
Bloomberg is an insufferable swine. With his billions in wealth he meddles in everyone’s affairs and impacts their health. He makes certain things off limits, treating New Yorkers as dimwits. He a festering mass on population’s rear end.
How’s about a carbon tax on the U.N.?
But the media is so biased and certain about global warming. It’s why I can’t stomach reading Time or Newsweek magazine. And the majority of Americans believe that if it’s written in a magazine or newspaper - it is truth and they believe it blindly. It’s scary just how easily the liberal media fools people.
Michelle, this is the new war front. This is it. The Global Warming crap, and taxing carbon. No doubt about it. What’s FUNNY (?!) is that it’s mostly based in psychology not science. It’s based on how the mind of a liberal works. And McCain’s mind is right there too with the libs. “What if global warming is real and we do nothing?”, he asks. Like that’s an affirmative argument? It’s not. Sure, energy efficiency is good. But taxing carbon? Energy prices will be high enough without that. This is the fight of the decade, a fight for our lives.
May I add … NUCLEAR POWER! Let’s do it.
Does any elected official have the guts to insert language into any proposed legislation that penalizes those whose dire predictions prove to be wrong?
How about something like “If what is stated (about climate change/ global warming)as factual and true, and turns out to be false, those making the false statements shall be fined a monetary penalty equal to the amount lost in economic growth, or will forgo all federal pensions earned, or will forfeit all assets accumulated during the period affected.”
Let them put their money where their mouth is!
Lindzen is the only top climate scientist who is skeptical about global warming.
Among top scientists it’s 50 to one in favor. Among second stringers there are a few more skeptics. You have to get down to lower tiers and conservative funded think tanks to get any real numbers.
R-i-i-i-g-h-t…!
If so, one may still ask:
- what % of warming is caused by man
- how much can man help it (2%, 1%, 0.1%, 0.01%, less?)
- what are the economic (i.e. human) costs of the help in the above line and are they worth it
- is the current global warming a bad thing
If we can cut global warming 0.01% by inflicting significant human suffering … then that’s not worth it, in my mind.
I have a clear, concise answer to global warming:
SHUT THE HECK UP AND LEAVE ME ALONE!
U N your big ideas, Mr. Bloomerbutt! My freakin’ taxes are ALREADY TOO HIGH!!
In truth, we probably should be planning for an oil-free future, if only for security reasons. It would be nice if we could stop sending gobs of moolah to people that hate us. But when you propose a new wind farm, the bird lovers come out of the woodwork. I wish the lefties could make up their minds.
I’m curious, so enlighten me. Who are these 50 top scientists, and where can I validate this information you have provided? Are they all climatologists, or do they come from a variety of disciplines and just have an opinion?
My wife is a scientist, and is tops in her field. She is of the opinion that manmade climate change is nothing more than mis-informed, emotionally based opinion.
Oh, and she is NOT a climatologist, but she IS a scientist who relies on scientific research to formulate logical conclusions. Does her opinion count?
I see two things here:
First) Bloomberg wants another hefty tax he’ll never have to pay. This is why all these billionaires always talk about how taxes aren’t high enough - they never have to pay them.
Second) This is another reason I’ll never vote for nor support McCain. I want a President who fights hard against the liberal global “climate change” hysteria.
To know that lgm supports so-called “climate change science” is enough to convince me that it’s the usual lie and fraud.
First, the time for the UN has come and gone. Why are these corrupt bureaucrats even getting funding from us, much less support?
Second, why is a state official allowed to barter deals with foreign governments? Isn’t there a little document called the constitution that forbids that? Rather like Burqa Pelosi in Syria, it seems there is something wrong with that picture.
Finally, even if global warming is real and is man made (Which I personally doubt) hasn’t society survived through many such (mysteriously … especially if it is man-made) REOCCURRING cycles throughout recorded history and always made it through to reflect on it at a later date?
Also, if global warming is man made, that would explain some of the conspiracy theorists about the Mars missions as well I suppose eh? After all, global warming on Mars must be indicative of mankind being there too since we created the problems right?
The Farmer’s Almanac has accurately been predicting the weather since 1792 I think; based on solar flares and sun spots and other solar cycles. (Cycles: Meaning they repeat) It is strange how they have predicted so many cooling and warming trends, not to mention accurately predicting the weather based on something so far beyond human control eh? Couldn’t be that they have such a good record because they are going right to the real source could it?
Could it be that these are actually natural cycles based on historical realities far beyond the control of humans, which ironically, are then manipulated by humans in an effort to gain power and control by a select few over the rest of the said humans?
No science involved? Top scientists agree? Like journalism, if science is based on facts it can only lead to one possible conclusion. Scientific “THEORY” is called theory because it cannot be proven. Facts lead to truth and not to consensus. It certainly should not lead us to the door of the UN with its UNAmerican leanings.
Problem 1: Some Repubs
Problem 2: Another area where the Repubs will have NO BALLS. They will give in when they see how much money it will involve and the ammount of pork that will line their pockets.
P.S. to all of you people who think GW is man made. You must be mad as hell that it has become so bad that we are melting the polar ice caps on Mars as well.
The whole notion of a carbon tax seems to fly in the face of public domain and the takings clause. CO2 has been in the public domain forever. For governments to all of a sudden think they can take it under their own wings and subject it to taxation would seem to require government to pay the current owners of CO2 (aka everyone) for the right to take take away what up until now belonged to everyone. Personally, I want my just compensation for taking of my CO2 rights. Something like permanent relief from any regulation and taxation of C02 for me and my decendants would do.
Fine print… What if it turns out that the earth is actually entering a cooling cycle, as several scientist claim there is evidence for. Are government’s then going to start paying everyone back their CO2 credits so everyone burns more CO2, drives bigger cars, etc, etc. To help warm the earth? Not on your life! They’ll continue to push this carbon tax and trade stuff. Even when it makes no sense at all to do so.
Hence, carbon credits isn’t about global warming — it is really about finding a new way source of taxation.
Now Soap, you know Mars is our fault, too.
If we’d stop launching all those darn probes there, we wouldn’t be polluting their atmosphere as well. I mean we have had two electric probes running around there for….oh, wait.
Never Mind.
/sarc off
Carbon is now Spice..
move through red tape without moving at all..