Category Archives: New World Order

Global Warming issue is use an excuse to push more taxes on Gasoline

A $240 PER GALLON GAS TAX TO FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING? NEW UN REPORT SUGGESTS CARBON PRICING

Dailycaller
10 October 2018
Michael Bastasch

  • A new U.N. report suggests a $240 per gallon gas tax equivalent is needed to fight global warming.
  • The U.N. says a carbon tax would need to be as high as $27,000 per ton in the year 2100.
  • If you think that’s unlikely to ever happen, you’re probably right.

A United Nations special climate report suggests a tax on carbon dioxide emissions would need to be as high as $27,000 per ton at the end of the century to effectively limit global warming.

For Americans, that’s the same as a $240 per gallon tax on gasoline in the year 2100, should such a recommendation be adopted. In 2030, the report says a carbon tax would need to be as high as $5,500 — that’s equivalent to a $49 per gallon gas tax.

If you think that’s an unlikely scenario, you’re probably not wrong. However, it’s what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report, released Sunday night, sees as a policy option for reducing emissions enough to keep projected warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).

The IPCC’s report is meant to galvanize political support for doubling down on the Paris climate accord ahead of a U.N. climate summit scheduled for December. The report calls for societal changes that are “unprecedented in terms of scale” in order to limit future global warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), the stretch goal of the Paris accord.

However, the costs of meeting that goal are high based on the IPCC’s own figures. (RELATED: Here’s What The Media Won’t Tell You About The U.N.’s New Climate Report)

In order to effectively keep future warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) , the IPCC says carbon taxes would need to range from $135 to $5,500 per ton in 2030, $245 to $13,000 per ton in 2050, $420 to $17,000 per ton in 2070 and $690 to $27,000 per ton in 2100.

To meet the goals of the Paris accord, which seeks to limit future warming to below 2 degrees Celsius, the IPCC says carbon taxes would have range between $10 and $200 in 2030 and $160 and $2,125 in 2100.

That’s equivalent to a gas tax as high as $1.70 per gallon in 2030 to nearly $19 per gallon at the end of the century. That’s less onerous than limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), but still no walk in the park.

California and many European countries have policies to price carbon dioxide emissions and mandate green energy, including cap-and-trade systems and carbon taxes. But carbon prices under those systems are nowhere near where the IPCC says they need to be.

The IPCC said the “price of carbon would need to increase significantly when a higher level of stringency is pursued.” However, the group’s report tacitly acknowledges the unlikelihood that governments will enact astronomical taxes on energy.

“While the price of carbon is central to prompt mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5 [degree Celsius](2.7 degrees Fahrenheit)-consistent pathways, a complementary mix of stringent policies is required,” reads the IPCC’s report.

In the U.S., Republican lawmakers overwhelmingly passed a resolution opposed to carbon taxes in July. Democrats called for a price on carbon dioxide in their 2016 party platform, but they haven’t made much effort on that front since the failure of cap-and-trade legislation in 2010.

Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo of Florida introduced carbon tax legislation shortly after all but five of his GOP colleagues in the House voted to oppose such a bill. Curbelo’s bill would tax carbon dioxide at $23 a ton — nowhere near what the IPCC calls for.

However, the IPCC suggested a lower carbon tax could be used in conjunction with command and control policies, like regulations and bans on coal plants, could achieve “generate a 1.5˚C (2.7°F) pathway for the U.S. electric sector.”

But that point only serves to undermine Curbelo’s bill, which would put a moratorium on some environmental regulations and possibly eliminate some if emissions goals are reached.

The IPCC noted the “literature indicates that the pricing of emissions is relevant but needs to be complemented with other policies to drive the required changes in line with 1.5°C (2.7°F)-consistent cost-effective pathways.”

My Conclusion: Thing is that why UN, IPCC and the other global elites want Global warming or Climate Change to be a problem. Because they want more money and power; they know: that Global Warming or Climate Change is never an issues but it a natural occurring event that occurs everyday, that carbon dioxide is plant food, That solar minimum is on it’s way and earth will cooler within decades to come.
With the IPCC thinking the earth will be 1.5°C (2.7°F) warmer by either 2040 or 2050 is not going to case because we would be in a new solar minimum at that time. Once IPCC is caught for misleading and keeping people in the dark and soon one day IPCC will have to explain themselves why they’re deliberately deceiving people to either make money and gain power. The reason why they keep scare people will the global warming the climate change nonsense because they think they can get away with it and achieved their agenda.
We need to call those people who pushing climate change by scaring us into accepting their agenda; out or we may face another dark age. The Climate Change scare has nothing to do about saving the planet nor protecting the environment.

Advertisements

You’re not supposed to have more than two children

This video on You Tube From Roosh V. People would say to me “Matthew are you watching Roosh V?” Truthfully yes. Yes very good reason why? Roosh V cover social engineering; why the elite are doing what ever they can to keep us conditioned to remain in line. Why does the elites don’t what us to have family and raise children. Why they don’t want men to be masculine, nor they want woman to be feminine. It’s like the elite do not want humans to be natural nor have them thinking outside the box.

For What Roosh V said in this video is well said.

1080 propaganda exposed by activists Alan Gurden & Emille Leaf With Vinny Eastwood

anti-1080 activists Alan Gurden & Emille Leaf join Vinny Eastwood on a live stream!
Watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXgaA…
We will break down a recent Newshub piece about 1080 and explain the compound 1080 as it relates to:
-The Treaty
-Kaitiakitanga
-Blatant Arrogance
-Bribery
-Conflict of interest
-Lack of transparency
-Nepotism
-Mitochondrial disorders and Featherston
-Cover ups
-Taking posts down when they’re already public knowledge
-“tens of thousands of dead deer”

Millennial Millie: Veganism Transforms Into A Globalist Cult

Infowars’ Millie Weaver investigates leftist talking points used by vegan activists that trace back to UN Agenda 21, population control, and globalism. She discusses how their arguments are inconsistently based on moral relativism while appealing to Judeo-Christian morals and ethics. Are you willing to sacrifice private property, domesticated animals, and national sovereignty to facilitate a universal vegan diet plan for everyone?

Stefan Molynoux: Why The Left Hates Science

After decades of criticizing the Republican Christian base about their “denial of science” and refusal to follow reason and evidence – the modern left’s hypocrisy has been exposed via their outright hostility to proven scientific facts. Stefan Molyneux explains why the left must remain hostile to genetic differences which explain unequal outcomes in order to sell their false story of exploitation.

5G Wireless: A Ridiculous Front for Global Control

No More Fake News
4 April 2018
Jon Rappoport

One wireless control grid to rule them all

First, two quotes to give a bit of background.

5G speed, for people who must download a whole season of their favorite show in two seconds:

“It’s the next (fifth) generation of cellular technology which promises to greatly enhance the speed, coverage and responsiveness of wireless networks. How fast are we talking about? Think 10 to 100 times speedier than your typical cellular connection, and even faster than anything you can get with a physical fiber-optic cable going into your house. (You’ll be able to download a season’s worth of ‘Stranger Things’ in seconds.)” [CNET.com]

Lunatic 5G installation of small transmitters packed close together every few hundred feet:

“The next big thing in cellular technology, 5G, will bring lightning-fast wireless Internet — and thousands of antenna-topped poles to many neighborhoods where cell towers have long been banned.”

“Wireless companies are asking Congress and state lawmakers to make it easier to install the poles by preempting local zoning laws that often restrict them, particularly near homes. The lobbying efforts have alarmed local officials across the country. They say they need to ensure that their communities do not end up with unsightly poles cluttering sidewalks, roadsides and the edges of front yards.”

“They also are hearing from residents worried about possible long-term health risks. Until now, much of the cell equipment that emits radio-frequency energy has been housed on large towers typically kept hundreds of feet from homes [also harmful to health]. The new ‘small cell’ technology uses far more antennas and transmitters that are smaller and lower-powered, but clustered closer together and lower to the ground.” [The Washington Post]

I keep hammering on this 5G issue, because it contains the blueprint of a future only elite madmen want.

For the rest of us, it’s a catastrophe in the making.

I’ve covered the extreme health dangers of 5G in another article. Here, I want to flesh out the hidden agenda.

A few decades ago, a movement was started to create an interconnected power grid for the whole planet. We were told this would be the only way to avoid wasting huge amounts of electricity and, voila, bring all nations and all people into a modern 21st century.

But now, it’s a different story, a classic bait and switch. The bait was the promise of One Grid for all. The switch is what 5G will bring us:

100 billion or more NEW devices online, all connected to the Internet and the Cloud. What could be more wasteful? What could be more ridiculous? This is the opposite of sane energy use.

Who really cares whether his 5G-connected refrigerator keeps track of the food items inside it and orders new items when the supply dwindles? Who has to have a 5G driverless car that takes him to work? Who must have a 5G stove that senses what is being cooked and sets the temperature for four minutes? Who lives and who dies if a washing machine doesn’t measure how much soap is stored inside and doesn’t order new soap? Who is demanding a hundred devices in his home that spy on him and record his actions?

With 5G, the ultimate goal is: every device in every home that uses energy will be “its own computer,” and the planetary grid will connect ALL these devices to a monitoring and regulating Energy Authority.

As Patrick Wood details in his classic, Technocracy Rising, that worldwide Energy Authority was the dream of the men who launched the Technocracy movement, in America, in the 1930s.

They set out the key requirements—which weren’t technically possible then, but are quite doable now: continuous real-time measuring of both energy production and energy use from one end of the planet to the other…

So that both energy production and energy consumption could be controlled. “For the good of all,” of course.

5G is the technology for making this happen.

“We’re promising a stunning long-range future of ‘automatic homes’, where everything is done for you. But really, that’s the cover story. Ultimately, we want to be able to measure every unit of energy used by every device in every home—and through AI, regulate how much energy we will let every individual consume, moment to moment. We control energy. We are the energy masters. If you want to run and operate and dominate the world, you control its energy.”

Terms and projects like smart grid, smart meters, sustainability, Agenda 21, smart cities, climate change—all this is Technocratic planning and justification for Rule through Energy.

The beginning of an actual rational plan for energy would start this way: DUMP 5G. Dump the whole plan of installing small transmitter-cells on buildings and homes and trees and lampposts and fences all over the planet. Forget it. Don’t bring 100 billion new devices online. Aside from the extreme health dangers, it’s ridiculously expensive. It’s on the order of saying we need thousand-foot robots standing on sidewalks washing the windows of office buildings.

If some movie star wants to install 30 generators on his property and have engineers build him an automatic home, where he can sit back, flip a switch, and have three androids carry him into his bathtub and wash him and dry him, fine. But planning a smart city? Who voted for that? Who gave informed consent? Nobody.

A global Energy Authority, of course, is going to decide that a small African country needs to be given much more energy, while Germany or France or the US will have to sacrifice energy for the cause of social justice. But this is yet another con, because you won’t see government cleaning up the contaminated water supplies of that small African country, or installing modern sanitation, or curtailing the forced movement of populations into poverty-stricken cities, or reclaiming vast farm land stolen by mega-corporations and giving that land back to local farmers.

The whole hidden purpose of an Energy Authority is control.

And because the Authority is Globalist and Technocratic, it aims to lower energy use in industrial nations and help wreck their economies, making it much easier to move in and take over those countries.

Having said all this, there are gaps in our knowledge about 5G. For example, who in his right mind would propose a wireless system that relies on many, many, many cells/transmitters placed closely to each other, all over the world?

This system would be far more vulnerable to physical disruption than the present 4G.

You can find many articles that claim the US military must have 5G for their most advanced planes—and for their developing AI-controlled weapons. How does that work? Where will all the transmitter/cells be placed on the ground and in the air?? Something is missing here. Is there another version of 5G we’re not being told about? Is geoengineering of the atmosphere the means for tuning up space so 5G signals can be passed along without cells/transmitters?

Part of the US obsession to bring 5G online quickly stems from competition with China, which at the moment is in the lead on developing and exporting the technology. “If China has it, we have to have it sooner and better.” This attitude sidesteps the issue of why we must have 5G in the first place.

And now there are reports that the US government is considering a plan to build the whole 5G network itself—rather than leaving the job to corporations. Of course, a few favored companies (like Google) would be chosen by the government in a non-bid situation to provide VERY significant help. If such a plan were to launch, we would have a very tight club at the top of the communications and energy pyramid. And that club would maximize 5G to expand already-saturated surveillance of populations.

Wouldn’t you—if you had nothing better to do than control the world?

Could Canadians See A “Sin Tax” On Meat In The Future?

Josh Sigurdson talks with author and economic analyst John Sneisen about the ridiculous proposal recently featured on state-run CBC News regarding a “sin tax” on meat products. According to a British lobby group, it would be “beneficial” to the environment and health for government to impose a tax on meat products. This group doesn’t seem to see the irony in mankind’s most notable killer and polluter stealing people’s money in order to stop them from being unhealthy and save the environment at the same time. The idea is to tax meat the way many countries tax tobacco, sugar and carbon, all terrible money grabs to begin with. It has been beamed into our brains that we must not take care of ourselves and instead depend on the goverment to take care of us for us. Major corporations benefit from such taxes and regulations as they are further monopolized by the state, driving small business competitors out of the market. The big corporations can afford to deal with the taxes on their products a few layoffs later. Small businesses cannot compete however. This is an attack on those in poverty and within the middle class. This drives up the price of already terrible foods like McDonalds and Burger King. As if the carbon tax wasn’t enough to drive up prices everywhere due to exporting and importing. It’s sad to know people actually support such a ridiculous idea. Interesting that the claim is that the government wishes to enforce rules to make people healthier all the while promoting the notion of depopulation. How’s that for irony? The arrogance of people thinking that others should eat healthier so therefor they should be extorted is another lesson in freedom. Do not bow down to the state. Do not bow down to the theft we call “taxation.” Do not allow a collective mob rule every single part of your life. The unhealthy meats that would be taxed are full of pharmaceuticals from pharmaceutical companies that the government monopolizes in the first place. How about allowing free market demand to take over, bringing in true small business competition and innovation, bringing in more production therefor more jobs with higher wages to take care of these problems without government even entering the picture? Without government standing in the way of competition and propping up massive corporations? Individual demand will ensure the best products win. High quality. Lower price. That which is more environmentally friendly as that is the tide the market is following. How many times do we have to go over this? I thought the left didn’t like major corporate monopolies. I suppose it depends. As long as the limosine liberals have their parents’ money to live off of, they don’t mind extorting everyone else who has a different opinion than them.

War on Meat Eaters: Britain’s Got Talent’s Alesha Dixon Wants To Make Eating Meat Illegal

LadBible
10 January 2018
Chris Ogden

Given that it’s Veganuary and everything, it’s unsurprising that plant-powered people are piping up a bit more in public. But now one prominent vegetarian has perhaps been a bit bolder than usual.

Britain’s Got Talent judge Alesha Dixon has gone on the record saying that if she ran the country she’d make killing animals for meat completely illegal.

When asked what laws she’d change if she could, Alesha also said that she’d shut down every slaughterhouse in the country and ban smoking completely. She’s not messing about.

Credit: PA“I’d make smoking illegal and I’d ban the slaughter of animals for food or anything,” Alesha told the Daily Mail as part of a Q&A.

“So I’d close down every factory responsible for either and make it illegal to smoke or eat meat. Everyone would be fine, trust me!”

The farming and tobacco industries might have something to say about that, Alesha.

Former Mis-Teeq member Alesha became a pescetarian in 2012, meaning that she’s given up eating meat but continues to eat fish and seafood.

Dixon, who said she gave up meat for health reasons and her love for animals, suggested in an interview last April that it was the influence of her mum which made her make the jump.

“My mum is vegan and I think she’s had a big influence on me over the years,” she explained. “I guess she finally cracked me.”

Alesha, who won Strictly Come Dancing in 2007 and became a judge on the show before jumping to Britain’s Got Talent, admitted that she also no longer drinks cow’s milk, opting for almond milk instead.

She said that she doesn’t regret making the decision, although she admitted to still consuming other dairy products.

“I listen to what my body wants,” she said, before adding: “I feel great for it!”

Credit: PA
While Alesha may be pretty chuffed with her decision, a real devil’s advocate could say that she’s ignoring the harm the dairy and egg industries also do to animals.

For example, veal is technically a by-product of milk production as the only use for male cows is basically for sperm, but hey, that’s by the by.

You might think that Alesha’s demands are a tad strict, but it’s probably safe to say she won’t be running for Prime Minister any time soon. No doubt that will come as good news to you bacon sarnie lovers out there.

My Conclusion: Celebrities like Alesha Dixon who want animals off the menu deny human exceptionalism are the Celebrities we should be boycotting and pay no attention to them like not watching her movies, tvshow, nor listening to her music she sings. We need to support our Farmers and Ranches because they depend on you buying their products; especially organic farmers. Farmers and Ranches are extremely important to our local and regional community. Those who want meat banned are totalitarian who want more government and less freedom for each individuals. The Elites will still be eating meat. We need to use our freedom of speech to fight back against Animal Rights Agenda which is also part of Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 as well as the globalist depopulation plan.

War on Meat Eaters: Experts Say We Should Tax Meat Eaters the Same Way We Tax Smokers

Source:Futurism
Date: 26 December 2017
Author: Lou Del Bello

Cows confined to a factory farm, a large source of emissions and land and water use. A meat tax could discourage this practice.

Meet the Meat Tax

Eating too much meat and smoking both have an impact on the public, from an environmental and health perspective. Meat production degrades the environment by releasing greenhouse gas emissions and using up a disproportionate amount of land and water per unit of protein, while smoking leads to enormous health bills that the public often has to pay for.

In a new report, investment analysts suggest passing on the costs of the meat sector’s impacts to those directly responsible, the same way we tax smokers. The simple idea of the so-called meat tax is that if your burger ends up costing as much as a plate of caviar, you may decide to explore vegetarian options.

“Meat consumption is also one sector where both the issues of environment and health overlap,” Rosie Wardle, head of investor engagements with the Farm Animal Investment Risk and Return (FAIRR) Initiative, told Futurism.

“We feel that everyone should have the right to a healthy and nutritious diet,” she said, “and ideally that should help promote a shift towards eating more plant proteins, which is healthier and better for the planet.”

The analysis explores three fields in which damaging practices have been successfully targeted with various tax schemes by governments, and asks whether meat could be the fourth. Over 180 countries already impose a tax on tobacco, 60 jurisdictions have rolled out a carbon tax scheme, and there is a tax on sugar in at least 25 countries.

A new meat tax “would generate money that could be spent in healthcare,” Waller explained. She added that while nothing has been executed yet, “we are seeing these proposals coming up more and more. It’s becoming a discussion item.”

A Growing Army of Carnivores

Nordic countries such as Denmark and Sweden were among the first to recognize the mounting threat of unchecked meat consumption driven by a booming global population. In 2016, the Danish Council on Ethics proposed a tax on red meat based on climate impacts. In Sweden, the Green party also called for a climate tax on food, asking for the introduction of a climate label to help consumers understand the footprint of their dietary choices.

 

Cows confined to a factory farm, a large source of emissions and land and water use. A meat tax could discourage this practice.
Image Credit: franzl34/Pixabay

According to Oxford University’s Our World in Data project, global meat production has grown almost five fold since 1961. Asia alone produces between 40 and 45 percent of the world’s meat. In Asia, production has increased 15 fold since 1961, and is projected to continue to grow in the future.

The threats associated with this trend are more complex than those posed by tobacco, carbon or sugar. The meat industry is not only a big source of carbon emissions; red meat over-consumption has also been linked with increased risk of diabetes, cancer and the spread of antibiotic resistance.

However, eating meat is not necessarily bad for you if done in moderation. Additionally, in places where hunger or malnutrition are still rife, introducing beef, pork or poultry to more plates would have clear health benefits.

Barring Meat, Boosting Inequality?

“Consumers respond to price changes in different ways,” Josef Schmidhuber, deputy director of the trade and markets division at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), told Futurism. “Some will immediately adapt their behavior when prices change, other will stick to their old habits.”

Generally, people who are poorer adapt quicker to fluctuating prices, a trend that economists call “elastic demand.”

“So if you have a beef tax, who will you tax out of the market? Those who are poorer,” explained Schmidhuber. “And that’s a bad idea, because you penalize those who need to increase their meat consumption. We call this model ‘regressive tax.’”

On the other hand, Schmidhuber argues, a tax on meat will have little impact on those who consume too much, as this group often has extra money to spend on expensive meat. The tax would therefore fail to target the group that most contributes to the problem.

A softer approach to the problem is offered by the nudge theory, for which the economist Richard Thaler was awarded the 2017 Nobel Prize. It suggests that rather than punishing people for making the wrong choice, we could make it easier for them to do the right thing.

In the case of meat consumption, tissue culture could soon do this by providing a substitute that is close enough to the animal product that more people will switch with no regrets. Soy-based main dishes already have a place on most supermarket shelves, but visionaries are experimenting with vegetable meat that looks so much like beef that you can see it sizzle on the grill and even bleed.

However, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the problem. While money is poured into developing more sustainable foods, the idea of a meat tax remains attractive, especially in rich countries. “Based on our findings, and looking at the pathways other products have been on to get to the tax,” Wardle said. “We think we may have something on the table within the next five to 10 years.”

My Conclusion: Reason why the elites want to eat fake meat that made by nothing but plants base ingredients. For me I have nothing against recipes that is made by 100% plant base ingredients but you can’t call meat unless it contains meat or it either vegetarian (if contains diary or eggs ingredients and no meat) or vegan (if contains 100% plant base ingredients, no animal products). In the video above now they trying make meat from bacteria do you don’t have to kill animal to get meat; but it won’t contains the same nutrient value as meat that from a animal that have been killed for. That why I prefer meat that from a animal rather that from a bacteria that is grown in a lab to make meat because of the nutrient value.

I understand there are issues within the factory farms when animals are mistreated and been pump up with antibiotic, pharmaceuticals and hormones just in order to get more from them. With animals raised on a organic farm they tend to have the best lives out there; because farmer never pumped them with antibiotic, pharmaceuticals, and hormones; farmer ensure the animals are well taken care of and getting the maximum animal welfare. They quality of meat, milk and eggs from animals raised on organic farm are better and healthier. Farming should be based on quality not quantity of the product from the animal because animal can only produce so much so farmer maybe get the animals to produce the best.

Animal rights and vegan extremist are using the environment as an excuse to push their agenda set up by the elites and to have cattle farming  and ranching done way with. And we won’t have a choice to eat a meat from a animal but instead we be eating meat that is either lab grown or Genetically Modified. The fake meat that is plant base will be GMO based.

The taxation on meat and any other products is just flat out wrong because its based on an agenda by the elites to have cattle farming and ranching done away with as well eating meat and any other animal products done away with. But the elites will still be eating meat and any other animals; well as organic farms and they will not touch GMO because they know it is harmful to human health as well as to animals. Treating those who eat meat as smokers is just flat out wrong and those who are push for it; they will not get away with. Once people recognize the evil within the animal rights and climate movement; they will reject it. It’s up to us to speak out against the animal rights movement, Climate Change scare (which they try to use the weather or the environment in order scare us into submission), the anti-human movement, the nature rights movements; how do they do it? First they either create or find a problem; then they try to get us to reaction; then they offer the solution. Problem, Reaction and Solution. That why I created Eco Liberty Blog on wordpress so can educate and inform people while the mainstream media will not cover what I’m covering. And Why we can be good human as well as good environment stewards.