Tag Archives: Carbon Tax

Jordan Peterson encourages women to seek ‘adventure’ of motherhood, ignore climate alarmism

Lifesitenews.com
23 July 2019
Jordan Peterson


Jordan Peterson, world-famous psychologist and free speech advocate, has a reassuring message for women who’d like to have a family but who feel pressure from media, academia, and even friends to say “no” to their dream because, they’ve been told, a child has a “negative” impact on the environment. 

“Bring a child into the world” anyway, Peterson said, and embark on a “maternal adventure” where you have “faith in life and in the possibilities of being [existence]” and the conviction that you’re “going to bring someone into the world who will be a net force for good rather than evil.”

Peterson made these comments during a conversation he had with Bishop Robert Barron that was published on the psychologist’s YouTube channel last week. (watch the full 1.5-hour conversation here). 

Climate change alarmists have labeled children “carbon legacies” and have urged women to have small families and even no children at all, all in the name of “saving the planet.”

“A carbon footprint is the aggregate of resource use and carbon emissions over a person’s life. A carbon legacy occurs when a person chooses to procreate. All people have carbon footprints; only people with biological children have carbon legacies,” wrote Cristina Richie in a 2014 article in the Journal of Medical Ethics. Richie said that children being born are only “adding to worldwide carbon emissions.” 

One academic proposed two years later to put a “carbon tax” on children to disincentivize procreation in wealthy nations.  

In 2017, Dr. Travis Rieder of the Berman Institute of Bioethics wrote in an article for NBC that having many children is “wrong, or at least morally suspect,” comparing parents having a large family to releasing murderers from prison. 

The New York Times featured a report last year highlighting women who chose not to have children “because of climate change.” Women are “acutely aware that having a child is one of the costliest actions they can take environmentally,” the report stated. The CBC recently ran a report telling Canadians that the best way to “mitigate” the “climate crisis” is to “have a smaller family.”

Peterson said that there will always be consequences to bringing a child into the world, but that women should look upon this as an “adventure” with the goal of raising children who will be a “force for good” in the world. 

Here’s his full comment on the topic: 

There’s a serious conversation to be had with young women. A woman asked me a question on my Q&A this month. She said that her friends are really down on her. She claims to not be a feminist, but even more importantly, because she wants to have children. And they’re telling her that only an evil and cruel person would bring a child into a world this terrible, and worse, [they tell her about] the damage to the planet that that child will inevitably do. And people are very serious about this. And they are very hard on young women. 

I always think of the Pieta [sculpture by Michelangelo depicting the Virgin Mary cradling the body of her son Jesus, who was just taken down from the cross], because I kind of think of it as the Christian equivalent of the crucifix — you know, you have Mary there with her broken son in her arms. And I think that the great adventure for women — at least in part, this is the maternal adventure — is to bring a child into the world, knowing full well the consequence is a crucifixion-like brokenness. And that it’s still a mark of faith in the possibilities of being [existence], to participate in that and not to hide from it and to say: ‘Well, despite everything, I’m going to act out my faith in life and in the possibilities of being [existence] and I’m going to bring someone into the world who will be a net force for good rather than evil. And that’s my moral obligation.’

I think to present that to young women as a major part of the adventure of their life, which is certainly the truth, is something that is attractive to far more of them than would be likely to admit it in today’s time and age. 

A civilization that views children merely as “carbon footprints” and not as beings with a spark of divinity in them that have something wonderful to contribute to humanity is a civilization that has lost it bearing. In the end, a civilization that has no children has no hope, no future.

Peterson’s remarks provide a path forward to those who want to have families but are weighed down by “climate change” talking points. Having a family is a serious adventure. Part of the adventure is a “crucifixion-like brokenness.” But, as people of faith know, when it looks like everything is lost, it’s at such moments that a resurrection can unexpectedly happen and the power of God, who works all things to good for those who love him, is revealed. 

“One of the things I really learned from reading the Abrahamic stories is that the fundamental call is a call to adventure, not to ease or to happiness,” said Peterson a little later in his conversation with Barron. “The relationship with God that is part of that adventure is wrestling with God,” he added.

Economists Love Carbon Taxes. Lots of Regular Folks Don’t.

reason.com
19 December 2018
Ronald Bailey

Oil company ConocoPhillips just pledged to spend $2 millionpromoting the carbon tax and dividend plan devised by the Climate Leadership Council (CLC) organized by former Republican Secretaries of State James Baker III and George Shultz. ConocoPhillips is among the CLC’s founding member oil companies, alongside ExxonMobil, BP, and Shell.

The goal of the CLC’s carbon tax and dividend plan is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels by increasing fossil fuel prices over time. Under the CLC’s carbon tax and dividend plan an initial tax per ton of carbon dioxide would be set at oil and gas wellheads and coal mineheads.

As the tax escalates at a steady predictable rate over the years, higher electricity and transport prices are supposed to encourage increased conservation, greater fuel efficiency, and the development and deployment of no-carbon energy sources. Once the CLC’s carbon tax plan is adopted, all other regulations and subsidies aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions, e.g., automobile fuel efficiency and renewable portfolio standards, are supposed to be permanently repealed.

Finally, the linchpin of CLC’s plan is that all of the proceeds from the carbon tax would be divided equally among U.S. citizens and returned as an annual lump-sum directly to them. The CLC argues that “conferring financial benefits in the here and now would fundamentally alter the cost-benefit time horizon of climate mitigation, re-casting a carbon fee as a popular and even populist solution.”

The CLC cites a 2018 study that finds that 70 percent of American households would receive more in dividend payments than they would pay in increased energy prices. Taxpayers in the bottom income quintile would average a net tax cut of 4.4 percent of pretax income while those in the middle quintile would receive a net tax cut of 0.3 percent of pretax income.

While the concept of revenue neutral carbon taxes for addressing the problem of man-made climate change is belovedby most economists, the idea that they are “a popular and even populist solution” may be a bit premature.

The recent Yellow Vest protests in France were sparked by just a 12 cent increase in transport fuel taxes aimed at reducing that country’s carbon dioxide emissions. (For the record, a gallon of gas already costs $5.54 in France.) The New York Times suggested that this outburst might have been avoided if the taxes had been specifically devoted to “subsidies to encourage people to use less-polluting forms of energy, and expanding transit networks.”

Consider also what happened to carbon tax proposals in Washington state during the past couple of elections. In 2016, a revenue neutral carbon tax referendum failed when environmental activists opposed it on the grounds that the tax revenues should not be returned to voters, but instead be devoted to a panoply of green energy and public transit projects.

In 2018, Washington state voters rejected a carbon tax referendum crafted by environmental activists that would have created a kitty of new tax money available for politically favored groups to shower on their pet projects.

Australia adopted a carbon tax in 2012 that was repealed under popular pressure two years later.

Canada, meanwhile, has adopted a carbon tax scheme imposing a price of $20 per ton that applies to just four provinces (the others have set rates on carbon emissions that are already high enough to meet the new federal standards). Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has promised that 90 percent of the revenues collected will be rebated back to the residents of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and New Brunswick.

Despite the rebate pledge, Yellow Vest protests against the new Canadian carbon tax broke out this past weekend in some cities, including Edmonton, Toronto, Winnipeg, Okanagan, Moncton, Calgary, Saskatoon, and Halifax.

A 2018 World Bank report identifies 51 carbon pricing initiatives as having already been implemented or as scheduled for implementation. These consist of 25 emissions trading systems, mostly located in subnational jurisdictions, and 26 carbon taxes primarily implemented on a national level.

While carbon taxes make sense to economists worried about climate change, raising the price of staples like transport fuel, heat, and electricity remains a steep political hill to climb.

For folks who are worried about climate change, a more politically popular approach might be to incentivize a vigorous technology research and development program that aims at making low carbon energy cheaper than fossil fuels. In the meantime, encouraging economic growth will help to create the wealth needed to adopt low carbon technologies and adapt to whatever harms may emerge from man-made global warming.

Brainwashed Kids are suing the US Government for not taking on Climate Change

Eco Liberty
November 2018
Matthew Miller

Since Donald Trump was elected back in 2016; he exit out the Paris Climate agreement. 2 Year later the kids want to Sue the Trump Administration for not Taking on Climate Change and not going long with the scam. For my point of view: For those kid; you been brainwashed to believe that Global warming is an issue and as human being we are blamed for it. And all the Climate Change alarmism is being taught in school indoctrinating children to believe that human are blame for climate change like:

  • Carbon Dioxide is a pollination
  • Ice is melting
  • Polar bear population is declining
  • Cow farts causing an increase of greenhouse gases
  • Wind turbines and solar are good sources of energy
  • Carbon Tax will save the planet

The real facts are

  • Carbon Dioxide is plant food (Between 1,000 to 1,500 ppm is an optimal CO2 level for plants growth. The raising CO2 level is greening the planet. But not enough CO2 (200 ppm or less) plants will not grow but too much CO2 (above 2,000 ppm) is toxic

  • Ice melts in the summer and grow in the winter. Back in 2014 Antarctica have the record high level of ice with surface area of  20.11 million square kilometers (7.76 million square miles). Back in 2009 in the Copenhagen Climate Al Gore claims Arctic will be ice free by 2014 or 2016 according to this video

 

But Al Gore you’re way off because it’s now 2018 and the polar ice in arctic is there.The Arctic Ice is getting thick this image prove that is the case from Polar Portal

Arctic Ice volume 25 August 2008

Arctic Ice volume 25 August 2018

Those two image prove that arctic is getting thicker. Arctic will still have ice in the next decade with the up coming solar minimum which will be call the Eddy Minimum

  • Polar bear population is booming and thriving. Population is estimated to around 22,000 to 30,000 which will around 4 to 6 fold since the 1950s despite fears about global warming’s impact on polar bears even spurred the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to say that the bear was “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act in 2008. If polar bear is thriving why is still declared “threatened”?
  • Methane is excuse that Climate alarmist like to use push their agenda to deindustrialize the agriculture industry and to tax meat and then bring forth meat  prohibition as well other animal products in the name of sustainability and saving the planet. Without the Greenhouse effect on earth will be much colder
  • Wind and solar are not reliable source of energy on a large sale because you need wind for wind turbines to work; you need sun for solar panels to work; Wind don’t always blow and sun don’t always shine. They’re also expensive as well. Wind turbine is harming the bird population that why Wind Turbine is call “bird killers”. Humans and animals living near the Wind Turbine could having some negative health effect on them.
  • Carbon Tax will bring forth deindustrialization, create jobs losses, undermine the economy, make Electricity and Gasoline more expensive, make everyday life a living hell.

All I can say that: I been there; I used to believe that global warming was issue in my late teens and my early 20s and I end have a Malthusianist mindset by thinking that depopulation was necessary to combat Climate Change. Believing in Climate alarmism may you into a anti-human mindset. Oh boy that the road I never want go back on because that a mindset a psychopath would have. The climate alarmist also they want climate skeptics arrested and throw in prison and those who even disagree with them; this is dangerous; the elite know that climate alarmism ideology is felling apart and they want to being as much people with them.

My Conclusion:  

To the Climate Alarmist you can raise up above the fear you taught to believe. I don’t have all the answers; I know that many Climate Alarmist will continue in their falsehood what Elites have indoctrinated them with. I try do make it easier as I can your to understand the information. Even that don’t believe every word I post in the article I best to do your own research. That why I got several link that you chick and decide for yourself.

Source:

 

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.

Raucous Calgary rally rails against carbon tax

MSN
6 October 2018
Lauren Krugel

CALGARY – A raucous crowd of more than 1,500 crammed into a Calgary convention centre Friday night to hear Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Jason Kenney, leader of Alberta’s Opposition United Conservative Party, rail against the federal carbon tax.

“It’s really, my friends the worst tax ever, a tax we can’t afford, a job-killing tax that hikes up the price of services and goods and drives up the price of heating your homes,” Ford told the anti carbon-tax rally.

The crowd frequently rose to its feet waving signs that said “Renew The Alberta Advantage” and “Scrap The Carbon Tax.” Many jeered when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s name was mentioned.

So many people showed up that some had to listen from the hallway so as not to run afoul of fire codes.

Ford made no secret of who he will root for in Alberta’s provincial election next spring.

“Let’s elect a new United Conservative government in Alberta,” he said. “A new day has dawned in Ontario and a new day will dawn in Alberta.”

Kenney has said the repeal of Alberta’s $30-a-tonne carbon tax will top his agenda if his party wins the election.

“There is no compassion in telling seniors on modest fixed incomes that they can’t have an active life just so you can feel virtuous by imposing this carbon tax on Albertans,” he said.

“It isn’t progressive and it’s not compassionate.”

Kenney said the “multibillion-dollar job killing carbon tax” was not in the NDP’s 2015 election platform.

“It is not just the biggest tax hike in Alberta history. It is the biggest lie in Alberta history,” he said.

“Why are we engaged in this act of economic masochism when it will not make one whit of difference for the environment?”

Heavy equipment operator Steve Spackman came to Calgary from Okotoks, just south of the city, for the rally because he’s fed up.

“We’d probably hire more people at work I bet you, if they didn’t have that carbon tax every month coming in for gas,” he said.

Alberta’s NDP government introduced the provincial levy before Ottawa required it. With the Trans Mountain oil pipeline expansion in limbo, Premier Rachel Notley is now refusing to raise it in line with federal requirements.

Ottawa passed legislation last spring to give it authority to impose a carbon price on any province without its own beginning Jan. 1, 2019. It is starting at a minimum of $20 per tonne, rising $10 per year until 2022.

Ontario’s new Progressive Conservative government scrapped that province’s cap-and-trade system in July and launched a challenge of the federal carbon plan.

Provincial resistance to Ottawa’s carbon policy has been ramping up.

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe and Ford met in Saskatoon on Thursday, where the two conservative leaders said they will continue to fight the tax together. To that end, Moe announced Saskatchewan will file for intervener status in Ontario’s court challenge.

Ontario had already pledged to support Saskatchewan’s court challenge when the premiers met in New Brunswick in July. Moe’s government has asked Saskatchewan’s Court of Appeal to rule on whether the federal plan is constitutional.

Ford and Moe gained another ally Wednesday when Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister announced his province will not go ahead with a $25-a-tonne levy that was to come into effect in December.

“We’ll all be at the premier’s table defending common sense and Canadian taxpayers to fight against Trudeau’s carbon tax,” Ford said Friday.

Trudeau said earlier in the day that Canadians gave his government a mandate in the last election to implement a national carbon price and that is exactly what it is going to do.

“Pollution should not be free anywhere across this country,” he said at an event in Windsor, Ont.

Alberta Education Minister David Eggen said earlier Friday that Albertans should be disturbed by Ford and Kenney working together.

“Certainly we know how to solve our issues in Alberta and we don’t need someone form Ontario coming and telling us what to do,” he said.

“Our climate action plan is very effective up to now in creating jobs, helping to diversify the economy and quite frankly is helping to reduce pollution as well.”

 

Global Warming” Fee Added to Calif. Gas Prices – Before Sales Tax!

Infowars
January 7, 2015
Kit Daniels

California drivers are now paying a “global warming” fee added to the price of gasoline before sales tax, forcing them to pay a tax on top of a tax.

The state is charging gas retailers a new “global warming” cap-and-trade fee and retailers are passing the cost to consumers, but the consumer sales tax is calculated from the full pump price, which includes the cap-and-trade fee.

“The global warming fee, which is variable and could soar in the future, added about a dime this week,” Dan McSwain of UT San Diego said. “Then the state adds 2.25% of the full retail price – including those other fees and taxes – while city and county sales taxes add more (0.5% in most of San Diego County).” Continue reading Global Warming” Fee Added to Calif. Gas Prices – Before Sales Tax!