Posts from — December 2007

Backround 

At the recent  United Nations sponsored climate change conference in Bali, Indonesia a proposal was floated to institute a global carbon dioxide emissions tax to save the Earth from catastrophic man-made global warming.  The UN panel participants urged the adoption of such a tax which would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.”  (No mention of China, India or the other rapidly industrializing economies.)

Othmar Schwank, a consultant with the Switzerland based Mauch Consulting firm, opined  “Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs,” adding that at least “$10-$40 billion dollars per year” could be generated by the tax, and wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.”

The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank stated adding “It is very essential to tax coal.”

The Swiss Federal Office of the Environment chimed in with a report titled “Global Solidarity in Financing Adaptation.”  claiming there was an “urgent need” for a global tax in order for “damages [from climate change] to be kept from growing to truly catastrophic levels, especially in vulnerable countries of the developing world.”

Translation

Wealth transfer from the industrialized world to poorer nations with the UN as score keeper. (Anyone remember the UN {mis}managed Iraqi Oil for Food program?) 

The environmental group Friends of the Earth came straight to the point: “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.   Such calls for more global regulation and taxes are not new at the UN.   At the Bali conference, Former US Vice President Al Gore reiterated his call to place a price on carbon dioxide emissions.

Why It Matters

American colonists rallied around the slogan “Taxation without representation is tyranny.”  These Americans clearly understood that the right to impose taxes was the mark of a sovereign state.  Sovereign nations do not cede the ability to tax their citizens to non-elected global institutions.  Such behavior is foolish at best; criminal at worst.

The current crop of globalists would gladly extract what they can from the United States.  Comments such as those made by Othmar Schwank that the United Stats should “contribute significantly more to this global fund” indicate the agenda in these statements.

Before any US politician accepts such drastic limitations on American prosperity, let us as citizens demand that the science be rigorous.  A group of over 100 prominent scientists, many of whom are either current or former members of the UN  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),  sent a letter on December 13 to the UN Secretary-General stating “…it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions.”  These scientists continued,  “The IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity.”

The proposed market for carbon offsets and taxation on wealthy industrialized nations is a thinly veiled attempt to impose a socialist, centrally planned world economy.  If the recent experience with the UN Iraqi Oil for Food Program is any indication, such schemes will surrender America’s sovereignty for little purpose.  Petty tyrants and despots will exploit the inability of the UN to police the billions in revenue that would flow into the UN.

The possibilities to commit fraud boggle mind.

We have no need for an additional layer of self-serving bureaucrats skimming the treasury; we already have Congress.

Sorry Al,  but the pros have provided An Inconvenient Truth of their own.

Footnote to Mr. Othmar Schwank:

Under a “polluter pays” scenario the tax would, I assume, be based on the quantity of carbon dioxide (CO2) released (not fuel consumed) as measured at the release point without regard to population, combustion technology or fuel used. 

After all, a ton of CO2 emitted from an oil fired power station in China or India will melt just as much Greenland Glacier as a ton of CO2 emitted from a coal fired plant in Michigan.

I’m sure you understand such a simple concept.  Level playing field and all that.  Global challenges requiring global initiatives etc, etc.

Is that not the point?