Obama Pushes Carbon Tax Proposal That Would Inflict New Great Depression

From http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-pushes-carbon-tax-proposal-that-would-inflict-new-great-depression.html

 

 

Obama Pushes Carbon Tax Proposal That Would Inflict New Great Depression

President elect sets out on agenda to revive frightening Lieberman/Warner legislation

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, November 18, 2008

President elect Barack Obama used his speech at a Los Angeles summit last night to reinvigorate a push for the revival of a frightening proposal to slash carbon emissions by 80 per cent, a move that would inflict a new Great Depression, cost millions of jobs, and sink America to near third world status.

“My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change,” Obama said in a video message to governors and others attending a Los Angeles summit on the issue.

“In the roughly four-minute message, Obama reiterated his support for a cap-and-trade system approach to cutting green house gases. He would establish annual targets to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them another 80 percent by 2050,” reports the Associated Press.

Obama’s mission is to revive and expand the defeated 2007 Lieberman/Warner bill, “America’s Climate Security Act,” which proposed a cap and trade system to reduce carbon emissions 70 per cent by 2050.

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)

The bill was rejected for a very good reason - its passage would have created economic conditions comparable to a new Great Depression and sunk America to near third world status.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s economic analysis of the bill forecast that a whopping $2.9 trillion would be shaved off the economy by the year 2050 if the legislation was enacted. It would also reduce GDP by 6.9 percent - a figure comparable with the economic meltdown of 1929 and 1930, and millions of jobs would have been lost within the first 10 years of its passage.

As JunkScience.com’s Steven Milloy highlights, “For more perspective, consider that during 1929 and 1930, the first two years of the Great Depression, GDP declined by 8.6 percent and 6.4 percent, respectively.”

And what would we get for such a massive self-inflicted wound? It ought to be something that is climatically spectacular, right? You be the judge.

The EPA says that by the year 2095 — 45 years after GDP has been slashed by 6.9 percent — atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would be 25 parts per million lower than if no greenhouse gas regulation were implemented.

Keeping in mind that the current atmospheric CO2 level is 380 ppm and the projected 2095 CO2 level is about 500 ppm, according to the EPA, what are the potential global temperature implications for such a slight change in atmospheric CO2 concentration?

Not much, as average global temperature would only be reduced by a maximum of about 0.10 to 0.20 degrees Celsius, according to existing research.

Sacrificing many trillions of dollars of GDP for a trivial, 45-year-delayed and merely hypothetical reduction in average global temperature must be considered as exponentially more asinine than the dot-bombs of the late-1990s and the NINJA subprime loans that we now look upon scornfully.

Obama’s agenda to cut carbon emissions by 80 per cent is a huge leap towards the ultimate goal, expressed by the Carnegie Institute earlier this year and afforded sober credibility by the corporate media - a complete reduction down to zero carbon emissions.

Zero carbon emissions? That would lead to the near complete reversal of hundreds of years of technological progress and man’s return to the stone age.

Correction - stone age man was at least able to make use of fire - that too would presumably be banned under the measures being proposed.

Global transport of any kind would cease, manufacturing and production would be a thing of the past, the global economy would crumble, communications would go dark as computer networks and the Internet are abolished. Millions would freeze to death as a result of not being able to heat their homes.

We’d be back to living in caves and hunting for food with spears.

Presumably, since livestock flatulence accounts for more green house gas releases than cars, planes and all other forms of transport or industry put together, cows would also become an endangered species and global meat farming would cease to exist. This sounds like a joke but this is actually what these crazies are proposing.

The sheer ludicrousness of the Carnegie report is on a parallel with a March 2007 New York Times editorial, which subtly pushed the notion that humans emit carbon dioxide when they exhale, therefore should all be taxed for breathing!

And remember that all of this is being pushed in the name of a scientific theory that is being increasingly debunked on an almost daily basis.

The fact that there has been climate change since the birth of the planet has again been emphasized by a noticeable recent wave of global cooling related to a dearth of sunspot activity and exemplified by the Arctic ice sheet expanding by 30 per cent, an area the size of Germany, since the summer of 2007.

This clear reversal in natural climate change from the solar-system wide global warming that occurred throughout the 90’s is being buried by man-made global warming advocates by means of deceit and dirty tricks.

Global warming fearmongers like the World Wildlife Fund are having to resort to deception as a clear trend of global cooling unfolds. In a recent report, the WWF cited shrinking Arctic ice coverage to suggest climate change is “faster and more extreme” than first thought, while failing to acknowledge that Arctic sea ice expanded over an area bigger than the size of Germany during the year of 2008.

Last week, climate scientists allied with the IPCC were caught citing fake data to make the case that global warming is accelerating. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, announced that last month was the hottest October on record. They later had to admit their “error” after it was revealed that they had used temperature records from September, a naturally hotter month, and merely passed them off as representing October temperatures.