New Green/Carbon/Eco tax = new taxation

Is industrial society destroying the planet, or are Climate Change laws merely a plot to seize political power and redistribute wealth?
Post Reply
prophecy
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:59 am

New Green/Carbon/Eco tax = new taxation

Post by prophecy » Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:08 am

Our new "Green taxes" are still in process of being formalised ( remember this is an International requirement mandated by the United Nations ( Our Shadow Government ) under the auspices of their "Agenda 21" program -see page 8 on the attached booklet

Well their story is coming apart at the seams - however this "policy" has ALREADY been decided upon so let's not have a few truths get in the way !!

They have already decided to implement this " new hidden tax " which is brilliant as it taxes everybody living on the planet and not just those in paid employment - after all somebody's got to keep funding the increasing interest on our massive perpetual debt - otherwise the Merchant Bankers might go hungry .........

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/ ... s-warming/
Attachments
Agenda21_and_You_Booklet(1).pdf
(1.86 MiB) Downloaded 720 times
prophecy
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:59 am

Re: New Green/Carbon/Eco tax = new taxation

Post by prophecy » Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:16 am

The Great Green Con no. 1: The hard proof that finally shows global warming forecasts that are costing you billions were WRONG all along
By David Rose
PUBLISHED: 23:37 GMT, 16 March 2013 | UPDATED: 10:40 GMT, 16 March 2013

No, the world ISN'T getting warmer (as you may have noticed). Now we reveal the official data that's making scientists suddenly change their minds about climate doom. So will eco-funded MPs stop waging a green crusade with your money? Well... what do YOU think?

The Mail on Sunday today presents irrefutable evidence that official predictions of global climate warming have been catastrophically flawed.

The graph on this page blows apart the ‘scientific basis’ for Britain reshaping its entire economy and spending billions in taxes and subsidies in order to cut emissions of greenhouse gases.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2g6xOdiD3
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 686
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Re: New Green/Carbon/Eco tax = new taxation

Post by editor » Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:25 pm

This has been planned for longer than most people realize.

For some insight into the root ideas, and behind-the-scenes source of the entire Green movement, I suggest you read The Greening, by Larry Abraham.

http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/greening.shtml
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
Guardian
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:01 am

Re: New Green/Carbon/Eco tax = new taxation

Post by Guardian » Sat Nov 02, 2013 5:35 pm

Yes these new taxes have been planned well ahead of time - lets go right back to 2009 before Herman Van Rompuy was given the job of First President of Europe :

Well here it is from the UK Daily Telegraph dated 16 November 2009 :

"EU Presidency candidate Herman Van Rompuy calls for new taxes
Herman Van Rompuy, the man widely expected to be appointed the first President of Europe this week, has called for new eco-taxes and levies on the financial sector to fund a more powerful European Union.

Belgium's prime minister made the controversial proposal, leaked to a Flemish newspaper, during a secret dinner to promote his candidacy hosted by the elite Bilderberg Group. "

Full link to article : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... taxes.html

Interesting to note that the financial tax has also been implemented across Europe ( but not yet in the UK )
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 686
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Re: New Green/Carbon/Eco tax = new taxation

Post by editor » Tue Aug 16, 2016 4:20 pm

I received this today from a friend...
Introductory comments by James Craig Green:

Thanks to Paul Driessen for his article, inspiring my comments below...

For the first few years of today's global climate hysteria promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 1988, I grossly underestimated this political organization, and was not particularly motivated to study the issue in the early years.

During its history, our planet has been warming At Least since the last ice age (10,000 – 12,000 years ago), mostly due to natural causes, but the IPCC (a government of governments) has successfully hijacked formerly credible media sources promoting the unsubstantiated idea that man's contribution to rising CO2 (carbon dioxide) – which makes up only one in 2400 parts of the planet's atmosphere – is dominant. Of course, this completely ignores the fact that Water Vapor is, by far, the most influential greenhouse gas. The IPCC had to come up with some jury-rigged factors to scale-up the effect of CO2 (their favorite scapegoat) to rationalize its political agendas. According to the founding documents of the IPCC, its purpose established in 1988 was to prove that Man was and is the dominant cause of today's global warming/climate change or whatever other snappy terms it may create to maintain the greatest scientific fraud of the 20th Century. The IPCC was not created to fairly judge the influence of any and all factors that may affect today's (or yesterday's) climate change.

A small sampling of these media sources includes Nature Magazine, National Geographic Magazine, Greenpeace, a plethora of academics, consultants and others inspired by the ever-dishonest Dr. James Hansen (now retired), most Democrats and too many Republicans, among many, many, others.

In August 2010, National Geographic Magazine inadvertently published a 400,000 year graph of historical sea levels in an article titled, Blue Holes in the Bahamas, of which the graph is no longer on the Nat Geo website. It completely destroyed the IPCC's agenda of promoting mankind as the primary cause of rising sea levels, as it showed multiple 400-foot fluctuations of sea levels in this paleological history, each one peaking at approximately today's sea level. It seems highly unlikely to say that these historical fluctuations were caused by mankind's carbon "pollution," which is essential to all plant and animal life on Earth.

Strong scientific evidence supports the conclusion that stars like our sun began with mostly Hydrogen (Atoms with one Proton and one Electron), as the simplest element in the periodic table. Spontaneously, these Hydrogen atoms (through the compressing effect of gravity) fused into the second element Helium (two Protons and two electrons). The third element fused by the stars was Carbon, by combining Helium atoms. Carbon, of course, is the most important compound for the creation of plant and animal life as we know it today.

IPCC "scientists" who claim Carbon is a dangerous pollutant ignore Real Science. Real Science is comprised of 1) data collection, 2) formulation of theories to explain that data and, most importantly, 3) revising those theories when they no longer can be supported by the evidence. Too often, political hacks have ignored the third step, which is critical for correcting the mistakes and/or updates when current theories fail.

This link describes the fusion of simpler elements (Hydrogen and Helium) into heavier elements such as carbon:
http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/ ... ol_sun.htm

The now-hidden Nat Geo graph is the most comprehensive and damning evidence that several historical 400-foot up and down fluxuations, each roughly ending at today's sea level, were experienced before the 20th Century, continuing with today's cyclical (high) sea level which is neither unusual nor alarming, contrary to the hysterical claims of an entire industry of government-subsidized policymakers and massive funding, politics and self-serving consultants who work for the U.S. government and its cronies.

James Craig Green PE (retired 2004)
BSME Mechanical Engineering
MSCE Civil Engineering
Professional Engineer for four decades, now retired
Student of All, Disciple of None

Olympic-sized climate propaganda

It was wrong to interrupt Rio's delightful opening ceremonies with deceitful agitprop

By Paul Driessen

XXXI Olympiad competitors are joyfully showcasing their skills and sportsmanship, while delighted fans revel in their amazing efforts. But opening ceremonies featuring colorful history, dance, song and athletes were rudely interrupted by an unprecedented propaganda film.

As audiences around the world were getting pumped up in eager anticipation for the upcoming events, a slick but deceitful video soured the mood by inserting partisan climate change politics.

Fossil fuels are warming our planet, and the manmade heat is melting its ice caps, narrators intoned. Animated maps showed Greenland "disappearing very quickly" and Amsterdam, Dubai, Miami, Shanghai, Lagos and Rio being swallowed up by rising seas.

Well, yes, if average global temperatures really did soar 4 degrees Celsius (7.5 Fahrenheit), and if all of Greenland's ice melts, oceans certainly could rise 20 feet and other terrible things certainly could happen.

But wild assumptions, computer models and animations are not reality. Few of us are really worried about being eaten by raptors and Tyrannosaurs cloned from DNA in fossilized amber, even though Jurassic Park sure made them look real. Ditto for Hollywood sharks, werewolves, cave monsters – and global warming.

In the Real World outside the animators' windows, average planetary temperatures barely budged for 18 years. After climbing a headline-grabbing 0.55 degrees C (1 deg F) in 2015, a strong El Niño year, they plummeted a media-ignored 0.5 degrees C the first seven months of 2016, as La Niña approached. That's a far cry from the 4/7.5 temperature spike that animated the animators' fear-mongering. The sun has entered a low-sun-spot phase, possibly heralding a new colder period for Planet Earth.

As to temperatures increasing "since the industrial era began," that primarily reflects Earth's emergence from the 500-year Little Ice Age. Of course, climate alarmists happily claim this natural warming is due to mankind's growing fossil fuel use during the same period of time, though scientists still cannot distinguish human and natural factors. With temperatures rising 1850-1940, cooling 1940-1975, warming 1975-1998, and mostly flat-lining since then, it's hard to blame oil, gas and coal for any warming.

So the likelihood of Greenland's ice all melting is about zero. In fact, its ice mass has been growing since the time period the Olympics propaganda squad selected to show the ice sheets "disappearing."

News stories about the Rio video also featured claims that climate change has "already had real effects in Brazil," where 60% of the Amazon rainforest is located. Some 240,000 acres were clear-cut just in June 2016, "as a result of deforestation" – related to global warming, it was slyly suggested.

If they're talking about replacing rainforests with biofuel plantations, to replace fossil fuels that could be produced from a fraction of that acreage, then yes, there's a climate (policy) connection. But there would be little need to chop down all those trees if climate chaos campaigners weren't obsessively opposed to the fossil fuels that power 80% of the world's economy and provide other vital human needs.

The indispensable benefits of hydrocarbons and petrochemicals for Olympic Games alone are impressive.

They are the raw materials for uniforms of every description; swim suits, goggles and caps; kayaks and kayaker helmets and paddles; bicycle helmets, shoes and carbon-fiber frames; basketballs, vaulting poles, tennis balls and racquets, soccer balls and shin guards; bows and arrows; volleyball and field hockey nets; basketballs; seats and clothing for fans; prosthetics and wheelchairs for Paralympians; and much more.

No one could watch the games without plastics for computers, cameras, monitors, cell phones, dish antennas, banners and other equipment that promote, record and transmit the events. Neither athletes nor fans could get to the games without airlines, vehicles and fossil fuels.

In short, virtually nothing we make, grow, eat, use or do is possible without fuels and materials that come out of holes in the ground somewhere on our planet. But radical greens want it all put off limits. They would rather see billions of acres of croplands, rainforests and wildlife habitats cleared and plowed – and trillions of gallons of water and fertilizer expended – to grow biofuel crops to replace fossil fuels. "Keep it in the ground," they demand.

African, Asian and European countries cannot afford to stop using oil, natural gas or coal. Nor can the United States or any other modern or developing country.

Naturally, the video and news reports mentioned none of this. So why did the Rio organizers agree to present this manmade climate cataclysm video?

One possible reason is a desire to distract people from its real problems. Mosquitoes are spreading Zika. Shoddy athletic housing has bare wires and sinks falling off walls. The open-water swimming venue is a bacteria-infested open sewer. Swallowing just a few teaspoons of Rio's tap water will make visiting athletes and fans horribly sick. Eleven construction workers died while preparing Rio for the games.

Brazil's economy is on the rocks and #174 out of 189 nations for starting a new business. Its current and previous presidents are under investigation for corruption.

But once the games got underway, they were fantastic, fun, exciting and dramatic; their own distraction.

So the video could be simple "greenwashing" – making the 2016 games the "greenest ever." Or it might be to reinforce Brazil's claim to billions of dollars that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have promised for mitigation, adaptation and compensation for the climate chaos we supposedly caused.

Just as strange, even ExxonMobil played the politically correct climate game. Its Olympics TV ad says the company is doing all it can to reduce "carbon pollution." Surely Exxon knows it's not carbon (soot); it's carbon dioxide. And it's not pollution; the plant-fertilizing CO2 is enriching the atmosphere and making forests, grasslands and food crops grow faster and better. So why use Obama/EPA terminology?

Maybe the company just wants to buy some feel-good PR and "peace in our time." Maybe it and its corporate and political colleagues are forgetting 1960s radical activist Jerry Rubin's comment: "The more demands you satisfy, the more we've got." And Winston Churchill's blunt truth: "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

All of it reminds me of the way several Egyptian journalists responded to President Obama's 2015 commencement speech at the Coast Guard Academy. "Climate change is a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security," he asserted. "It will impact how our military defends our country." Anyone who fails to recognize this is guilty of "dereliction of duty."

The journalists reacted in disbelief. "Is he insane? Is he on drugs?" asked one. "What did you expect from a president who never served in the military and never worked a day in his life?" said the second. "I'm sure he's not deliberately trying to destroy his country," the first suggested. "Of course he is," the third said.

Now millions of Americans appear perfectly willing to sacrifice their livelihoods, living standards, liberties and country on the altar of manmade climate Armageddon. Are they insane? Are they on drugs?

# # #

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
Post Reply