Saturday, August 2, 2014

Why Conservatives distrust the "climage change" agenda. [updated, below]

Three articles showing why conservatives distrust "global warming" and "climate change."

Added: Why do multimillionaire and billionaire leftists routinely advocate policies detrimental to the poor? 

Article: IMF urges higher energy taxes to fight climate change

When you tax something, two things happen.
1) When you tax something, you get less of it (partly because the price goes up). The IMF wants to decrease the use of fossil fuel, so driving up the price of it is a feature, not a bug.
2) When the price goes up, the poor can afford less of it. But what do wealthy lawyers and politicians like the managing director of the IMF care? They are more interested in power.

International Monetary Fund: 
The IMF's stated goal was to assist in the reconstruction of the world's international payment system post–World War II. Countries contribute funds to a pool through a quota system from which countries with payment imbalances temporarily can borrow money and other resources.

The IMF is a self-described "organization of 188 countries, working to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty around the world.”
Mission Creep
Mission creep is the expansion of a project or mission beyond its original goals, often after initial successes. Mission creep is usually considered undesirable due to the dangerous path of each success breeding more ambitious attempts, only stopping when a final, often catastrophic, failure occurs. The term was originally applied exclusively to military operations, but has recently been applied to many different fields.
The IMF was chartered to help with nations deal with trade imbalance. The IMF "creeped," moved into "reducing poverty" and now into climate change.
Energy taxes in much of the world are far below what they should be to reflect the harmful environmental and health impact of fossil fuels use, the International Monetary Fund said in a new book on Thursday.
Why is this their business?
For the first time, the IMF laid out exactly what it views as appropriate taxes on coal, natural gas, gasoline and diesel in 156 countries to factor in the fuels' overall costs, which include carbon dioxide emissions, air pollution, congestion and traffic accidents.
And, again, why is this their business?

And IMF has "creeped" into reducing traffic accidents?

The IMF is notorious for its strong-arm tactics. A country needing IMF's help will be told how to restructure its economy and government policy. And it does not care how much the people of the country suffer in the process.

This is why conservatives distrust "climate change." Climate change is now being used by the IMF as a cudgel to pursue political ends.
"On this point, let me be crystal clear: we are generally talking about smarter taxes rather than higher taxes," [Christine Madeleine Odette] Lagarde [Managing Director of the IMF] said, according to prepared remarks for the launch of the book.

She said higher energy taxes are the most efficient and simple way of dealing with environmental harm and would allow governments to stop relying on a "patchwork" of other uncoordinated policies to deal with climate change, such as subsidies for renewable energy.

Higher energy prices would prompt people to shift to cleaner fuels or more fuel-efficient vehicles on their own, Lagarde said, adding that they could also allow governments to lower other taxes on consumption or income to reduce the burden on people, or pay down more public debt.
This is amazing levels of nonsense. Governments rarely reduce taxes. Subsidies, once in place, have a vocal constituency to maintain the subsidy. [During WWII, mohair was needed for soldier's uniforms. A subsidy was instituted to make certain there was a steady supply. Mohair has not been needed since 1960, but the subsidy continues.]

"Higher energy prices would prompt..." No, not "prompt." Coerice, maybe. Drive? Force?
The IMF estimates implementing efficient energy taxes would reduce deaths from fossil fuels by 63 percent, cut carbon emissions by 23 percent, and raise revenues by 2.6 percent of GDP for the world as a whole.
Sheer speculation. First off, reducing carbon emissions means less energy use (unless we convert quickly to a lot more nuclear power).

The idea is to drive up the price of energy to the level that solar, wind, and new water sources become commercially viable. What this says is that these forms are currently nonviable unless governments force people to use them.

Why is this not considered to be totalitarian?

Article: Senate report details how EPA officials divert millions of tax dollars to activist groups
Here are just four of the conclusions described in the report's executive summary regarding government funding of environmental nonprofits:

• Former far-left environmentalists working at EPA funnel government money through grants to their former employers and colleagues, often contributing to the bottom line of environmental activist groups.

• Under President Obama, EPA has given more than $27 million in taxpayer-funded grants to major environmental groups. Notably, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense Fund – two key activists groups with significant ties to senior EPA officials – have collected more than $1 million in funding each.

• EPA Region 2 Administrator Judith Enck appears to be inappropriately and personally involved in the allocation of EPA grants to favored groups. Enck is also the subject of an inquiry led by the EPA Office of Inspector General.

• EPA also gives grants to lesser-known extreme groups. For example, the Louisiana Bucket Brigade received hundreds of thousands of grants under former Administrator Lisa Jackson despite challenges by state regulators over the use of such grants.
Natural Resources Defense Council
The organization states that it seeks sustainable policies from federal, state and local government and industrial corporations. It seeks to influence federal and state environmental and other agencies, the Congress and state legislatures, and the courts to reduce global warming, limit pollution, and generally conserve energy and increase sustainability of commerce and manufacturing. NRDC participates in litigation in federal and state courts to influence implementation and enforcement of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and other federal and state laws protecting the environment.
So, the EPA gives NRDC money, which then uses the money to sue the EPA. When sued, the EPA is known to enter into an agreement, "losing" the case in favor of those bring the suit; that is, the activist organization. This allows the EPA to advance an "activist" agenda that may be contrary to the law. However, the EPA can still pretend they were "forced" to do it by judges.

This is called "lawfare."
Some have argued that "lawfare" be defined as an exclusively negative term. The Lawfare Project is one such organization, defining lawfare as "the abuse of Western laws and judicial systems to achieve strategic military or political ends."
The two articles, as I said above, are evidence why conservatives distrust "global warming." Activists push a "global warming" agenda (increased taxes, increased government regulation, mission creep).

Ultimately, global warming looks like a stalking horse for advocates for a larger and more encompassing state.

Article: Leaked Memo Gives Away Dems’ ‘Extreme Weather’ Talking Points

The memo uses common, and widely debunked, tropes such as global warming causes more extreme weather: droughts, hurricanes (Kartrina! Sandy!), wildfires, crop failures. The IPCC reports, the gold standard for climate change activism, reject these claims. Why are still being made?

Another trope that is used: higher insurance payouts for disasters. This has been repeatedly shown to be due to 1) more people living in disaster-prone areas (and, yes, that includes downtown Manhattan) and inflation.

Memo [linked in above article]: Senate Budget Committee caucus memo on federal budget impacts of climate change

On page 4 of the memo, 4 references were to the "Risky Business Project." It is bankrolled by three people. I immediately recognized 2 of the names: left-wing billionaires well known for using their wealth to influence elections.

So billionaire activists bankroll a study that Democrats use as talking points.

The activist left uses bogus science to allow the creation of talking points for Democrats wishing to scare people into supporting the Democrats and their agenda.

Why does anyone wonder conservatives distrust "global warming" and "climate change?"

Notes on Kartina and Sandy:
1) Katrina was a category 1 hurricane by the time the edge of it hit New Orleans. The worst of the flooding was due to a faulty dike that gave way. The dike was faulty because it was not build as the US Corps of Engineers had designed. The construction company, that got the bid due to connections with a corrupt Democrat Party machine, used sub-standard materials. In other words, the New Orleans disaster was at least partly due to political corruption. Additionally, many of the deaths in New Orleans were directly related to the incompetence of the mayor and the governor. (Both democrats; the mayor is now in jail and the governor was voted out of office.)

2) Sandy was not a hurricane when it hit NYC (despite the claim in the memo). It was already designated an "extra-tropical storm." NYC was hit by four hurricanes (or remnants) in a 10 year period in the 1940's and 1950's. In other words, NYC has been a frequent target. It could have been better prepared. And events like Sandy happened BEFORE global warming really took off.

Article: W.Va. coal company says EPA regs partially to blame for 1.1K layoffs

In the Democrat Senators' talking point memo, they talk about how much they are in favor of economic growth. Policies that they have encouraged and support say otherwise. This is merely one of several such articles that I have seen.

Article:  Cecil Roberts, Other UMWA Board Members Arrested in Pittsburgh 
Cecil Roberts, President of the United Mine Workers of America, and other board members of the UMWA were arrested Thursday in Pittsburgh. They're there to protest the EPA ruling regarding new carbon emission regulations for coal fired power plants.
Democrats used to the party for the oppressed and for unions. Now they are party for billionaires and environmentalists. 

Article: Billionaire climate-change supporter pledges to spend big to beat Florida Gov. Rick Scott

Alternate title: Billionaire Democrat Party supporter pledges to spend big in Republican Governor of Florida: Global warming mentioned in campaign ads.

One of the billionaires behind the "Risky Business Project" is Steve Heyer. Here, he is pouring up to $10,000,000 into the Florida race. The principal beneficiary is the Democrat candidate (and former Republican governor and former independent candidate for senator), Charlie Crist. Former Gov. Crist has been all over the place with regard to climate change. He is also known to blatantly and openly change positions based on the way the wind is blowing and which party he is currently a member of. 

On the other hand, the Republican candidate has not taken any position on global warming, per se; but who has deconstructed Gov. Crist's "cap and trade" program.

Steve Heyer spent $75,000,000 in the 2010 election. He has been know to spend $11,000,000 to buy influence in a single race. 

No comments:

Post a Comment