The Sky is Falling
and They Call it Climate Change
by Kathy Rose
On November 17, 2017 the Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL) held an event entitled “Let’s Clear the Air” in Sandpoint. It was promoted as bi-partisan event but it was heavily biased toward those who subscribe to the belief that climate change is man-made.
Apparently there was a survey taken and the figure of 72% of Bonner County citizens wanting to regulate CO2 was over used. The facts were omitted about who conducted the survey, who were the participants, or what the questions were. This is a further example of biased research surrounding this topic.
The “climate scientist” who spoke, twice said he could be wrong, but we need an insurance policy in case he’s correct. The presenter from Audubon described how birds were a concern. She went on to tout the banning of DDT as saving the eagles, but did not touch on the fact that birds are being fried by solar farms and killed by wind turbines.
Commissioner Bailey explained that he was not convinced that climate change is man-made. Even though the moderators had said they were open all perspectives, the “Love Lives Here” audience was vocally oppositional to his view. Representative Sage Dixon, could not attend but host Ben Olson read his statement explaining how he also does not think climate change is man-made.
The Citizens’ Climate Lobby, a national organization with a local Sandpoint chapter, is proposing a variation on Cap and Trade, called Carbon Fee and Dividend. Under this new plan, $15 per ton of CO2 equivalent emissions would be charged at the point of extraction, for the first year. The fee would increase at least $10 each year. The speaker explained that that would equate to $0.15 per gallon of gasoline at the start.
For importers, there will be a Border Adjustment. Carbon Fee Equivalent Tariffs shall be charged for goods entering the US from any countries that do not have comparable carbon fees.
The funds would then be redistributed back to each citizen as a dividend, making it cost neutral. This is a plan that has never been tried, but their assumed projections include an increase in jobs, a decrease in deaths, more free market innovations, and ultimately lowering the CO2 emissions by moving away from, what they label as fossil fuels.
When asked about who would be administering this program, the answer was they did not know which agency it would fall under. That means it will be controlled by the federal government. Commissioner Bailey did not believe the federal government would give the funds back to the citizens, based on the history of other government programs.
Of those who were in attendance in support of government regulations, how many walked or rode their bicycle to the event? How many live their lives to minimize their CO2?
Will imposing fees or taxes reduce CO2? If there truly is man-made climate change, we need to address it as a cultural shift. What is the real goal here? Is it more than “the sky is falling”?
Read more information about the proposed plan by the CCL here: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/
Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: Paypal.me/RedoubtNews
I’m constantly amazed that no one opposing this climate change scam, and especially, the Carbon taxing scam, brings up something that all should have learned in 4th grade science. No life on the planet would exist without carbon. Anyone that has a greenhouse, aqua plants, or grows things, knows that carbon is needed by the plants. This whole scam counts on the fact that our entire population appears to be dumbed down and doesn’t know elementary school science.
First of all, there is no such thing as a man-made global warming/climate change issue. Second, supposing there were any merit to it at all, a carbon tax would do nothing at all to prohibit or stop Co2 dumping into the air by industry. All that does is cause industry to pay for whatever they are pumping out into the air. The Carbon tax does not stop the action. It is called “The Polluter Pays Principle”.
Luckily though, it’s a false hype scenario to begin with, so how much of your money do you want to keep? Me- …all of mine- I will be keeping all of mine, thank you. Not dumb enough to give a cent to a false money thieving scam.
So…they want us to pay more for gasoline, due to an untried program, based on assumed projections, administered by unknown bureaucrats, and then they’ll give our money back? How do the bureaucrats get paid? It sure sounds like a scam to me. How about we just skip the whole thing and keep our money!
Do these people know that plants, including trees, take in CO2 and release the oxygen we breathe?
Love your point here, Nancy, we would be better off with them not collecting the tax and paying a ‘skimming’ fee for their ‘redistribution’. Which in spite of the way they made it sound would not go back to the people who paid the tax. Just another form of ‘income equalizing’.