Despite the fact that the climate temperature has decreased by .74F since Gore release An Inconvenient Truth even though CO2 atmospheric concentrations continue to rise, the True Believers think they have hit upon another fantastic scheme, controlling the rich
To fairly divide the climate change fight between rich and poor, a new study suggests basing targets for emission cuts on the number of wealthy people, who are also the biggest greenhouse gas emitters, in a country.
Since about half the planet’s climate-warming emissions come from less than a billion of its people, it makes sense to follow these rich folks when setting national targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions, the authors wrote on Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. To fairly divide the climate change fight between rich and poor, a new study suggests basing targets for emission cuts on the number of wealthy people, who are also the biggest greenhouse gas emitters, in a country.
I have a better idea: we should cap the amount of CO2 allowed to be released by the True Believers. No cap and trade for them, no purchasing of carbon offsets. Once they reach their limit, they stay home. Imagine the outcome. No longer would folks like James Hansen, Al Gore, Ban Moon-Ki, and all the others who are constantly travelling around the world to exotic vacation spots for conferences, putting out massive CO2, would be restricted to walking the talk. That would be upsetting to them. Less money and prestige, no more do as I say, not as I do. Shame.
The study is an interesting way for a world government to start controlling people, instead of attempting to control countries, eh?
And now we have another fine..zzzzzzzz..sorry news magazine, US News and World Report, allowing an opinion piece critical of cap and tax, a favorite of Obama’s. After highlighting an interesting part of the legislation which provides for unemployment payments for the people who will be out of jobs due to capNtax
Building a safety net into the legislation is probably the responsible thing to do. The government is going to be directly responsible for the destruction of millions of jobs if the bill passed by the House becomes law—anywhere from a net loss of .5 percent of total jobs over the first 10 years, according to the liberal Brookings Institution, to 3 million by the year 2030, according to the industry-backed Coalition for Affordable American Energy. But wouldn’t it be better to leave the jobs alone in the first place? It would certainly be cheaper.
I’d have to search the bill for the relevant portion, but, I did run across a portion on page 253 of the 3am addition that basically says they know LOTS of jobs will get wacked. They apparently do not care. If people are out of work and being given government money, it gives those in charge more power.
Others: Right Pundits, Chronicle of the Conspiracy, protein wisdom, The Lonely Conservative , THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS, YID With LID, Gateway Pundit and The Lonely Conservative
Teach the problem with your idea is that the amount that those cited produce while certainly more than you or I would not actually meaningfully decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.