His supporters call him a visionary. His detractors call him a con artist. One thing is certain though, the hype of AGW is making Al Gore a very rich man. And that alone should make people very skeptical of his “cause”.
Few people have been as vocal about the urgency of global warming and the need to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes energy. And few have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.
Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming skeptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire,” profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.
And, in fact, the NYT describes just such a venture that will now pay off for Gore and his partners. You remember those “smart grid” grants handed out a week or so ago?
The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient. It came to Mr. Gore’s firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, one of Silicon Valley’s top venture capital providers, looking for $75 million to expand its partnerships with utilities seeking to install millions of so-called smart meters in homes and businesses.
Mr. Gore and his partners decided to back the company, and in gratitude Silver Spring retained him and John Doerr, another Kleiner Perkins partner, as unpaid corporate advisers.
The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts. Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.
How very, uh, convenient. Anyone who doesn’t believe Gore’s connections inside government at very high levels isn’t paying off just isn’t paying attention. Gore has pushed AGW vigorously for years and until recently when the science he based his pitch on has been found seriously wanting, he’s pretty much had it his way. Governments around the globe swallowed it whole and the movement has grown into a veritable religion.
Gore’s reaction to the skepticism about his profiting off what many, myself included, consider a gigantic scam?
Mr. Gore says that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is.
“Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?” Mr. Gore said. “I am proud of it. I am proud of it.”
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with being active in business in this country, Mr. Gore – unless of course it’s the coal business or the lumber business or the nuclear energy business, or the oil business. Or for that matter the pharmaceutical business, health insurance business or financial sector. Then there’s the car business …
Well you get the idea. What Mr. Gore is actually proud of is creating a business that’s a politically popular one and stands to suck in untold piles of money based on a scam that would make Bernie Madoff green with envy. Because Al Gore has created and is engaged in a “legal” ripoff the size of which the world has never seen. Of course he’s “proud of it”.
Of course a planet minus humans most likely would be too if you believe all the hype about AGW. And there are those among the radical environmentalists who believe that to be a laudable goal. So I’m not sure where, on the ranking of radicals with dumb ideas, this guy ranks:
People will need to consider turning vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.
In an interview with The Times, Lord Stern of Brentford said: “Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”
Direct emissions of methane fr-om cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases. Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas.
If one looks carefully at our teeth, they discover were omnivores. That means to most that we’re genetically set up to eat both meat and vegetables. Consequently it is rather suspect when one claims that one or the other would be “better” for us.
But, of course, that’s not what Stern is saying. He’s saying it would be better for the planet, you see. In fact, the planet couldn’t care less. It will be here in some form regardless of what we do. We cannot destroy it. At best, if you believe the specious science the AGW crowd is citing, the most we can do is change it slightly (as history has proven, “climate change” is a constant for the planet). And that is suspect since the “science” surrounding those beliefs claims we should be warming when in fact we’ve been cooling for a decade.
Stern believes attitudes toward meat can be changed to the point that it will be abandoned as a source of food:
He predicted that people’s attitudes would evolve until meat eating became unacceptable. “I think it’s important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating,” he said. “I am 61 now and attitudes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student. People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.”
PETA has been trying to change the attitude toward meat since I can remember, largely unsuccessfully. While people can certainly understand the dire consequences of drinking while driving or smoking on their lives and the lives of others, both behaviors continue anyway. And neither is a particularly good analogy when it comes to meat.
The only way such restrictions on vital sources of protein are going to take place is if governments buy into Stern’s nonsense and begin to limit production. And although he doesn’t overtly suggest such a scheme, the implication is certainly there:
Lord Stern said that Copenhagen presented a unique opportunity for the world to break free from its catastrophic current trajectory. He said that the world needed to agree to halve global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 to 25 gigatonnes a year from the current level of 50 gigatonnes.
UN figures suggest that meat production is responsible for about 18 per cent of global carbon emissions, including the destruction of forest land for cattle ranching and the production of animal feeds such as soy.
There are many who suggest that the ultimate goal of environmentalists is a form of world government with teeth. I.e. one which has taxing and enforcement power. The “AGW emergency” provides a perfect pretext for such an organization. Carbon credits provide the taxing mechanism (since doing it “properly” would require a world body to administer it and collect the taxes). The enforcement arm isn’t as obvious yet.
That’s not to say that this nonsense is the key to the establishment of such a government. It is simply one of many schemes pointed toward that sort of outcome. As many have mentioned, the environmental movement, at least on the radical side, seems to have attracted all of the communists who were without a home after the collapse of the USSR. Centralized power and totalitarian rule “for the good of the planet” are part and parcel of their agenda (in fact, it is always part of the answer for them). And ideas such as Stern’s are the means by which the “emergency” can be avoided if only they’re allowed to implement rules and restrictions that are necessary to save us from ourselves. They are sure, to steal a phrase, “they (and their ideas) are the ones we’ve been waiting for”. Of course the law of unintended consequences never enters their thinking and the fate of millions of real people aren’t really their concern. It is all about “saving the planet”.
Our freedoms are under heavy assault both domestically and internationally. I can’t remember a recent time when the danger to them has been any higher. And nonsense like this and the AGW movement as a whole are aimed at further limiting them. Resistance, then, is the highest form of patriotism if we want to remain a free country. We need to be the “country of ‘no'”. Unfortunately, with our current leadership, I believe that may not be the case. Copenhagen will be our first indication of whether that’s true or not.
The next step in enviro-whackiness? Sweden’s on it:
New labels listing the carbon dioxide emissions associated with the production of foods, from whole wheat pasta to fast food burgers, are appearing on some grocery items and restaurant menus around the country.
People who live to eat might dismiss this as silly. But changing one’s diet can be as effective in reducing emissions of climate-changing gases as changing the car one drives or doing away with the clothes dryer, scientific experts say.
Yes friends – emission labels, not nutrition labels. Eat unhealthy if it helps save the planet – that’s you role in life. Apparently, however, it is all still a little confusing:
Shopping for oatmeal, Helena Bergstrom, 37, admitted that she was flummoxed by the label on the blue box reading, “Climate declared: .87 kg CO2 per kg of product.”
“Right now, I don’t know what this means,” said Ms. Bergstrom, a pharmaceutical company employee.
It means that right now someone has a “bright” idea that is voluntary. But given Europe’s proclivity for nanny-state control of the lives of its citizens, one has to wonder how long it will remain voluntary or before foods with high emissions are slapped with a carbon tax.
Kristian Eriksson, 26, an information technology specialist, looked embarrassed when asked about the burger he was eating at an outdoor table.
“You feel guilty picking red meat,” he said.
Only if you buy into the swill known as AGW, Kristian – only if you buy into it.
UPDATE: Fran Smith finds some problems with the labeling:
But the Swedish food police admit that they are some problems in balancing healthy eating with low-carbon-footprint eating. And it doesn’t always work. Their guidelines that form the basis for the labels tell people to eat carrots instead of tomatoes, and not to eat many bananas. Have they not read or heard about the antioxidant properties of tomatoes? There are also a lot of questions about their methods of measuring climate-friendly production. In their view how the production contributes to the landscape is a big plus
And there’s the implied “buy local” side of it all:
[L]ocally grown, Swedish stuff produces lower emissions. Guidelines don’t state it but it’s implied: Imports are bad because of emissions from transportation — whether truck or ship or plane.
For instance, a New Zealand apple has a CO2 equivalent of 4 while a Swedish apple only rates a 1. So not only will those buying into this nonsense feel guilty eating a burger, they’ll feel guilty eating an apple if it’s not a Swedish apple.
UPDATE II: Ryan Young notes:
This new religion is a piece of work. It comes complete with a deity (Gaia), clergy (activists), indulgences (carbon credits), and now, dietary restrictions.
The Copenhagen summit is in December and yesterday UN climate chief Yvo de Boer said he didn’t expect a binding agreement to come out of the meeting, dashing the hopes of environmental extremists that the nations of the world would agree to binding reductions of so-called greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Today India, apparently speaking for, or speaking with the approval of, the world’s developing nations (of which China considers itself one):
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said Thursday that the world’s poor nations will not sacrifice their development in negotiations for a new climate change deal.
The issue of how to share the burden of fighting global warming has divided the developing and industrialized worlds as they prepare to negotiate a replacement to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol at a December summit in Copenhagen.
“Developing countries cannot and will not compromise on development,” Singh told an international conference on technology and climate change.
Naturally he threw a little diplospeak out there to soften the refusal to play the game:
However, even poorer countries need to “do our bit to keep our emissions footprint within levels that are sustainable and equitable,” he said.
Riiiight. And that means they’ll decide what constitutes “sustainable and equitable” as it applies to their economy, not the targets some world body wants to put on them. Both India and China, two of the largest emitters of GHGs in the world have repeatedly said no to binding reductions and international monitoring. But they’re up for a little friendly looting:
Developing countries want financial aid for their climate change efforts, and Singh said wealthy nations have an obligation to ensure they get access to new, clean technology that will cut emissions and increase energy efficiency.
“We need technology solutions that are appropriate, affordable and effective,” he said.
I certainly don’t blame them a bit for refusing to hurt themselves economically in the name of specious “science” (thankfully, Americans are beginning to figure out the scam). And the fact they won’t do so should confirm to even the most fanatic global warmist that attempts to cut GHGs will indeed cause major economic distress. Additionally, as pointed out here and elsewhere, cap-and-trade attempts in Europe and elsewhere have been a disaster with no net reduction in such emissions observed.
I look for Copenhagen to be a bust and am quite happy about that, frankly. The US will show up empty handed with nothing but promises (Waxman-Markey thankfully not having passed yet), the UN will play the international “Chicken Little”, 3rd world “developing” countries will have their hands out as usual and industrialized nations won’t be able to agree on much of anything.
Which lies? Well in this case I’m talking about the lie that cap-and-trade will be a green job bonanza and an overall job producer and that it will stimulate the economy. Not so says the CBO:
So, instead of stimulating economic growth, it will slow it and instead of creating net jobs, it will be a job killer. Tell me again how that’s a “good thing” in a recession?
A House-passed bill that targets climate change through a cap-and-trade system of pollution credits would slow the nation’s economic growth slightly over the next few decades and would create “significant” job losses fr-om fossil fuel industries as the country shifts to renewable energy, the head of the Congressional Budget Office told a Senate energy panel Wednesday.
CBO Director Douglas W. Elmendorf emphasized that his estimates contained significant uncertainties and “do not include any benefits from averting climate change,” but his message nevertheless contrasted sharply with those of President Obama and congressional Democratic leaders, who have suggested that a cap on carbon emissions would help revive the U.S. economy.
How much will it slow the economy? Elmendorf’s estimates:
Elmendorf testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that the cap-and-trade provisions of the House bill — in which emitters of greenhouse gases would be able to buy and sell pollution credits — would cut the nation’s gross domestic product by 0.25 to 0.75 percent in 2020 compared with “what it would otherwise have been,” and by 1 to 3.5 percent in 2050.
That in the face of growing skepticism over the science supporting the premise that a) man is causing the climate change problem and b) that man can actually “change” nature’s direction in that regard.
But that doesn’t matter. Reps Waxman and Markey have decided that it is necessary regardless of the science, cost or what you want. They have a planet to save you see and it’s all our fault we’re in the situation we’re in now:
“The harsh reality is that America’s global warming and energy challenges are just too important for us to keep mailing it in by not enacting a comprehensive energy and global warming bill.”
So they plan on passing this tax which will slow growth, increase joblessness and impact most those who can afford it the least. Why would they concern themselves with that when the possibility exists they might be able to save a couple of polar bears.
Congress’s approval ratings effectively reflect their priorities – and as you can tell, constituents have figured out their priorities have nothing to do with the needs of constituents or the nation.
That is if we’re committed to using science as the basis for our determination of whether or not the House or Senate versions of cap-and-trade are needed. And, as we’ve been pointing out for the last couple of weeks, the science of AGW is shaky at best and continuing to come apart at the seams.
But that hasn’t stopped ye olde sausage factory in the Senate from grinding out another version of CO2 emissions control. The Boxer-Kerry (BK) cap-and-trade bill has emerged with even more stringent caps on CO2 than the Waxman-Markey (WM) bill. BK calls for a 20% overall reduction of 2005 levels by 2020 (17% in WM) and 83% by 2050.
You can get an idea of how BK plans on administering the carbon offset market here. But, like WM, it targets those industries which fuel and power the nation (although unlike WM, it does give a nod to nuclear power and “clean” coal). However there is evidence that the administration is trying to hide the real impact of such legislation from the American people:
Meanwhile, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) today accused the Treasury Department of continuing to hide information on the cost of climate legislation. In a news release, CEI said it had notified the Treasury Department of its intent to sue over the administration’s “inadequate disclosure of documents” recently requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
Documents released by the Treasury Department two weeks ago show the administration believed climate legislation could cost as much as $300 billion per year, which was much higher than the government’s public estimates, and could result in companies moving overseas. Studies have shown that the Waxman-Markey bill could eliminate 2 million American jobs a year.
2 million jobs a year? See the post below. Add the cost of 300 billion a year and then try to imagine a manufacturer that is a heavy user of energy trying to justify staying here instead of going somewhere else where not only energy, but labor, are cheaper than here.
Thus far BK has about 45 Senators who’ve signed on. Kerry is giddy (this would most likely be his first substantial accomplishment during his Senatorial tenure and naturally it would do more harm than good) saying he thinks the bill has a good shot of passing. But a senior Republican says he knows of no Republicans who would support the bill as written.
Senator Lamar Alexander seems to represent the prevailing thinking of the Senate’s Republicans:
“The Kerry-Boxer bill has fancy, complicated words that add up to high energy costs that will drive U.S. jobs overseas looking for cheap energy,” said Lamar Alexander of Tennessee.
But John Kerry see’s it differently:
Kerry said the event was the “beginning of one of the most important battles we will ever face as legislators and citizens.”
For once, Kerry is right about something, but not for the reason he believes. It is the beginning of one of the most important battle we well ever face and the importance lies in the fact that if passed, this legislation will kill jobs, push companies out of the US and drive our economy off the cliff. That makes it very important in my book. And with Copenhagen’s climate talks coming up in December, Democrats are going to try to push this turkey through so President Obama doesn’t show up empty handed.
The short term goal should be to ensure he does show up empty handed and the long term goal should be to defeat this outright. It’s based on shaky science, it is an economy killer and it will cost us far more than it will ever accomplish in terms of the environment. A much more sensible course would be a comprehensive energy policy which begins to use nuclear power and natural gas as the basis of a transition to clean energy with viable renewable brought on line as they become available while continuing to use and exploit the resources we have available.
Instead we’re being threatened with legislation that’s real purpose is to create a multi-billion dollar revenue stream out of thin air which will cost us jobs, income and our standard of living.
UPDATE: Speaking of Copenhagen and the desire to show up at the climate conference with something positive, it appears that the Obama administration has decided it will act unilaterally instead of wait on Congress.
Unwilling to wait for Congress to act, the Obama administration announced on Wednesday that it was moving forward on new rules to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from hundreds of power plants and large industrial facilities.
But he has authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to begin moving toward regulation, which could goad lawmakers into reaching an agreement. It could also provide evidence of the United States’ seriousness as negotiators prepare for United Nations talks in Copenhagen in December intended to produce an international agreement to combat global warming.
“We are not going to continue with business as usual,” Lisa P. Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator, said Wednesday in a conference call with reporters. “We have the tools and the technology to move forward today, and we are using them.”
The proposed rules, which could take effect as early as 2011, would place the greatest burden on 400 power plants, new ones and those undergoing substantial renovation, by requiring them to prove that they have applied the best available technology to reduce emissions or face penalties.
Phaaa, Congress … who need’s them?
Last week I pointed to the fact that the “scientist” who provided much of the basis for the AGW crowd’s alarmist appeal (as incorporated in the UN’s 2007 IPCC report) refused to provide the original data on which that model was based to peers. He later claimed that the original data had been lost because it was unable to be transferred to newer data storage (an unmitigated crock). IOW, peers can’t review his data and check out his theory to ensure what he’s theorizing has a valid basis in fact. That’s a cardinal sin in real science circles.
And now, in less than a week, a second cardinal sin is uncovered. That of cherry-picking data. In the cross-hairs is Keith Briffa. Steve McIntyre explains the problem:
The Briffa temperature graphs have been widely cited as evidence by the IPCC, yet it appears they were based on a very carefully selected set of data, so select, that the shape of the graph would have been totally transformed if the rest of the data had been included.
In fact, as with Phil Jones who I reported about last week, Briffa refused repeated requests for his original data (from tree rings). And it was the Briffa graphs which were used to support the contention that the “hockey stick” was valid.
When others finally got a hold of all the data and graphed it out, their findings were quite different than Briffa’s:
And, of course, when they were merged they told quite a different story than was Briffa and the IPCC:
My, what a difference using all the data makes, no?
Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts have all the gory details, but as one commenter on Watt’s site says:
Coming just after the “lost” data from the Hadley Centre by Phil Jones, this is beginning to look more than just carelessness.
I call it the “great unraveling”. The hoax is coming unglued. And this shameful conduct will set real science back 100 years.
The question is, will the politicians see it before it is too late? Will the administration which promised that science would again take the forefront actually keep its word and ensure that happens? Methinks we’re going to find out that a political agenda and ideology are much more powerful than science. Science, quite honestly, is only useful to politicians – any politician – as long as it advances their agenda. If it doesn’t then the politician will claim it to be false science – regardless of how overwhelming the evidence is to the contrary.
This story slipped quietly under the radar last week as we had the UN speech, the Iran revelation and the G20.
An examination of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation finds it contains 397 new regulations and 1,100 new mandates. And you’ll be pleased to know it will simplify your life, make child birth pleasant and cost you nothing.
But you can rest assured there is most likely something for everyone because this isn’t just about controlling CO2 emissions. This is about more control of your life via the radical green agenda.
Take homeowners for instance. If you thought selling your house was a pain in the kiester before, Mr. Waxman and Mr. Markey can’t wait to make it even more fun for you:
One of them would affect almost everyone who buys or sells a home. If Waxman-Markey becomes law, homes for sale that qualify as “federally related transactions” — which is almost all of them — would be required to undergo an environmental inspection.
Inspections are not free. Nor is fixing the inevitable violations. Compliance with new energy-efficiency standards would make homes, especially older ones, more expensive. Selling one’s home would become even harder than it already is in this down market if Waxman-Markey-style cap and trade becomes law.
And that is just one of the unintended consequences.
Suppose you have a window that isn’t quite airtight or your appliances are a little too old. Maybe they’re not Energy Star certified. You’d have to replace them before you would be allowed to sell your home.
Suppose you wanted to sell your house “as is” and let the person who buys it fix it up, for a suitable discount of course.
That is no longer a choice you’ll have. The buyer and seller wouldn’t be allowed to make that decision anymore. The party that continuously claims that “choice” is important to them apparently believe that particular choice is one neither the buyer or seller should have. The transaction is subject to the regulations of Mr. Waxman and Mr. Markey’s bill and you’ll not sell anything government inspectors haven’t deemed “green” enough to sell and certified as such.
Nothing, of course, could go wrong with that, could it? And of course, the article deals with just one of the unintended consequences. Let me again point out that it includes 397 new regulations – that means there’s at least one unintended consequence for each of them (and possibly more) and it will most likely be a nasty surprise.
In fact, take a good look at what could be more of the unintended consequences from just the regulation requiring home inspections:
To sum up: Inspecting homes for sale for their environmental friendliness would raise home prices. Buying or selling a home would become an even more onerous process than it already is. And there’s an easy way to dodge the bullet: Rent instead of own. If enough people did that, the inspection requirement would fail to achieve its goal of making homes more energy efficient.
And that in the face of and in conflict with policy which seeks to increase home ownership.
When regulation becomes too arduous, what do people normally do? Adjust, avoid and do what is easier and cheaper.
Is there any reason, depending on what the other 396 regulations contain, that the same won’t happen with them?
This is where we’re headed – regulators literally telling you what trees to plant and how to plant them (that’s actually contained in the Waxman-Markey bill as pointed out in a previous post). Is this the government you want? Is this the level of government with which you’re comfortable?
If they can require you to plant your trees and fix up your home their way, what else might they figure they should have the power to do?
That number doesn’t come from some opposition think tank or the CBO. According to CBS, that number is one calculated by the administration as the cost of Waxman-Markey:
The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.
A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration’s estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.
Interestingly, the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank, put the cost at $1,500 a few months ago and were slammed for using scare tactics to try to defeat the bill. Other estimates range as high as $3,100. Democrats have used $800 a year as their estimate based on a study by MIT’s John Reilly.
The FOIA’d document written by Judson Jaffe, who joined the Treasury Department’s Office of Environment and Energy in January 2009, says: “Given the administration’s proposal to auction all emission allowances, a cap-and-trade program could generate federal receipts on the order of $100 to $200 billion annually.” (Obviously, any final cap-and-trade system may be different from what Obama had proposed, and could yield higher or lower taxes.)
Because personal income tax revenues bring in around $1.37 trillion a year, a $200 billion additional tax would be the equivalent of a 15 percent increase a year. A $100 billion additional tax would represent a 7 or 8 percent increase a year.
Of course, whatever the cost, it will hit those who can least afford it the hardest. What will that mean? Well, if history is any indication, it means a certain percentage of the population will be subsidized by another percentage of the population. Whether in the form of tax credits (unlikely, since the segment of the population likely to need help probably doesn’t pay taxes anyway) or direct subsidization, it will end up as a giant, bureaucratic redistribution scheme riddled with fraud, waste and abuse. For some families the cost will be close to zero. For others it will be well above $1,726 per family when they pay for those subsidies in other taxes.
And Jimmy Carter doesn’t yet understand why people are angry? Buy a clue, Mr. Carter.
Cap-and-trade is only the beginning. France is mulling a CO2 tax on its citizens:
The French government plans next year to begin making heavy users of household and transport fuels bear more of the tax burden. President Nicolas Sarkozy is expected to say in coming weeks that such a shift is necessary to nudge French citizens toward cleaner alternatives.
The tax would reportedly start at about 14 euros (or $20) for each ton of CO2 emitted, and could rise to levels of around 100 euros ($143) for each ton by 2030. That could mean substantial increases in the price of gasoline and diesel, as well as a sizable jump in the cost of keeping homes warm.
Nudge French citizens? What is government doing nudging its citizens toward anything to do with their energy usage? Quite simply government, at least in France, has decided that citizens must conform to its priorities (proven or unproven) and thus uses its power to tax to “nudge” people into the behavior it prefers?
Is that a proper function of government? Only if you believe government is infallible and should be the arbiter of what constitutes the “proper” way of living. Trust me, such a belief has absolutely nothing to do with freedom, choice or liberty.
But skeptics say the idea may have less to do with clean energy, and more to do with a desire on the part of Mr. Sarkozy’s government to find new ways to keep the national debt in check.
Heh … the skeptics may be on to something. We have the same sort of problem in this country which is why I imply that cap-and-trade is only the beginning. Once implemented government will use the precedent (“we’re controlling industrial CO2 emission, now we need to control “private” CO2 emissions”) to tax citizens on their use. It’s all about revenue and this source is perfect – created, literally, out of thin air.
As usual, the socialists in France (and elsewhere) are without a clue:
In addition, members of the opposition Socialist party have slammed the plan, suggesting it would unfairly burden lower income citizens — particularly those who are obliged to use their cars.
Segolene Royal, a former presidential candidate, has instead called for direct taxes on gasoline and other energy companies.
Because everyone knows that a direct tax on “gasoline and other energy companies” would never be passed on to “lower income citizens” who are “obliged to use their cars” and “unfairly burden” them, would they?