Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...48a6&Issue_id=
And we get to the meat of the issue, and what all the hot air is really about. Extorting money from 'wealthy' nations, under UN control.
Does anyone really trust the UN with say 40 billion US dollars to 'distribute'?
|
UStwo......why am I not surprised you highlight Marc Morano and one radical proposed solution from one "global tax advocate" rather than look at all of the suggested mitigation strategies.
BTW, Morano is doing a great job as the mouthpiece for Senator Inhofe and his energy industry contributors.
JAMES M. INHOFE (R-OK) - Contributions by Sector (2006 senate campaign)
Have you bothered to read the
IPCC mitigation summary report (pdf), which identifies a wide range of economically sustainable mitigation strategies? Yes, it includes taxes, as well as subsidies and tax incentives among many other suggestions, to lower emissions, provide for greater energy efficiencies of existing energy applications and technologies, and develop alternative energy sources.
I wouldnt support a global tax as proposed in the article; I dont support Kyoto. I think there should be broad international goals and standards, with each country determining its own policies and practices to meet those goals. I do believe the greatest emission contributors (US, China....) should bear a greater burden.
Ustwo, tell me, what is wrong with the US committing to a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to below 1990 levels by 2020, particularly if it can be achieved with little or no negative economic impact?
Were you one of those naysayers in the 70s (bah humbug...who needs clean air and clean water if its gonna cost me a few bucks)?