The bureaucrats running the San Francisco Bay Area air quality board are proposing a fee on businesses that release carbon dioxide into the air.
The fee will be 4.2 cents per metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted and could raise as much as $1.2 million per year. The proponents of this scheme admit that such a paltry fee will not deter greenhouse gas production in the least. The amount exacted, however, will pay for the cost of monitoring greenhouse gases. In other words the victims will pay for a program that will, in the very near future, be used to justify the imposition of real, punitive fees. Boulder, Colorado, already has a carbon dioxide emissions fee structure in place that funds global warming education, energy audits, and something called weatherization.
"These actions provide both models for federal action and reflect a growing desire on the part of the American people to see action on climate change," says one climate change policy coördinator. Says another apparatchik, "It’s not a fee that would mitigate the effects of carbon — to do that we would be planting trees and buying wind power credits. This recovers the cost of the agency integrating climate protection into all of our programs."
The climate change hysterics may pretend that they are modern and on the cutting edge but they are only following the pattern set up by antitobacco decades ago: extract money from a targeted industry to finance educational programs to be run by the very thugs who are picking the pockets of the victims. It worked for anti-smoking con artists and it will work for those running the global warming rackets as well.
To continue the pattern this story reports that the Bay Area industries that will be hit hardest by the carbon dioxide fee, oil refiners and power plants, object not at all to the emission charge but worry that the scheme will "undermine wider efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions." Yes, the power plant operators and oil executives who know full well that anthropogenic climate change is an unproven theory, and that the rise in global temperatures, if any, is paltry, nevertheless publicly and loudly worship at the climate change altar. They endorse the hoax, as did the tobacco industry, in the vain hope that someday their craven acquiescence and embrace of scientific fraud would shelter them from the increasingly confiscatory regulations that sooner or later, in fact, will ruin them.
0 Comments