Anonymous asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 1 decade ago

Oh, what a surprise. New taxes needed to combat Climate Change?

"BONN, Germany – Carbon taxes, add-ons to international air fares and a levy on cross-border money movements are among ways being considered by a panel of the world's leading economists to raise a staggering $100 billion a year to fight climate change."

"A climate summit held in Copenhagen in December was determined to mobilize $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poor countries adapt to climate change and reduce emissions of carbon dioxide trapping the sun's heat. But the 120 world leaders who met in the Danish capital offered no ideas on how to raise that sum — $1 trillion every decade — prompting Ban to appoint his high-level advisory group."

"In short, a new industrial revolution is needed to move the world away from fossil fuels to low carbon growth, he said."

Intemperate questions:

How does throwing a wad of cash at some third world banana republic dictator mitigate the so called effects of climate change?

How does carbon trading motivate private industry to do anything other than hire lawyers to figure out how to game the system?

Does anyone really believe that taxing the snot out of business, hurts anyone other than the consumer? You do understand that all taxes are added to the final price tag of everything you buy, right?

Does it surprise anyone that George Soros has a hand in this?

18 Answers

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Higher taxes will not change the weather or climate . Who do you pay the weather tax too.

    Mother nature , leave 100 bills under a rock someplace?

    Since Soros is invoked with this quackery does he have enough billions and need more?

    A greedy Socialist liberal what a concept.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Climate change isn't going to happen because some liberal said it's going to happen or some conservative says it isn't, it's just physics. BUT raising taxes doesn't have to happen. If the conservatives would stop acting like oil-money druggies and go back to pragmatism, they could easily fight for and win caps on taxation from liberals in exchange for switching to resource taxation. And even if GW wasn't happening, it would be less-bad from a conservative economics standpoint to tax un-renewable resources than to tax labor or production (income taxes, VAT). Doubly so if you're pro-America rather than pro-Saudi-Arabia.... somehow people aren't noticing that if this is a swindle it's a big swindle by non-OPEC countries at the expense of OPEC.

    One of the sad parts of this whole debate is the general immaturity and silliness of the "skeptic" movement has created a lot of noise in the debate instead of a real debate about what to do -- and yes, Wall Street greed has stepped in with cap and trade ideas that are distinctly designed to subsidize them, when we could easily have a left-right compromise like switching from sales tax to carbon tax that should make everyone -- except the oil industry -- happy. Wall Street is a very latecomer to the global warming debate, their money all lined up on the skeptic side until the science became rather overwhelming, but now they'll take a cut if we try to save ourselves, if we let them.

    One of the clearest "follow the money" views on the climate change debate is how little the skeptic political/blog arguments track straightforward conservative economic theory, and how much they track the oil industry interests. The oil industry would suffer (here and OPEC) from lowering sales taxes or income taxes and raising carbon taxes.

    Instead there will continue to be spurious arguments about the science until we face a real crisis, and then we'll be spending money on reclamation, flood control, migration, farm issues, probably wars and dozens of other crises that people will insist the gov't help with, PLUS at that point there won't be space or respect for conservative economic views on keeping taxes down. The skeptic movement, freed from "conservative" oil and Wall Street interests, could pretty easily turn even a false GW scare into a tax-neutral push for economic efficiency. Why aren't you?

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Joann
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    "Flying is a major source of pollution," Turbine powered aircraft are pretty clean, those running on petrol can be pretty nasty thanks to 100LL. In terms of CO2, they should be taxed, but so should everything else that emits CO2 (including power plants and cars). Aviation is a minor contributor to global warming and also one where we don't really have any alternatives so we should be spending our resources dealing with bigger sources where we do have alternatives (such as fossil fuel electricity that could be replaced by nuclear fission). With short flights of up to around 1000 km high speed trains could provide roughly the same travel time (when boarding, going through security, driving to airport outside of city, etc are taken into account) as planes although to get the full environmental benefit from that you'd have to use nuclear electricity to run the trains (as they do in France), for longer distances there's really nothing that can compete with air travel. As for what the money from a carbon tax should be used for, I'd say we invest it for mitigation work.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Yeah, I'd like to pursue options that involve smaller government and lower taxes. I've yet to see those options. Its pretty clear the real agenda has nothing to do with climate control and everything to do with people control.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Hey Dent,

    Now if you wackos will only use your common sense and read some of these answers, you will see the true danger of global warming. Oh! that's right, global warming alarmist have no kind of sense. And no it would not surprise me to find soros involved, if it is evil or wrong for the majority, I expect to see George Soros, the evil, speculating, puppet master involved.

    Gary F,

    Gary, Gary, Gary,

    I am still here trying my best to teach my liberal followers something, now you come along to confuse them.

    I see Trevor is here too, how about three of my favorite people on Yahoo on the same question.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    That's because the Climategate fiasco, where the data was admitted by scientists to have been manipulated, was investigated and cleared and cleared by climate cultists.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    George Soros, the very evil man behind the curtain, Can one man really bring down America?

    I am sure this info has come up many times here but these are things that need to be brought up over and over again.

    Soros: Republic Enemy #1 : Illegal Market Manipulation, Felony Insider Trading, Villain, Currency collapses

    By Jim O'Neill Tuesday, September 15, 2009

    “The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.”—George Soros

    “George Soros is an evil man. He’s anti-God, anti-family, anti-American, and

    anti-good.” —Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson

    Is it possible to lay the global financial meltdown, the radicalizing of the Democratic Party, and America’s moral decline, at the feet of one man?

    It is indeed possible.

    If George Soros isn’t the world’s preeminent “malignant messianic narcissist,” he’ll do until the real thing comes along. Move over, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. There’s a new kid on the block.

    What we have in Soros, is a multi-billionaire atheist, with skewed moral values, and a sociopath’s lack of conscience. He considers himself to be a world class philosopher, despises capitalism, and just loves social engineering.

    Uh oh. Can you say “trouble,” boys and girls?

    Soros is a real life version of Dr. Evil—with Obama in the role of Mini-Me. Which is not as humorous as it might at first sound. In fact, it’s bone-deep chilling.

    György Schwartz, better known to the world as George Soros, was born August 12, 1930 in Hungary. Soros’ father, Tivadar, was a fervent practitioner of Esperanto—a language invented in 1887, and designed to be the first global language, free of any national identity.

    The Schwartz’s, who were non-practicing Jews, changed the family name to Soros, in order to facilitate assimilation into the gentile population, as the Nazis spread into Hungary during the 1930s. Soros is an Esperanto word meaning “to soar.”

    In 1944 Hitler’s henchman Adolf Eichmann arrived in Hungary, to oversee the murder of that country’s Jews. The Soros children were all given fake identity papers, and were shipped out to various Christian families. George Soros ended up with a man whose job was confiscating property from the Jewish population. Soros went with him on his rounds.

    Soros has repeatedly called 1944 “the best year of his life.”

    In an article in the Wall Street Journal, Joshua Muravchik notes that, “70% of Mr. Soros’s fellow Jews in Hungary, nearly a half-million human beings, were annihilated in that year. They were dying and disappearing all around him, and their numbers no doubt included many whom he knew personally. Yet he gives no sign that this put any damper on his elation, either at the time or indeed in retrospect.”

    During an interview with “Sixty Minute’s” Steve Kroft, Soros was asked about his “best year:”

    Sweetness & Light

    KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who

    swore that you were his adopted godson.

    SOROS: Yes. Yes.

    KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

    SOROS: Yes. That’s right. Yes.

    KROFT: I mean, that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the

    psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

    SOROS: Not, not at all. Not at all.

    KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

    SOROS: No.

    Of course he didn’t feel guilty. Soros has the moral depth of a clam. Nonetheless, he has said, “my goal is to become the conscience of the world.”

    In his article, Muravchik describes how Soros has admitted to having “carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble.”

    Can you imagine the results of this messianic sociopath being “the conscience of the world?” Ye gods.

    Be that as it may. After WWII, Soros attended the London School of Economics, where he fell under the thrall of fellow atheist and Hungarian, Karl Popper, one of his professors. Popper was a mentor to Soros until Popper’s death in 1994.

    And my question is, could we Trust the Warming Issues knowing that George Soros is behind it? Alarmist wake up we all know your tricks.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It doesn't.

    It doesn't.

    Yes, the oh so too many naive nincompoops that continually vote for the greedy commie scumbag politicians that would sell their children to sex slave traders...

    Yes, I do..

    No, I know for fact that George Soros is among the lowest life forms on Earth...

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • JimZ
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    I would put Soros as the most destructive human being alive today. What a scumbag. He made his money dishonestly and he consistently spends it on really destructive causes. The left always uses class warfare yet they are funded by billionaires like Soros. Carbon tax crap was never anything other than redistribution of wealth on a global scale, kind of a scaled up welfare plan. The left never learns from its past failures. They just want more money and more money and then they want more of our money.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    You nailed it. Third worl countries have proven time and agin to be nothing better than money pits. They are quite often corrupt to the core, hence the reason why they have been and continue to be third world countries.

    Its all about politics within the UN. Most member nations in the UN are third world countries. Any quesiton then why they would levy taxes on other countries to support thier corrupt regimes?

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.