Just as class struggle forms the nucleus of Marxism, so does it sit at the very core of the Left’s climate alarmism. At a glance, the regressive nature of fiscal Carbon control schemes, be they taxation or cap-and-trade, would appear to be antithetical to liberal thinking. But beneath the veneer of both the domestic and international green agenda lies a devious wealth-redistribution plan compared to which all predecessors pale.
“The bill sets aside a nearly $800 billion tax relief fund through 2050, which will help consumers in need of assistance related to energy costs. The precise details of the relief will be developed by the Finance committee.”
“be used for refundable tax credits and rebates for middle- and low-income households, to compensate for any increase in energy costs resulting from the bill. Tax credits will be used to reach middle-income wage earners and senior citizens, and cash rebates — distributed through the Electronic Benefits Transfer systems used for food stamps — will be used to reach low-income households. All households earning under $110,000 will be eligible. Virtually all costs from climate regulation will be covered for households earning under $70,000, with benefit levels phasing out gradually for households earning $70,000 to $110,000.”
“And guess what this liberal would be all about? This liberal would be all about socialize — uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies.”
“In 1867, Karl Marx argued that capitalism’s cycle of labor exploitation could not endlessly sustain itself and would ultimately be its doom. Modern greenies insist that capitalism’s cycle of environmental exploitation will not endlessly sustain itself and will ultimately be not only its doom — but the entire planet’s.”
“The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism.”
Greens Thwart Gasoline Production
By Steven Milloy
Fox News | 6/13/2008
Four-plus-dollar gasoline is forcing Americans to realize that we need increased domestic oil production to meet our ever-growing demand for affordable fuel. But even if the greens lose the political battle over drilling offshore and in places like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, they nevertheless are way ahead of the game as they implement a back-up plan to make sure that not a drop of that oil ever eases our gasoline crunch.
The Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, or NRDC, successfully pressured the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to block ConocoPhillips’ expansion of its Roxana, Ill., gasoline refinery, which processes heavy crude oil from Canada, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.
The project would have expanded the volume of Canadian crude processed from 60,000 barrels per day to more than 500,000 barrels a day by 2015. After the Illinois EPA had approved the expansion, the green groups petitioned the federal EPA to block it, alleging ConocoPhillips wasn’t using the best available technology for reducing emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.
Apparently, the plant’s planned 95 percent reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions and 25 percent reduction in nitrogen oxides wasn’t green enough. NRDC’s opposition is quite ironic since ConocoPhillips and the activist group actually are teammates in the global warming game. Both belong to the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of eco-activist groups and large companies that is lobbying for global warming regulation.
So even though ConocoPhillips is aiding and abetting the NRDC to achieve the green dream of absolute government control over the U.S. energy supply, the enviros still are in take-no-prisoners mode, refusing to allow the expansion of a single refinery.
Imagine what the rest of us can expect from the greens.
Meanwhile, in California, green groups are working through the state attorney general’s office to block the upgrade of the Chevron refinery in the city of Richmond. The $800 million upgrade essentially would expand the useable oil supply by permitting the refinery to process lower-quality, less-expensive crude oil.
California Attorney General, ex-Gov. and climate crusader Jerry Brown claims the upgrade will produce an additional 900,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year. But Chevron says the upgrade actually will reduce the emissions by 220,000 tons.
Whose figure is closer to the truth?
It’s hard to know for sure at this point, but it’s worth noting that material false statements made by Chevron are prosecutable under the federal securities laws and California state law, while Brown and the activists pretty much can say whatever they want without legal accountability.
Whatever the facts are, Brown and the city of Richmond insist that Chevron eliminate 900,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions so that the upgrade will be “carbon neutral.” While the greens remain vehemently opposed to the project, it seems their plans for blocking the refinery might go awry as Brown and the local government eventually may side with Chevron rather than the greens, but only because the company has deep pockets and is open to being shaken down.
Brown and the city have proposed that Chevron ensure that half the total emissions-reduction projects be undertaken on-site at the refinery and the other half be done either in the city of Richmond itself or elsewhere in California.
Translating the latter part of this “offer that can’t be refused:” Chevron essentially must purchase 450,000 tons of “carbon credits” annually from the city of Richmond or the state. As the street value of carbon credits is about $10 per ton, Chevron is being “green-mailed” to the tune of perhaps $4.5 million per year to upgrade its refinery — amounting to perhaps a 1 percent annual “tax” on the gains in gross revenue produced by the upgrade. And the local government officials are not the least embarrassed about this extortion.
“When you’re dealing with a refinery where the project will cost close to a billion dollars and someone like Chevron with tremendous resources, that’s not a constraint, so they should do everything possible,” an unidentified state official told Carbon Control News in a June 9 article.
The farcical nature of the entire transaction is underscored by that state official’s apparent lack of understanding about how greenhouse gas-induced global warming is supposed to work.
The official told Carbon Control News that the greenhouse gas emission reductions “are vital to protect low-income minority communities in the Richmond area, which already suffer disproportionate pollution impacts.”
Climate alarmism, of course, is based on the notion of global emissions causing global warming, not local emissions causing local warming; moreover, the allegation that low-income minority populations are disproportionately harmed by industrial emissions — the basis of the so-called “environmental justice” concept of the 1990s — hasn’t stuck since no scientific evidence supports it.
Though green and local government shenanigans can be a source of endless amusement, let’s get back to the main point. As the 2005 hurricane season dramatized, oil production, itself, is only one factor in determining gasoline supply and prices.
Damage to Gulf Coast refineries by hurricanes Katrina and Rita reduced gasoline supplies and increased prices worldwide — a real problem given that U.S. refineries operate at or near capacity thanks to other green constraints.
We may produce all the oil we need, but if we can’t refine it, then it won’t do much for reducing gasoline supply problems. So while working to expand domestic drilling, we’ll simultaneously need to expand domestic refining capacity.
It will be quite the Pyrrhic victory to finally produce oil from ANWR and then not be able to do anything with it.
Six Ways Obama Will Transform America
By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown
FrontPageMagazine.com | 6/13/2008
What word does Barack Obama and his supporters keep chanting? “Change!” Like a drumbeat, Obama’s chant for change runs nonstop in an endless loop. But how does Obama want to change America if he becomes president? Here are six different areas he would like changed.
For starters, Obama received a 100 percent rating from NARAL (a pro-abortion group) in 2005, 2006, and 2007. Why do they hold him in such high esteem? Because he supports every pro-abortion bill that comes along. He wants tax dollars for abortions, he voted against notifying parents of minors about abortions, he supports partial-birth abortion, and he would withhold life-saving measures from babies born after botched abortions.
Obama wants no limits on abortion, ever, but he is completely out of step with the majority of Americans. For example, seven out of 10 are against partial-birth abortion — which is a brutal procedure in the second or third trimester of pregnancy in which babies are pulled feet-first from the womb, stabbed through the skull with a scissor-like instrument and their brains are sucked out via a strong suction tube. Afterwards the dead baby’s collapsed head is removed from the mother. As ugly as it is, and as it sounds, in Obama’s America it would be routinely done all the way up to the time of birth.
Secondly, Obama is glaringly weak on national security. He advocates negotiating with terrorists. One week after he told AIPAC, a pro-Israel group, that Jerusalem “must remain undivided,” he backpedaled, did a shameless about-face, and now declares that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future talks. Obama naively wants to pull our troops out of Iraq without first ensuring stability in the area, which will put all of America at risk.
It has been less than four years since he became the junior senator from Illinois. Guess which foreign leaders have expressed their desire for him to win? Communist Fidel Castro recently called Obama, “the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency,” while an advisor from the terrorist group Hamas told WorldNetDaily, “We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the election.”
Third, Obama will dramatically raise taxes. In response to Bush’s 2008 State of the Union address, Obama said he is against tax cuts for Americans. “We heard the president say he wants to make tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans permanent, when we know that at a time of war and economic hardship, the last thing we need is a permanent tax cut for Americans who don’t need them and weren’t even asking for them.”
Prior to clinching the nomination he proposed what he would do with your money: “And the Bush tax cuts — people didn’t need them, and they weren’t even asking for them, and that is why they need to be less, so that we can pay for universal health care and other initiatives.”
This leads to change number four, socialized medicine. “Well, look, I believe in universal health care,” Obama said at a presidential debate last February. “Every expert has said that anybody who wants health care under my plan will be able to obtain it.” Obama likes to call it “universal health care” because it sounds more palatable than what it is: socialized medicine.
Change number five is education. His far-left voting record voices his beliefs about education. In 2003, he cast his vote in Illinois to allow “age appropriate” sex education to be taught in elementary school. Planned Parenthood and the ACLU also supported this legislation.
In Illinois, Obama also supported “free” taxpayer funded college tuition for students as long as they maintained a “B” average. This sounds nice, but where does the money come from? You, of course, with higher taxes.
Finally, change number six is an end to free trade. USA Today wrote about Obama’s plans: “Modifying or scrapping NAFTA wouldn’t create jobs or more skilled workers. The idea raises false hope and seeks to scapegoat Mexico and Canada.” The possibility of a President Obama is making Wall Street nervous and the stock market reflects it.
Remember, a favorite word liberals use to describe themselves is “progressive,” and this means change. Every time you hear the roar “change,” remember that this chant translates into elitist, left-wing, socialized change — change for which you will dearly pay.