With the description you've just given how could one NOT think it's a liberal idea or a commie plant.<quoted text>
Look on one hand you guys have labelled Global warming a liberal idea or a commie plot. Yet we live in a capitalist society, so if you have the money you can buy your green credits. To use your phrase "so what" if Al buys his credits, he can afford to do so, that's life under a capitalist system. Being green doesn't mean we all have to live in a cave, yet some of these tea baggers seem to think its a plot for UN world government. For each one of us, it would be next to impossible to live being carbon neutral, so we should pay for the privilege. If everyone did that then we wouldn't have a problem. That's the whole idea of reducing carbon emissions, there will be rich polluters and poor polluters. The rich can afford to have the electric or enviro car as their every day ride and keep the sports car in the garage for weekends. The less well off will only have one car to deal with. So how is that any different to living as we do now, not a damn thing. Carbon pricing doesn't change anything about who will be successful and who will struggle to survive. Its about adjusting lifestyle so that if each one of us reduce their carbon footprint to try and avoid a global catastrophe. It's all about making the average Joe who may have saved same spare cash and would like to buy a new ski boat but installs solar panels on his roof instead because it represents far better value to his family.
'All CO2 is equal but some CO2 is more equal.'
You give the rich, powerful elite a pass on their production of CO2, foisting it onto the average Joe to make up for it via 'carbon credits'.
Fearless leader, anyone?
So, that's one's goal? To become wealthy via capitalism to buy your 'indulgences'?
This is perhaps the weakest argument you've ever made.
As for the UN... their have been plenty of posts already that say flat out that global warming is a means to wealth transfer on a global scale, and you don't believe it when you hear it?
>>[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."
Such was originally published by Germany's NZZ Online Sunday, and reprinted in English by the Global Warming Policy Foundation moments ago:
(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War....
(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
For the record, Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report....
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/20...
And you wonder why some say 'Green is the new red'?