Global coercion to "save" the planet

A friend reacted to the above statements I made. He said,

“Specifically questioning why we have to buy fuel for our cars with a forced additive of bio-fules is a bit of an oversimplication. The germinating idea for mixing bio-fuels into gasoline and diesel stems from a desire to finally come up with fuel supply that is regenerative, non-diminishing and yes, sustainable source.”

That's the evil of coercing everyone on this planet to "toe the line" of the environmentalist whims and desires. If people want E50 or E90, why stop at E10? And some people don't believe in E10 or even E1 for their cars, why coerce them? Let there be a market for various E__, based on varying environmental and political beliefs of people. Whether it's E10 or E50 or E100, it should not be made mandatory, if the goal is to lessen dependence on imported oil. Let the people choose which oil mixture they want, depending on the engine design of their vehicles.

Take my case. My pick-up is old, it should be turning 13 yrs old later part of this year. Its engine is designed I think for 100% diesel, not 95% or 90%. If my pick up which is in good running condition until now, will conk out starting next year because of that mandatory B5 law, who will pay for the damages -- the DOE, DENR, malacanang, UN IPCC, or the environmentalists? I bet not one of them will accept accountability. All of them you want is to force whatever is their great idea to save mankind to everyone else in this planet. Are the people who don't believe their great grand plan secondary or useless citizens?

And this is precisely what I am criticizing -- the global warming hysteria results in large-scale ecological central planning, in global coercion. Let everyone pay high carbon taxes on top of existing petrol and environmental taxes to fight global warming. Let everyone pay for those expensive and frequent international travels and meetings by national and international bureaucrats to fight global warming. Let everyone pay for the emergence of new climate change bureaucracies, from provincial to national levels. Let everyone pay for subsidies to solar and wind farms that produce very little electricity. Isn't that global ecological central planning, global coercion?

Another friend asked, why would I not join the climate change cash cow of carbon trading.

The cap and trade for carbon is actually another parasitic scheme being imposed on everyone in this planet since the debate on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is still not "settled". I think the scheme would look like this.

International bureaucrats at the UN will ration carbon emission caps or limit to all countries that sign the post-Kyoto or Copenhagen Protocol. They say, "you America, this is your carbon cap. You France, this is your carbon cap, You India, this is your carbon cap, etc. If you exceed your cap, you have to buy some carbon credits from other countries with excess carbon credits, otherwise we will penalize you -- expose and shame you in international media and international meetings." I'm not sure if there will be also monetary fines.

Then national environmental bureaucrats in the US will say. "You Delta Air and American Airlines, these are your carbon caps. You AT&T and Verizon, these are your respective carbon cap. You Hilton, Hyatt, Mandarin, Intercon hotels, these are your respective carbon caps. You Walmart, You Amtrak, You Greyhound, etc., You GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda, BMW, etc., these are your respective carbon limits, etc. etc. If you exceed your cap, you have to buy from other companies or we will penalize you, at least expose and shame you."

Just imagine the army of new bureaucrats who will monitor each of the several million big and medium companies in America alone, who will get penalized, how to implement the penalty like naming and shaming those who exceed their carbon cap and yet did not buy from those with excess credits, etc.

Now, where will companies get the money to buy excess carbon credits from other companies? From their consumers and the public, where else. For those who did not exceed their carbon bap, where will they get the money to buy expensive technologies to drastically cut their carbon emission? From their consumers and the public, where else. Where will the government get money to hire those big army of new environmental bureaucrats? From the taxes of the public, where else.

And the public end up paying more and more, prices of almost everything becoming more expensive, companies will be scrimping on other production costs like labor just to survive, unemployment will rise. Will this "save" the planet, the real goal? Not a bit.

As I have posted a few times, CO2 is innocent for all the charges by the alarmists that it is responsible for GW.

Below is one brief but down to earth analysis of those carbon credits brouhaha.
========

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/farmer_carbon_credits.html

A farmer's view on carbon credits

I have changed my mind about participating in the carbon credit program. And have resolved to give the money I received to St Jude’s Children’s Hospital.

Here is why.

Recently I sat in the fire hall with a few dozen farmers. We had been invited to hear how we can get paid for carbon credits.

The speaker explained how their satellites can measure the carbon in our land individually and how much money we could get. Then asked for questions.

I asked “what is the source of this money”?

The presenter said it comes from big companies that pollute.

I asked “where do they get this money”? He had no answer.

So I answered for him, asking, “won’t it come from everyone who pays their power bill”? He then agreed and said “that could be”.

I then said isn’t this about the theory of man made global warming? He said “we are not going to talk about that”. Here they are on the prairie soliciting land for carbon credits tempting us with free money.

I believe that agreeing to take their money means you agree with taxing cattle gas also, because methane is a greenhouse gas 20 times more powerful than carbon. I believe taking this money without considering its source makes us no better than the bankers who lent money to people, knowing they could not pay it back. Collecting their fees then selling the bad loans in bundles to someone else. They did not care where the money came from either....