Coming Soon… The Breathing Tax

co2-smallI appreciate so many folks understanding my night off last night. I try not to take a night off of writing very often. I went back to school a couple of years ago to pursue another degree. I graduate in 3 weeks. I will have so much more free time then. I cannot wait. Thank you to everyone who submitted some ideas for what to write about tonight. I vow to cover all the ideas submitted over the next week or two. But it seemed as though the one that was wanted by the majority was the cap and trade discussion. So that is what we will cover. I know it is confusing to many, because the name doesn’t really tell us what it is about, but we all need to be paying attention to this one. And we need to rally against it hard….

OK, let’s begin with a quick recap of exactly what cap and trade is. I know a lot of folks are now hearing this in the news and aren’t sure what it is or how it works. And how can we expect them to be up in arms about it when they don’t understand why it is bad. Because of course the government isn’t going to call it the “We’re going to use taxes to tell you how to live Act of 2009”. Let’s say up front that the entire “stated premise” for why cap and trade is needed is to stem the disaster of global warming. That is why we need to do this. And you all know what I think of the crackpots who claim global warming is real… So what is cap and trade?

cap-and-trade-101Cap and trade is a program that basically sets a cap for emissions and then holds people below that cap. Here’s how a cap and trade system works: The government (because we trust them) sets a “cap” on the amount of emissions that can be produced within a given area. For example they say that your town, USA is allowed to produce 100 metric tons of carbon emissions. They then auction off the right to be the one producing the emissions. For our example let’s say that they break the 100 metric tons into 1 metric ton”permits”. And they auction those permits off to the ten residents of Your Town. 

So let’s assume each of the towns ten residents purchase ten permits each so the emissions allowance in the town basically end up with resident 1 through 10 each having ten permits for 1 ton meaning each can redeem those permits for a total of 10 metric tons per home. Now Mr. Smith’s home uses a wood burning stove and he uses that a lot, because he likes it to be warm. And his output for the year would be 12 metric tons, but he only has the permits to emit 10 tons. He will have to cut back on using his stove in order to not break the rules. 

However, Mr. Brown uses a clean burning gas fireplace, so he will only emit 8 tons over the year, so he has two permits for additional tons that he doesn’t need. So he is allowed to sell his two permits, along with the right to emit a ton with each, to Mr. Smith in order to make a profit on his unneeded permits. This would be the “trade” portion. And this would allow Mr. Smith to redeem those permits for a total of 12 tons, which meets his needs. Meanwhile so long as only those 100 permits are used, the government has controlled emissions within Your Town, USA. 

capspendOver time the government would each year begin to allow a lower cap, reducing emissions overall. It should be noted that thus far cap and trade programs have been aimed at businesses, not individuals in a town. Of course businesses would pass theses costs on to you consumers, but we won’t get into that. Government gets to set an arbitrary number, and all of those falling under the “cap” area can trade their 100 permits around all they want in order to meet individual needs. All sounds fair right?

Wrong. I have a lot of problems with this. Not only is this nothing more than a means for government to further control people and, while they are at it, find another way to bilk Americans out of even more of their money. Let’s talk about how this great plan actually works out. It has been done before, for the reduction of sulfur emissions causing acid rain through the Clean Air Act. It worked in that instance. It has been tried by the European Union for carbon. The result has been a net increase in emissions since the beginning of the program. But let’s get to the heart of the problem. 

liberman-boehnerSenators Joe Lieberman (I, CT) and John Warner (R, VA) have proposed the Climate Security Act (S. 2191) which would impose cap and trade on carbon emissions, under the premise that we need to reduce carbon emissions in order to save our planet from global warming. Its requirement that emissions decline to 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020–even in the face of a growing population and rising energy demand–sets a very difficult target. I won’t even get into the fact that global warming is bullshit. And we have not found any true evidence (outside of Al Gore’s “facts”) that can prove any link between human caused carbon emissions and a rise in global temperatures.

But we don’t need proof that carbon emissions are bad in order to find a way to tax the public for them, now do we. No sir-eee. We’ll just enlist the main stream media to scare people into believing it is true and they will go along quietly and understand our need to tax them yet again, for their own good of course. 

Putting a cap and trade program in place for carbon emissions won’t be cheap. Charles River Associates is a leading global consulting firm that offers economic, financial, and business management expertise to major law firms, industries, accounting firms, and governments around the world. They put the cost of S. 2191 at $800 to $1,300 per household by 2015, rising to $1,500 to $2,500 by 2050. Electricity prices could jump by 36-67% by 2015 and 80-125% by 2050. No analysis has been done on the impact of S. 2191 on gasoline prices, but an EPA study of a less stringent cap and trade bill estimates impacts of 26¢/gal. by 2030 and 68¢ by 2050.

So energy costs would obviously increase because of the cap and trade programs. Limiting the supply of fossil fuels available for consumers, cap and trade means higher priced gas and electricity as well as job losses in energy-dependent sectors. Senator Lieberman himself concedes costs into the hundreds of billions of dollars. And as the Congressional Budget Office has noted, such energy cost increases act as a regressive tax on the poor (see how the poor get screwed through the back door while Obama promises to help them through the front door?).

The net job losses from S. 2191 are estimated by Charles River Associates to be 1.2 to 2.3 million by 2015. Some job losses will be permanent due to the impact of higher energy costs on economic activity. Others, chiefly in the manufacturing sector, will be sent overseas. In the very likely event that S. 2191 significantly raises domestic manufacturing costs and that developing nations refuse to impose similar restrictions, the American economy could experience a substantial outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to those nations with lower energy costs. Because we need yet another government program forcing jobs overseas.

kyoto_protocol_logoWhile the costs of aggressive cap and trade proposals seem substantial, the environmental benefits are less than equal in proportion. This is true even if one fully accepts the claim of man-made global warming. The most ambitious measure to date is the Kyoto Protocol, but even if the U.S. were a party to this treaty and the European nations and other signatories were in full compliance (they are not looking like they will meet targets), the treaty might reduce the Earth’s future temperature by an estimated 0.07 degrees Celsius by 2050, an amount too small even to verify. S. 2191 would at best do only a little more. In other words, the ends just don’t justify the means.

But here is my real rub, if you will allow me on my soap box for a moment. Things like this are the reason why Democrats have shoved the global warming hoax down our throats. Just like they have done with the economy, they are using a “Crisis” as a means to fool the public into giving the government more control. If we didn’t have an economic “crisis”, we wouldn’t need the socialist policies the Messiah is implementing. If we didn’t have a global warming “crisis”, we wouldn’t need cap and trade policies like this. If we didn’t have a terrorist “crisis” (that’s right republicans don’t get a free pass on this tactic either), we wouldn’t need the so called Patriot Act. These are all moves by politicians to get the people to agree to measures that take away our freedoms and our rights and concede power to the federal government. (And coming soon to a theater near you, mark my words, is a gun death crisis that means we need government to take guns away from the public too)

Cap and trade on carbon emissions from business is a first step. I used to think it laughable that the government might think they have the right to tax us for breathing. But we sure do seem to be getting awful close to that, don’t we. How soon before we see an individual carbon cap and trade, that is “needed” so that the government can raise revenue in order to defeat global warming for us poor defenseless citizens? I wouldn’t laugh too hard at that one. It may be closer than you think. 

A couple of links for you all to peruse:

One from the Union of Concerned Scientists that lays out what an effective cap and trade program would look like. I recommend you read this madness:  We Need a Well-Designed Cap-and-Trade Program to Fight Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists

One on Republican Senators opposing it, but only for now during a recession, and on Obama’s stance on the use of cap and trade:  AFP: US senators attack cap-and-trade for climate change

One from the Heritage Foundation. This was the one where I pulled the majority of my statistics for this article and I wish to cite it as a source accordingly:  Beware of Cap and Trade Climate Bills


  1. Black Flag says:

    I’m in favor of the Cap and Trade program.

    I have property with lots of trees.

    I am willing to sell the right to not cut down those trees for $1 million – and big business can use those carbon credits to continue to make profit for the government to tax.

    Works for me – and Al Gore.

  2. Black Flag says:

    …and if any one thinks I’m joking – I am not.

    That is exactly what I will do.

    From the Climate Change Summit, July 2007, Sydney.
    Australian Rainforest Foundation, CEO Presentation

    …The company had done an audit of its carbon footprint and despite
    a staggering 350,000 tonnes equivalent of CO2 per year, was looking at offsetting this
    through plantation forestry and other and waste / energy reduction.
    Just so you get the picture, if we filled the MCG up with carbon dioxide from the pitch to
    the rafters, it would take 3,366 tonnes. So this particular mine filled up 100 MCG’s each
    Let me share with you my “back of the envelope” calculation of the cost of offsetting
    through tree planting alone.

    Four trees at maturity for 1 tonne equivalent, that’s 1.4 million trees – (say 40 to 70
    $5.6 million to plant, occupying 2,240 hectares costing anywhere from $1 million to
    $12 million in land acquisition costs.
    We are already up to anywhere between $6 and $18 million…

    I’m a bargain!


    Farmers! Grow trees! sell carbon credits!

    What Carbon Credits are – and what they mean to farmers.

    They’re credits that you as a forest planter can receive in exchange for implementing trees on your land which result in high levels of carbon sequestration.

    Brilliantly free money!!!

  3. USW;

    The trend is working toward TANSTAAFL, an acronym for “There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch”. That word was coined by Robert A. Heinlein in his story “The Moon is a harsh Mistress”, I think it was way back around 1926, in the story everything was purchased – including the very air that we breath.

    Another science fiction story turning into reality . . . 😦

  4. Chain Letter says:

    I posted below you in the Fox News forum (the chain letter post) and decided to check out your blogs. Impressive, honest, and direct… very refreshing. That’s my critique for the day.

    As of today, I am ex-Obama, supporter. He lost my support far more readily than Bush in his first term. (I’m Independent) I was certain he’d veto the stimulus/spending bill and I, like many others, emailed senators and Obama incessantly – it failed. The American people are spam in the inbox of politicians.

    Do they really think the American people don’t remember campaign promises? How about when Bush Sr. pledged “Read my lips, no new taxes”.

    I apologize for not being “on topic”.

  5. Cap and trade fraud.The Manufacturing plant where I worked until retirement did not actually own the boiler which was licensed for a specific number of tons of emissions.It was owned by an insurance company,we simply leased it.We were responsible for maintaining the emission targets and were fined by the state when they were exceded.
    99%of the time we met our targets with ease,the only exception was when a piece of equipment failed,and the most common failure was with the monitoring equipment itself.Point being is that under cap and trade,this boiler is going to make a profit selling carbon credits.I’m betting that the profits go to the insurance company rather than the manufacturer.
    I understand that this type of arrangement is not all that uncommon across industry.The potential to really hurt the manufacturing sector may already be in place.If manufacturers are not allowed to have the profits,then prices are going to increase just that much faster for the comsumer.

  6. Restore Constitutional Government says:

    As long as ‘we the people’ continue to reward bad behavior we should not expect otherwise. — Common Sense

    Definition of Government –

    gov⋅ern⋅ment   /ˈgʌvərnmənt, ‑ərmənt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [guhv-ern-muhnt, ‑er-muhnt]
    1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
    2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

  7. In the grand scheme of things CO2 comprises a very very small portion of the atmosphere, and of that small portion, humans contribute a small fraction of that portion. To postulate that this fraction of an extremely small portion of the atmosphere is having the extreme effect on the climate is simply ludicrous. It is no more than a scheme the government/Al Gore dreamed up to scare the sheep into believing that the sky is falling and thus a reason to bilk billions of dollars from companies and ultimately citizens. Anyone who thinks differently quite frankly either has his head in the sand, or stands to gain from it. Anyone who stands to gain from it, and realizes it is bullshit is no better than the government, and I can think of little less that would be a bigger insult.

    In my opinion, global warming is something that does occur, but in the natural cyclical existence of the earth, and is not changed in any dramatic way by man. Therefore, as the government/Al Gore describes global warming, it is a myth…again in my opinion. I have read many articles and researched it a bit to come to that conclusion…and yes, I have read both arguments. So, again in my opinion, if global warming is a myth, then cap and trade is nothing more than a scheme that the government and specifically Barak Obama are using to fund the current administrations HUGE expenditures. It is with this scheme in mind he portends to, or at least has made overatures to, cutting the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Without cap and trade, he has no chance to achieve that lofty goal…unless they can dream up another way to steal from the public.

  8. Karl from Esom Hill says:

    I think global warming is a bunch of horse hockey. Once again the government is going to take over and fix a problem for us! Oh. My. God!!! I have been doing a lot of thinking and have decided not to solely blame Obama for these bulldookey solutions. After all, some of this was started before he came into office and the blame can most certainly be spread around to all politicians, regardless of party. So, I have very little faith that anyone party or individual in gov’t. is going to stop the madness. BF, you have a good idea! I also have land with lots of trees. But bear with me here. What are you going to do when, not if, the government claims your trees as Federalized under Imminent Domain? Don’t Laugh! If they can take your home with that to put in a road, then what kind of stretch is it to think they would do the same with our trees for the “common good” of the rest of the public. You know, ‘the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one’, and all that bullshit. You don’t seriously think they are going to allow an individual to actually profit from their bid to control all our collective lives do you? This is an attempt to begin to control every aspect of everyones lives so that we will be dependent upon Uncle Sammy for everything! If you try to profit from the situation they will simply take steps to see that you are thrown in with the rest of us simpletons. The only way to stop this garbage is to stop it now, before it gets off the ground. This isn’t Cap and Trade, it’s Bend Over and Rape! What really amazes me is the timing. This is a bad deal at any time, but now? What part of our economy gives the gov’t the notion that NOW is the time for this? This another example of tax, tax, and tax again, and then spend, spend, spend! The Key to this potential ecomonic disaster, is the GOVERMENT will be in CHARGE and will set the Emissions limits. After all, they’ve done such a fabulous job so far. Why not?

  9. Tom Awtry says:

    Our country, by the looks of it, could become financially insolvent and basically go belly-up if our government’s plans fail to produce some economic gains and perhaps more importantly stay out of any foreign conflicts such as Iraq and Afghanistan:

  10. The most vulnerable industries to this would be those dealing in physical goods, those creating energy from fossil fuels, and those using fossil fuels for transport. This means that the manufacturing, energy, and shipping/transportation industries will be the hardest hit. The service industry and the software industry, the financial sectors, etc. that deal with non-physical products will have an influx of cash. They can sell their credits to the physical industries.

    Stage 1) The non-physical industries get an increase in cash flow, the cost of energy, transportation, and shipping goes up, and the manufacturing sector begs more financial aid.

    Stage 2) The overall economy slows due to the increase in transport and shipping and energy. This drives some of the manufacturing out of business and the rest overseas to avoid the costs. This hits the employment levels of the country. Non-physical industries start to see diminishing returns as the market slows and fewer carbon credits are demanded, thus decreasing the value of theirs on the open market.

    Stage 3) The struggling transportation industry, particularly the already financially weak airlines, are added to the list begging handouts from the government. The shipping industry starts to slip due to economic downturn, despite the high prices intended to cover the increased costs. The energy companies get their prices capped by the all-compassionate government since they keep increasing their prices due to the cost of carbon credits. They become weak financially and seek aid.

    Stage 4) The economy still slowing, the government can no longer afford to bail out anyone without printing so much money that hyper-inflation is created. The trade deficit is already so large (especially since no products are actually made here anymore) that foreign companies refuse to purchase US Treasuries. The Energy companies start to fail or start to cut costs radically by allowing infrastructure to slip. Also, R & D is on hold, so newer cleaner sources of energy are no longer being developed. No one can afford to go anywhere and have anything shipped, the airlines and the shipping companies fail.

    But hey, we reduced carbon emissions, right?

    Stage 5) It is discovered by scientists watching Al Gore’s movie that carbon levels follow temperatures, not the other way around, according to Gore’s own chart of ice core records. We all have a good laugh. Or a revolution. Whichever is appropriate.

  11. At least some of the big heads are still trying to defunt this BS:

  12. Common Sense says:

    Haste makes waste.

  13. The government will be in a position to decide which businesses succeed and which businesses fail.That is way too much power for a government.Free carbon credits to your friends.Think politicians can be trusted with carbon credits?

  14. IF there are air pollutants that are causing broad impacts then the traditional way to address the problems was to simply impose the CAP in the form of a permit for a specified level of output. The same system was used for water pollutants. This is a Total Maximum Daily Load for an airshed or watershed and then distributed to each polluter in the system. So where did Cap & Trade come from? I recall back somewhere in my career listening to a bunch of Ivy League types who were trying to find ways to use market based principles to steer environmental outcomes. Cap and Trade on air and water pollutants was one of the concepts. PLEASE NOTE THAT WATER WAS THEN PART OF THE PLAN—-IT IS NEXT. Funny how that simple concept has grown into the monster we now have proposed. Another key point: CAP & TRADE WILL ONLY REDUCE POLLUTANTS IF ALL NATIONS ARE UNDER CONTROL OF A CENTRALIZED REGULATORY MECHANISM!!!!!!

    Now lets put the debate on CO2 aside and recognize there are real pollutants that need to be reduced and if we want free market solutions then something like Cap & Trade is better than gov’t regulation combined with taxation. THE SYSTEM PROPOSED IS THE WRONG SYSTEM AND ONLY BENEFITS THE VERY RICH AND GOVERNMENT. Here is a more appropriate method.

    If the current level of pollution is the issue then every polluting entity should be permited, not geographic areas. Each power plant, or whatever, would be given a permit for their existing level of output. Note: Given, not auctioned by the Govt. Now, is the allowable pollution level to be maintained, increased, or decreased? Depending on the answer the tons/per permit is held steady, appreciated, or ammortized based on the target. Trade then occurs to maintain permitted levels as described by USW and Flag (except the number of sequestration options is much greater). Lets look at the CO2 issue.

    The target output has been stated as a 20% reduction over 20 years. Then everybody gets their intial permit for x tons. The value of that permit, in tons, is reduced by 1% per year for 20 years. Sequestration or unused permits are then sold to offset output if the reduced permitted amount can’t be met. If the power plant can’t reduce output any further then it would have to purchase the equivalent tons per year from someone else.
    No Govt taxes or auction revenue is involved. There is an increased cost of energy over time, based on the cost of reductions or offsets. But if we do have a pollution problem then we all should pay for the reductions, as it is WE that benefit from the pollutant. The difference here is that WE only pay once. The current proposal has us paying TWICE for the same ton of carbon.

    By the way Flag, et al; the standards for forest sequestration are being set as we speak. The first run was done by the scientists based on wood fiber production over time. When the forest slows growth it should be harvested and replaced with new trees to maximize carbon sequestration. Assuming the wood fiber is locked up in lumber or something similar. The Greens got drift and realized that could mean we actually have to manage our forests—no way Jose!! Now they are driving the truck through the Obama Admin. They now want to use the sequestration standard to prevent timber harvest for at least 120 years and even more in certain forest types.

    And, you forgot Cows. The Greens have been trying to get cows off the plains for years and replace them with buffalo. I am not crazy, the plan was unveiled by the Algorians during the Clinton administration. Cows are more evil than us because they create CO2 and methane. So if you put a high value on their pollution level, and the coal plants on the east coast need carbon credits, what do you think the ranchers in MT and WY are going to do? Yes, kill the cows and sell the credits. Oh yeah, they have also proposed various carbon values (taxes) for cows w/calves, feeder cattle, dairy cattle, pigs, and chickens. GEE I WONDER WHERE THIS COULD BE GOING???

    Bottom Line: IF pollution is a problem then a form of cap and trade makes alot of sense. BUT only one that gets the govt out once the limits are set.

    One other thought. It amazes me how the bleeding heart Libs support this concept when the only ones who will be able to buy and sell credits are the rich. The rest of us will just pay the price, they will reap the benefits–profits. I have been asked to help establish a trading system in my state. My answer is always: My ethics don’t allow me to profit from selling pieces of paper backed by air. And, isn’t that exactly what caused our current financial crisis? (yes Flag, I know)

    Have a Happy Day

  15. Nice blog and explanation!

    I have several friends that wholeheartedly believe in global warming and no matter how much research I provide them they steadfastly refuse to believe any of it and provide comments like, “Why trust the scientist that say global warming is a hoax … They work for the Government.” This statement is ridiculous on several levels. So I leave them with this final argument: Global Warming is a Billion dollar industry … when debunked it is a 0 dollar industry. You do the math and see why it is still being pushed by the government and media.

    Reading about “Cap and Trade”, the “Fairness Doctrine” and other carefully worded action agenda’s our administration is hitting us with makes me wonder, “How stupid and lazy does our politicians think we are?” … The answer is very stupid and lazy. They know that the majority of the people are going to do zero research and react on the “name” of whatever is being pushed through. There might be a portion who will watch the news, hit and then stop feeling good about the research they have done. I wish we had a non-partison non-biased place that will provide an honest education to the public.

    Hope that made sense … gotta run and earn a paycheck

  16. Black Flag says:

    Now this is something I could do for money!


  17. Black Flag says:

    Gee USWep, you found the centralizing theme for your revival of the Rep party – even the anarchists agree with you.

    Damn, I shouldn’t have told you …. 😉

  18. Chain Letter,
    Welcome, I’m fairly new here myself and enjoy the intelligent discussion.

    Is the long term goal here not just to nationalize most or all power companies?
    The government can set their rates, stopping them from passing on cost to the public, resulting in their failure and need to be operated by the fed. Obama made a statement about bankrupting coal power plants, and that is 50-55% of our source for electricity. And agreeing with Jon Smith, airline, trains, etc., what industries would not NEED to be nationalized?

  19. Life: I don’t think the goal is nationalization, although that wouldn’t be precluded. The goal is to eliminate coal fired plants and replace them with solar panels and windmills. These are the only acceptable alternatives in the Green bag of tricks. Except, no windmills in their back yard.

  20. Oh yes, also the other major carbon producer:
    Cattle Farms

    So the country will be forced into vegetarianism.

    On a side note, during stage 1, BF will make a lot of money on his land and I will be trying to make money as a consultant helping companies cut carbon emissions to keep the money from the government. Maybe I will make enough to buy an island and make my own free country….

  21. esomhillholler says:

    Maybe they can just shove a Catalytic Converter up all the cows asses and we can still enjoy a good steak! The same for pigs, chickens, and (oh hell no) even us!

  22. esomhillholler says:

    Yes US,
    It’s me. Karl from Esom Hill

  23. Add termites to cattle farms as another major polluter.Yes,the lowly termite.As I understand it they are a large problem.

    Something I often think about:That the world is getting warmer is probably true.Where I’m sitting right now was covered with a mile of ice less than 13,000 years ago.Something melted it.It sure wasn’t man made carbon dioxide.

    Add the northern boreal forest to the list of problem creators.Seems it produces more CO2 than it absorbs.

  24. BF, I’m very interested in what you said about the trees since my family has dabbled in the timber industry for generations. So I could harvest my trees on a piece of property and then have someone pay me to replant and let the trees grow for 25 years or so as a green credit? So the people get to pay me for doing exactly what I was going to do anyway (through higher energy prices) and Obama gets to say he did something for the environment. What a brilliant scheme.

  25. I don’t know what to think about global warming, as there are supposedly compelling facts coming from every corner. But frankly, I was looking forward to it. I’m freezing my ass off here in Rhode Island. Really.

    Good explanation of cap and trade. Even if the policy had any merits, if developing countries who are the biggest polluters don’t participate then it’s all for naught anyway. The government is hell bent on destroying our economy and our lives even though it will have zero positive impact on our planet. These people need to be put out of their misery.

  26. Galileo: You will only get credit if your existing trees have passed maturity and then only if you leave the planted trees for over 100 years. You may get reforestation money from the govt but not from the CO2 program.

  27. Black Flag says:

    And I’m am not kidding and fully serious….

    I have a business plan that will utilize land purchases based on reselling carbon credits inherent in the land.

    Now, sit down before you fall down…

    … I have buyers….

    Money for nothing – chick for free!

  28. I have a question. Does this cap pertain to companies that use vehicles? FOr instance, I own a Electrical,Plumbing and excavation company. We run 75 trucks and 35 excavation machines if a cap is put on us people will not be able to afford a plumber, electrician or to have any kind of excavation work done. And if the ap pertains to us….what will it do to the truckers.

  29. Black Flag says:


    Specifically, no one can answer your question.

    Generally, there is no limit to what they may demand.

  30. Amazed1: The last proposal I saw the cap would be put on the gas companies. You would pay costs through increased gas cost and increased truck cost, as the manufacturing plants would have caps also.

    So the current push to artificially increase fuel standards could result in a credit for the car company but higher cost to you in new vehicle and increased gas tax, and reduced choice on the vehicle you can purchase. Dont ya just love this stuff?

  31. Really, with people out of jobs, food costing a fortune, manufacturing going down the drain and our polical arena in a shamble….our government thinks it is important to worry about global warming. Give me a beak those thick heads in DC must be drinking idiot fluid. At this rate we will not have to worry about global warming…..we won’t be any manufacturing anything that cause emissions.

  32. Black Flag says:

    Do not think the government has reason.

    To determine government action, ask yourself:

    “What would a murdering thief do?”

    They do not care about what it will do to you – they only care what it will do for them.

  33. Darn! So much for making other people pay me to do nothing! I guess I’ll have to injure myself and get disability if I want to be a parasite, but seriously do they think a significant amount of land might actually be used for carbon credits, and if so wouldn’t that be detrimental to the industries that would be using that land, and if not wouldn’t that mean that the land wouldn’t have really been used for anything anyway, so it didn’t really do anything for the environment?

  34. Lets all write our reps & tell them not to do it!

    HAHA! My sides, My sides!

  35. Black Flag says:

    Ok, let’s all step back a moment.

    The government is making arbitrary decisions on dubious science.

    Intelligent people are revolted.

    Yet, the reason government thinks it can make these decision is the same reasoning it makes all of its decisions.

    Are you all debating merely its decision without debating its method?

  36. Hey BF . . .

    We can get Octomom in on this business! Carbon Dioxide . . . Isn’t that what humans EXHALE? Octomom’s got fourteen of them. 😉

    Carbon Monoxide . . . Isn’t that what Algore got his puke-litzer prize for exposing? 😦

    We be on a roll here, dude! Your trees, Octomom’s babies, and Algore’s cars! We’ll be making our two cents worth in no time at all! 😉

  37. esomhillholler says:

    The Government is doing this and other ridiculous things like it because they are drunk with their new power.

  38. Common Sense says:
    • If you want to find out how to change our government into something much better than what it is now, please go to my blog (just click on my name) and follow up by reading what is going to appear starting Monday, 16 March 2009. Hey, you might even learn something!

  39. It’s the first time I commented here and I must say you share genuine, and quality information for bloggers! Great job.
    p.s. You have a very good template for your blog. Where have you got it from?

    • floor jack,

      This blog is hosted on wordpress. This is one of the themes that they have provided. I did some work to customize it a bit myself, but the overall template was provided by them. They have about 60 to choose from.

  40. When those just above the working poor wake up to the fact that they are the true “beasts of burden” of any government taxation system using communication, transportation and energy to generate additional income, you’ll see a true “perfect storm”. The day those just above the working poor find a rallying point, group or person it becomes visible and god help you all if its a class based union. Everything else fades when economic classes become THE focal point of a movement. You’re safe from “the poor” as they won’t do the work needed to affect your system but those just above the working poor aren’t afraid of 16 hour days and 7 day work weeks one bit now are they? I don’t doubt for a second the union upper echelons are salivating over this very notion right now. I would be were I them and affecting undeniable pressure on political policy a goal I thought worth pursuing.

    Its all a part of something much larger folks.


  1. […] will eventually be ratcheted down in order to bring down emissions. That article can be seen here: Coming Soon… The Breathing Tax . That means that taking a snapshot of one year and calling it the reality fails to take this […]

  2. […] Coming Soon… The Breathing Tax « Stand Up For America […]

  3. […] However, the bitter truth is that taxation-as-industry, practiced by every level of our governments, is – like the Federal Reserve Banking System – in fact a form of slavery, the very same slavery we all pompously claim to have rid our societies of, our vanity angrily blinding us to the bureaucratic beast that soon will require that we literally purchase the very right to breathe. […]

%d bloggers like this: