« Jesse Jackson Goes to Haiti | Main | Even Condi Admits That Biofuels Cause Food Prices to Soar »
April 28, 2008
Carbon Reductio ad Absurdum
Both Shrillary and O'Bigot have endorsed the "80 by 50" target — that is, we should be forced to reduce our emissions of harmless CO2 by 80% by 2050. Lettuce McLame is less ambitious; he only wants a 65% reduction. Why not call for a 102% reduction by last Wednesday? Unless they really intend to make us easier to rule by destroying the country, it's all pie in the sky anyway.
Steven Hayward points out that a 80% reduction would mean limiting U.S. emissions to 1 billion metric tons. They haven't been that low since 1910, when the population was 92 million and the per capita income in current dollars was $6,000. In 2050, the population will be about 420 million, requiring per capita emissions of 2.5 tons. They weren't that low even in colonial days. The only countries that manage it are basket case hellholes like Haiti and Somalia.
As for alternative energy, France gets most of its electricity from nuclear energy, and still comes in at 6.5 metric tons. Renewable energy is about as likely as pixie dust to ever meet more than 20% of our energy needs.
Hopefully our presidential candidates are just lying through their teeth when they talk about reducing carbon emissions. Otherwise, the results will be horrific.
Despite the MSM's relentless envirowacko propaganda barrage, people would still object if bureaucrats tried to impose a Haitian standard of living on the USA overnight. That's why the targets are set a few decades in the future, so they can kill our economy gradually, raising taxes here, increasing regulation there, until bit by bit the Lilliputians are able drag down Gulliver and tie him to the ground.
On a tip from the MaryHunter.
Posted by Van Helsing at April 28, 2008 1:49 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.moonbattery.com/cgi-bin/new2.cgi/2981
Comments
"Both Shrillary and O'Bigot have endorsed the "80 by 50" target — that is, we should be forced to reduce our emissions of harmless CO2 by 80% by 2050."
The "80 by 50" target does not make sense if we are to believe the argument that mankind is soon approaching a "tipping point" because of global warming (according to Prof. Hansen, Al Gore, and others) this tipping point is a mere 10 years away.
So what good will the "80 by 50" plan do? I mean besides making some activist types and politicians feeling good about themselves for doing something.
Posted by: dpt at April 28, 2008 2:27 PM
What it does is appease their Gore-ified voters, while being far off enough that Hillary (and maybe even Barack) will be dead or in a retirement home by the time anything even gets off the ground.
Unless of course, their Dark Side of the Force malovelence keeps them globe-trotting to betray the US and its allies ala Dhimmi Carter...
Posted by: BURNING HOT at April 28, 2008 8:49 PM
So, every time I go out and create 'carbon smoke' with my Mossberg or my SKS, or my other smoke and led (some are just Full Metal Jacket) emmiting carbon operating devices (AKA = firearms), how many Carbon Offset Credits do I have to buy for each round? Granted, some of my self loaded rounds would have higher offset requirements because they are way over the limit on grain....
Just curious.
Posted by: Oiao at April 28, 2008 10:49 PM
As a proud earned accomplishment, I have a Cold War Certificate on my wall. (for those of you who do not know what I am referring to, well, google it).
The United States won the Cold War (god bless you Ronnie)!
The United States will loose the Carbon Wars (god damb you AL GORE)!
Russia (New USSR) says has no plans to cap carbon emissions
Meanwhile, our elected officials sell us down the toilet............
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL2872408920080428
Posted by: Oiao at April 28, 2008 11:24 PM
Just like using corn to make substandard fuel while the world starves, heavy handed Nanny Politicians create even more problems with over regualtion.
Smoking bans stoke global warming?
Fewer cigarettes get lit indoors in bars and restaurants because of smoking bans from California to Ireland but something else is going up in smoke from a sidewalk in central Oslo – about $100,000 a year in extra outdoor heating bills. Read on...LOL
http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2008/04/28/smoking-bans-stoke-global-warming/
Posted by: Oiao at April 28, 2008 11:32 PM
I don't know if the USA will lose the Carbon Wars. I suspect that the Carbon Wars are just the latest Kabuki dance the political class is going through to keep us distracted while they rob us blind.
Posted by: V the K at April 29, 2008 5:54 AM
That's the only explaination for it that I have heard that makes sense V. We know they want to put the "squeeze on us" for more money.
Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at April 29, 2008 2:53 PM
