Category Archives: Carbon Taxes

Australia: Classic – let someone else pay for the CO2 tax

 

Will bribing the poor will get Australian PM Julia Gillard her carbon tax approval?

 

What better way for a politician to connive voter approval on a new carbon tax than to let some groups think that they won’t pay for it, someone else will? That is a classic way liberals get voter approval by making the voters think that if you vote for this tax, you will not pay for it because some company or some rich guys will get stuck with the bill, but not you. It appears that the Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, has added another dimension to that classic con by stating that some voters will even get someone else’s money back into their bank accounts! What a great way to get votes – hand out free money and they’ll rubber stamp whatever BS you come up with!

Gillard seems to be grasping at ways to get those carbon taxes going so the government has more money to blow on the typical useless crap governments blow money on, like those extravagant salaries, healthcare plans and golden retirement packages, not to mention things like studies on the sex life of the Tufted 3 Tit Bush Mouse and a myriad of other ‘important things’ that are usually a gigantic waste of your tax-dollars. What better thing to tax than that evil global warming causing carbon that’s going to kill us all? After all, we only need an impossible to attain $700 trillion dollars to lower the temperature of the globe by a whopping 1 degree.

In a fit of what I’d term a liberal Ponzi Scheme, Gillard wants to tax carbon to the tune of $5.78 billion and then use those misappropriated funds to bribe people into being on her side of the global warming taxation fence. This will get her a higher approval rating not to mention it will assist her in not getting tossed out on her head like her predecessor Kevin Rudd did. So, who’s she going to bribe? Well from the article at The Australian, we get these little snippets.

Ms Gillard said welfare recipients, who pay little or no tax, would not be ignored in the climate compensation package.

“We do need to remember, not everyone who is going to be in need of assistance is in the workforce. We’ve got around four million pensioners. So we’re talking about a balance here across the tax and transfer system.”

Ahh yes, there you have it, let’s get the poor people on our side by telling them they will be the benefactors of our giant Ponzi Scheme that will be used by the Australian government as a wealth redistribution program, which is what the real goal is anyway. If you are a corporation, or have money, you’ll be paying more for your supplies, food, fuel, heat, electricity, cars, tools, and anything else you care to name due to carbon taxes that are allegedly to save the planet from CO2. If you’re poor we’ll take care of you! As long as you vote for us you will not only get lower taxes, but free money, too! Just check the box next to ‘Yes, I want free money!’

If you’re on welfare or if you’re a pensioner with low-income, the government needs your support and what better way than to dangle dollar bills in front of them to get it?  Robin Hood could certainly be proud of Gillard for her latest ‘rob the rich, give to the poor’ scheme that is designed to screw their citizens out of more money and simultaneously get votes for her and her party, all while doing absolutely nothing to save the planet.

This is nothing other than more CO2 Insanity.

Source: The Australian

 

 

Advertisements

Comments Off on Australia: Classic – let someone else pay for the CO2 tax

Filed under Cap & Trade, Carbon Taxes, Carbon Trading, Climate Alarmism, Climate Disruption, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Financial, Global Warming

Climate Disruption is Really Bank Account Disruption

Well now, here’s some real CO2 Insanity! Think about how the warmers have been and are constantly harping about carbon taxes and carbon trading as a method to eliminate global warming, climate change, climate disruption, or what may be the new name I’m coining – “Bank Account Disruption.”

Remember all the various predictions floating around the internet on how much the temperature will rise in the future? From the EPA’s website we get this bit of nonsense from their take on the 2007 IPCC Report.

  • The average surface temperature of the Earth is likely to increase by 2 to 11.5°F (1.1-6.4°C) by the end of the 21st century, relative to 1980-1990, with a best estimate of 3.2 to 7.2°F (1.8-4.0°C) (see Figure 1). The average rate of warming over each inhabited continent is very likely to be at least twice as large as that experienced during the 20th century.

You can see in the figure below a graph showing the extremely wide range of possibilities predicted by the IPCC. From my point of view they may have done better using a dartboard. I mean with a range like that you just about can’t miss.

The predicted cost of just lowering the Earth’s temperature one lousy degree makes Obama’s proposed 2010 budget of $3.63 trillion look rather miserly. So how much is it? Well according to this article at World Net Daily it will cost only a ‘mere’ $700 trillion to lower the Earth’s temperature by one degree. No that’s not a misprint it’s $700,000,000,000,000 dollars. See why I call it real CO2 Insanity? That’s 7 times the world’s gross production, or we don’t even make enough money to pay for it.

Take the IPCC’s worst high temperature projection of 6.4 degrees centigrade and you have a ‘paltry’ $4,480 trillion dollars. Mind you, we don’t even have the $700 trillion for 1 degree, yet the warmers, in a fit of CO2 Insanity, keep trying to screw us taxpayers out of every penny they can by promoting preposterous claims, use of scare-tactics and plain old brainwashing. Even the EPA has problems with it, though with what goes on with them these days, this is the last thing I’d ever expect to hear.

Citing a study by the EPA’s Dr. Linda M. Chappell and various other sources, the Senate report asserts, “EPA has called the consequences of regulating greenhouse gases under the [Clean Air Act] ‘absurd,’ affecting 6.1 million sources, introducing $78 billion in annual costs, causing ‘at least a decade or longer’ of permit delays, ‘slowing’ construction nationwide for years, ‘introducing burdens that are administratively ‘infeasible,’ ‘overwhelming,’ that will ‘adversely affect national economic development,’ while impacting sources ‘not appropriate at this point to even consider regulating.'”

So, if this is all true (and you just read it from the horse’s mouth above) then why the big push to get rid of coal and oil? Why no drilling? Why do we need ill-advised legislation like California’s global warming law AB32 that will (by the EPA’s own admission) do nothing to save the climate, but will harm California’s economy via raising the cost of just about everything? Why are we wasting money on bird-chopping wind turbines that only make a profit when heavily subsidized? Talk about the big con, this is the ultimate! I mean even Bernie Madoff in his wildest dreams ever thought he’d scam $700 trillion dollars out of anyone!

No this is more CO2 Insanity and it’s proof that the goal isn’t to save the planet from global warming at all, but to rip off as much money as possible from the unsuspecting public, many who genuflect at the altar of the Church of Global Warming and buy into what’s become the globe’s latest religion.

Next time you hear Al Gore at his podium, moaning we’re all going to die from climate disruption, remember to check your wallet to make sure it’s not being disrupted and check your bank account, too. After you’re sure your wallet hasn’t been picked, suggest to Al that he cash the $700 trillion check from Zimbabwe to cover it.

You can read more about it at the source below.

Source: World Net Daily

3 Comments

Filed under AB32 California, California, Cap & Trade, Carbon Taxes, Carbon Trading, Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, CO2, Co2 Insanity, EPA, Global Warming, Government, IPCC, Politics, United Nations

UK Govt’s Clueless Carbon Guru is Blowing Your £250 Billion Anyway

By: John O’Sullivan

Britain’s top green bureaucrat on Carbon Markets and Climate Change admits she doesn’t know what she is doing with £250 billion of UK taxes.

European Commission Directorate General of Climate Action, Jill Dugganexposes her utter ignorance in an Australian radio interview when challenged about the costs and benefits of Britain’s rush to a ‘green’ economy.

Duggan is visiting Australia as head of Britain’s International Emissions Trading scheme and was hoping to win over new converts to her cause. Duggan (and Britain’s ‘Big Green’ goofball government) are aiming to cut emissions of carbon dioxide (that trace gas that comprises less than 0.04 percent of the atmosphere) by 20 percent by 2020.

Duggan appeared on Melbourne Talk Radio, on the Steve Price Breakfast Show (March 9, 2011) and when questioned live on air floundered badly exposing the staggering depths of her incompetence.

For those who doubt the following transcript of the radio interview is real and is perhaps some nightmarish early ‘climate denier’ April Fool’s joke, then listen to the actual recording here (acknowledgement: Andrew Bolt,Herald Sun).

Aussie journalist, Andrew Bolt (AB) leads off by asking Jill Duggan (JD) some pointed questions:

AB:  Can I just ask; your target is to cut Europe’s emissions by 20% by 2020?

JD:  Yes.

AB:  Can you tell me how much – to the nearest billions – is that going to cost Europe do you think?

JD:  No, I can’t tell you but I do know that the modelling shows that it’s cheaper to start earlier rather than later, so  it’s cheaper to do it now rather than put off action.

AB:  Right.  You wouldn’t quarrel with Professor Richard Tol – who’s not a climate sceptic – but is professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin?  He values it at about $250 billion.  You wouldn’t quarrel with that?

JD:  I probably would actually.  I mean, I don’t know.  It’s very, very difficult to quantify.  You get different changes, don’t you?  And one of the things that’s happening in Europe now is that many governments – such as the UK government and the German government – would like the targets to be tougher because they see it as a real stimulus to the economy.

AB:  Right.  Well you don’t know but you think it isn’t $250 billion.

JD:  I think you could get lots of different academics coming up with lots of different figures.

AB:  That’s right.  You don’t know but that’s the figure that I’ve got in front of me.  For that investment.  Or for whatever the investment is.  What’s your estimation of how much – because the object ultimately of course is to lower the world’s temperatures – what sort of temperature reduction do you imagine from that kind of investment?

JD:  Well, what we do know is that to have an even chance of keeping temperature increases globally to 2°C – so that’s increases – you’ve got to reduce emissions globally by 50% by 2050.

AB:  Yes, I accept that, but from the $250 billion – or whatever you think the figure is – what do you think Europe can achieve with this 20% reduction in terms of cutting the world’s temperature?  Because that’s, in fact, what’s necessary.  What do you think the temperature reduction will be?

JD:  Well, obviously, Europe accounts for 14% of global emissions.  It’s 500 or 550 million people.  On its own it cannot do that.  That is absolutely clear.

AB:  Have you got a figure in your mind?  You don’t know the cost.  Do you know the result?

JD:  I don’t have a cost figure in my mind. Nor, one thing I do know, obviously, is that Europe acting alone will not solve this problem alone.

AB:  So if I put a figure to you – I find it odd that you don’t know the cost and you don’t know the outcome – would you quarrel with this assessment:  that by 2100 – if you go your way and if you’re successful – the world’s temperatures will fall by 0.05°C?  Would you agree with that?

JD:  Sorry, can you just pass that by me again?  You’re saying that if Europe acts alone?

AB:  If just Europe alone – for this massive investment – will lower the world’s temperature with this 20% target (if it sustains that until the end of this century) by 0.05°C.  Would you quarrel with that?

JD:  Well, I think the climate science would not be that precise.  Would it?

AB:  Ah, no, actually it is, Jill.  You see this is what I’m curious about;  that you’re in charge of a massive program to re-jig an economy.  You don’t know what it costs.  And you don’t know what it’ll achieve.

JD:  Well, I think you can look at lots of modelling which will come up with lots of different costs.

AB:  Well what’s your modelling?  That’s the one that everyone’s quoting.  What’s your modelling?

JD:  Well, ah, ah. Let me talk about what we have done in Europe and what we have seen as the benefits.  In Europe, in Germany you could look at, there’s over a million new jobs that have been created by tackling climate change, by putting in place climate policies.  In the UK there’s many hundreds of thousand of jobs.

The above is just excerpt to vividly illustrate how liars, incompetence and junk science are stealing our taxes. Read on for the full transcript of the interview:

Steve Price: There are many experts on both sides of this argument, Andrew.

Andrew Bolt: Yes.

SP: One of them is Jill Duggan.  She’s with the European Union.  She has managed Britain’s initial emissions trading scheme.  She’s in this country to talk at a series of lectures and she’s been good enough to join us on the line.  Thanks for your time.

Jill Duggan: Good morning.

SP:  The debate we’re having which I’m sure you’ve heard resonating around the country since you’ve been here.  Did Britain go through a similar spirited and vocal debate?

JD:  Well, there’s a couple of differences.  Clearly industry in the UK were worried, in the same way that Australian industry is worried, because before the start of any new regulation or scheme . . .  But it didn’t have the same level of public recognition, I don’t think.  And I think that the public in Europe still don’t really know that they’ve got an emissions trading scheme.

AB:  In part isn’t it the case, Jill, that the emissions trading scheme was set so low – the prices – that people haven’t quite noticed it yet and that it hasn’t actually stimulated the investment in green energy that is needed?  And, in fact, Britain next year – apparently – is going to go to a Carbon tax of its own?

JD:  Well it’s already got a Carbon tax, I mean, it’s not been a one-size-fit-all.  It’s not just been emissions trading in Europe – it’s been a variety of policies.  Actually the price of Carbon – the Carbon price in the Emissions trading scheme in Europe is about €15 or €16 a tonne.  I’m not sure what that is in Australian Dollars – it’s probably about $20 a tonne?

SP:  A touch more.  Probably almost $25.

JD:  So that’s the price and that’s been the price for the last couple of years.  I mean, we did get some things wrong in the very beginning and we’ve learned from those.  I fully admit that one of the things that we didn’t do was we didn’t get companies to monitor and report their emissions prior to the start of the scheme.  So when it was set up we did get the figures wrong in that first learning phase back in 2005.

AB:  Can I just ask; your target is to cut Europe’s emissions by 20% by 2020?

JD:  Yes.

AB:  Can you tell me how much – to the nearest billions – is that going to cost Europe do you think?

JD:  No, I can’t tell you but I do know that the modelling shows that it’s cheaper to start earlier rather than later, so  it’s cheaper to do it now rather than put off action.

AB:  Right.  You wouldn’t quarrel with Professor Richard Tol – who’s not a climate sceptic – but is professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin?  He values it at about $250 billion.  You wouldn’t quarrel with that?

JD:  I probably would actually.  I mean, I don’t know.  It’s very, very difficult to quantify.  You get different changes, don’t you?  And one of the things that’s happening in Europe now is that many governments – such as the UK government and the German government – would like the targets to be tougher because they see it as a real stimulus to the economy.

AB:  Right.  Well you don’t know but you think it isn’t $250 billion.

JD:  I think you could get lots of different academics coming up with lots of different figures.

AB:  That’s right.  You don’t know but that’s the figure that I’ve got in front of me.  For that investment.  Or for whatever the investment is.  What’s your estimation of how much – because the object ultimately of course is to lower the world’s temperatures – what sort of temperature reduction do you imagine from that kind of investment?

JD:  Well, what we do know is that to have an even chance of keeping temperature increases globally to 2°C – so that’s increases – you’ve got to reduce emissions globally by 50% by 2050.

AB:  Yes, I accept that, but from the $250 billion – or whatever you think the figure is – what do you think Europe can achieve with this 20% reduction in terms of cutting the world’s temperature?  Because that’s, in fact, what’s necessary.  What do you think the temperature reduction will be?

JD:  Well, obviously, Europe accounts for 14% of global emissions.  It’s 500 or 550 million people.  On its own it cannot do that.  That is absolutely clear.

AB:  Have you got a figure in your mind?  You don’t know the cost.  Do you know the result?

JD:  I don’t have a cost figure in my mind.  Nor, one thing I do know, obviously, is that Europe acting alone will not solve this problem alone.

AB:  So if I put a figure to you – I find it odd that you don’t know the cost and you don’t know the outcome – would you quarrel with this assessment:  that by 2100 – if you go your way and if you’re successful – the world’s temperatures will fall by 0.05°C?  Would you agree with that?

JD:  Sorry, can you just pass that by me again?  You’re saying that if Europe acts alone?

AB:  If just Europe alone – for this massive investment – will lower the world’s temperature with this 20% target (if it sustains that until the end of this century) by 0.05°C.  Would you quarrel with that?

JD:  Well, I think the climate science would not be that precise.  Would it?

AB:  Ah, no, actually it is, Jill.  You see this is what I’m curious about;  that you’re in charge of a massive program to re-jig an economy.  You don’t know what it costs.  And you don’t know what it’ll achieve.

JD:  Well, I think you can look at lots of modelling which will come up with lots of different costs.

AB:  Well what’s your modelling?  That’s the one that everyone’s quoting.  What’s your modelling?

JD:  Well, ah, ah. Let me talk about what we have done in Europe and what we have seen as the benefits.  In Europe, in Germany you could look at, there’s over a million new jobs that have been created by tackling climate change, by putting in place climate policies.  In the UK there’s many hundreds of thousand of jobs.

AB:  Actually, that’s not right, is it?  I just saw research.  Did you see this?  It came last week. Verso Economics saying that, for example, in Scotland the investment in green power has cost 3.7 jobs for every one green job created.  And there are similar figures; I’m looking at Italy here, Germany, Spain.  They’re all the same figures.

JD:  They’re not all the same figures.  You can pick figures to support any argument.  What I’m saying is that the experience in Europe is we’ve done things well and we’ve had some things which we wish we’d done differently at the start.  The impact on the economy has been that it has stimulated growth in jobs that will last.  It’s not been noticeable in the impact on households.  Not compared to gas and oil prices and the impact that they have on households.  And that we actually have governments in Europe including the UK, Germany and France who are asking for tougher targets now.  Now governments aren’t in the business of trying to undermine their economies.  They want their economies to grow.  If the UK, Germany and France did not believe that this was good for their economies and good for the planet they would not be asking for tougher targets.

AB:  I wish I could believe that.  We’re talking about a region – Europe – that has unemployment at 10% and a growth forecast this year of 1.6%.  I don’t know what we could learn from Europe actually.

JD:  Well.  Europe is not all the same.  Different bits of Europe have different experiences, clearly, and different economies.  Germany is an economy that’s a coal state like Australia and there may be things that you can learn from Germany.  I would not pretend that the UK is the same as Australia.  I recognise that Australia has its own special circumstances.  But I think if you look at how you want an economy to grow over the next 40, 50 years then you can either embrace what is going to be the way forward – and what the rest of the world is looking towards doing (including China and India) – or you can say “No, I’m not going to look at this, I’m going to stick with the same old ways of doing things”.  Now, actually, it takes time to change and it takes a lot of creativity and thought and I’m not saying that every country in the world should change at the same rate.  But this is a serious issue.  I realise that I’m talking to climate sceptics here.

AB:  Ah, look, economic sceptics as well, Jill.  Because, really, when you say for example that China and India will do something: they won’t.  China will, in fact, be responsible for more than three-quarters of the world’s growth of emission in the next 20 years. But look, I know we are not going to agree on this…

JD:  That’s right.  There are 1.3 billion people in China who would probably like the same standard of living that Australians enjoy.

AB: Precisely my point. Exactly my point.

JD: But they are also investing very heavily in wind.  They’re the largest manufacturers of wind turbines in the world now.

AB:  We won’t get into an argument because they’re building a coal-fired power station every week.  Thank you for joining us.

SP:  Jill, thank you.

AB:  I’m not persuaded I’m afraid and Steven I’m just astonished that someone selling a carbon emissions programme here, saying that Europe works, cannot tell us how much Europe’s costs and what it will actually achieve in lowering the world’s temperature.

SP:  And she did say that 550 million people in Europe, acting alone, would not have any impact on global climate.

AB:  So what does that say about Australia?

SP:  So what are we doing? One quick call.

AB:  My God Almighty.

SP:  Paul, good morning.

Paul:  Good morning Andrew, I’m praying: where can I donate?  Please, that lady was just a clown.  She doesn’t know how much it will cost, what it’ll do and if it’ll make no difference.

AB:  But we’ve got to do it anyway, Paul.

SP:  Well, she was left speechless at one point.

Paul: Where do I donate money to get this interview published?  Can it be an advert?  Can it be run during “An Inconvenient Truth”?  Please, I’m praying, where do I give money?

AB:  Paul, I tell you what, Britons will want to give money too because, listen to this – this is how green policies have left Britain risking not having power when they actually need it.  They had on just a couple of days ago, on the BBC, Steve Holliday, who’s the head of the national grid which distributes electricity around the country.  He said because they’re ramping up wind power – which he thought was good, global warming and all that – people might have to get used to an economy where they could only use power when the wind blows.

Steve Holliday:  “We keep thinking about; we want it to be there and provide power when we need it.  It’s going to be a much smarter system then.  We’re going to have to change our own behaviour and consume it when it’s available and available cheaply.”

SP:  They’ll only have lights when the wind blows.  Great stuff!

Conclusion: Jill Duggan should be fired and a moratorium on all programs relating to climate change put on hold until an independent commission of international experts fully examines this carbon fraud and determines who should be prosecuted and put behind bars.

1 Comment

Filed under Cap & Trade, Carbon Taxes, Carbon Trading, Climate Change, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government, John O'Sullivan, Politics

Blue States Disappearing Fast

Seems the über liberal Democrats are starting to tick-off mainstream Americans. Based upon Gallup’s recent poll those solid blue (Democrat) states are disappearing fast . In a mere two years the 30 states were solid Democrat in 2008 dropped to 14 in 2010. An astounding 50% cut.

Gallup Chart

So what does this have to do with global warming? All one has to do is note that most of the players in the global warming arena have a D in front of their name.

These are big-time liberals like Al Gore, President Obama, Bill Clinton, Henry Waxman and other assorted Democrats who’ve been pushing for cap and trade laws in the United States and pushing for us to sign a carbon treaty that will allow them to tax us and redistribute our wealth to foreign countries under the guise of global warming, which is what they have really been after all along.

This just goes to show you that much of America doesn’t want to stray too far to the loony-left, which bodes well for people on the skeptical side of the global warming debate who feel that the “Chicken Little” mindset portrayed by them goes too far astray from common sense and reality.

This is what I really call hope & change! You can real all the Gore-y details at the source below.

Source: Gallup

1 Comment

Filed under Cap & Trade, Carbon Taxes, Carbon Trading, Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government, Politics

AB 32 & Schwarzenneger Slapped by Court

Finally, someone in the state of California with some common sense! Per Reuters Africa of all places…….

A San Francisco judge has tentatively ruled that California did not adequately consider alternatives to creating a carbon market, a decision which clouds the premier U.S. climate change program’s outlook.

California’s so-called cap-and-trade plan is seen as the vanguard of U.S. climate change policy after the U.S. Congress failed to pass a federal system, and the plan’s fate is being watched globally by environmentalists and industry.

While only a tentative ruling at least this is a start in the right direction to stop this mad plan that will accelerate California’s bankruptcy. You can read more at the source below.

When will someone notice that setting up carbon trading with foreign countries, as California has done on its own is also illegal?

Source: Reuters Africa

 

Comments Off on AB 32 & Schwarzenneger Slapped by Court

Filed under AB32 California, California, Cap & Trade, Carbon Taxes, Carbon Trading, Climate Change, Co2 Insanity, Financial, Global Warming, Legal, Politics, Prop 23

Climate Czar Browner Boogies

"What is that damn ringing in my ear?"

 

Ernest Hemingway wrote a novel titled For Whom the Bell Tolls. The catch line was “For whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.” Well, it’s been tolling away for cap and trade dying for a while now and continues on ringing. The United States Congress has failed to pass any cap & trade laws and now that the Republicans control the House or Representatives, any deals with that are probably DOA. Next, the Chicago Climate Change (CCX) (Al Gores’ baby), kicked the bucket at the end of 2010, and shortly thereafter the Euro Carbon Market suspended trading due to fraud problems.

In what appears to be another harbinger of things to come, White House Climate Czar, Carol Browner (head of the EPA during the Clinton days) has now boogied right out the White House back door which seems to perhaps indicate that the final nail in the cap & trade coffin has been pounded in, not to mention this seems to also be an indication that perhaps the Obama Administration is finally going to cease trying to pass onerous cap & trade laws that will only serve to raise the price of goods in the United States, which will drive more businesses out of business or off shore and further reduce the tax intake.

While it’s a start at removing the liberal-leftist-communist-greentards from the picture, we still need to have Congress reign in the EPA who appear hell-bent on creating more problems than they solve.

Source: ABC San Francisco

Comments Off on Climate Czar Browner Boogies

Filed under Cap & Trade, Carbon Taxes, Carbon Trading, Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming

California chasing away cruise industry?

The SS California Economy - Sinking Fast

This time the cruise lines are fleeing. Two from the port of Los Angeles and one from the port of San Diego. We get this from the Contra Costa Times. Departing from San Diego for Australia……

The 2,500-passenger Carnival Spirit is moving to Australia by April 2012, the cruise line announced on its Web site, citing a “huge potential for growth” there while its San Diego business sags

Departing Los Angeles for more profitable pastures……

To the north, Royal Caribbean’s 3,100-passenger Mariner of the Seas is leaving on its final voyage from the Port of Los Angeles on Sunday and after a tour of South America. It will end up at its new home base of Galveston, Texas, the Los Angeles Times said. And the 2,348-passenger Norwegian Star will leave LA in May for Tampa, Fla.

So, what’s the financial devastation to the greentard state of California? Per the article it’s $54 million per year out the door in San Diego and while no figures were provided, you can probably safely double that in LA for another $108 million per year, making the total loss to the state $162 million a year off the top. No taxes coming in and the state will be paying out massive quantities of unemployment no doubt. If you’re a longshoreman in Los Angeles or San Diego make sure you thank a greentard for your unemployment.

While the cruise lines cite lower business and drug cartel violence in Mexico, you can probably bet grandma’s house that good old AB32 and the coming high cost of doing business in California may be the real cause of the decision or at least a larger part of it. While no one’s talking about it, you should figure in the high cost of doing business in California, which per the Tax Foundation, ranks 49th out of 50 states meaning only Rhode Island has a worse business tax climate. You can bet Florida and Texas will be better places to make a profit.

You can read the below regarding AB32 and Prop 23, which wealthy greentards like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bill Gates, James Cameron, Al Gore and others helped to prevent passing in the last election. Per the Press Telegram…..

The California Air Resources Board and local port authorities have adopted numerous measures to curb diesel soot and carbon dioxide from ships, trucks and trains.

For example, the Air Resources Board in late 2007 adopted a plan requiring that ships turn off their auxiliary engines, use exhaust filters or plug into electrical outlets while visiting ports.

The ship plan is one of several “early action” measures designed to jumpstart AB 32.

Other threatened policies include a plan to require cleaner “low-carbon” diesel blends for trains, cargo-handling equipment and tug boats.

Well, don’t tell me that’s not all going to create an inhospitable business environment for the cruise lines. They like money and they run those ships 24x7x365. They dock in the early AM and they’re usually reloaded with food, booze and passengers by 12 Noon or so and on their way with the next cruise. I’d surmise an operation so efficient that it can restock a huge ship in a matter or hours isn’t going to want to absorb all those additional costs, especially considering the current economic environment. So, they’re voting with their feet and moving on to greener pastures. California can suck diesel fumes.

Yes Arnold, idiots at CARB and the legislature, that’s the way to bail out California! Scare everyone that pays taxes away and then sit and wonder who the hell will pay your next paycheck. Way to go dummies! And this is only the beginning. Who will be next? If Jerry Brown gets his proposed tax hike you can bet more businesses and tax paying citizens will be fighting to see who can leave the fastest!

Stay tuned. More CO2 Insanity.

Source: Contra Costa Times, Press Telegram, The Tax Foundation

1 Comment

Filed under AB32 California, California, Cap & Trade, Carbon Taxes, Carbon Trading, Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government, Politics, Prop 23