And so it begins….
We knew as soon as there was a draft climate bill that it would be falsely attacked and derided disingenuously as “an energy tax.” But we had no idea to what extent the truth-stretchers would go to make their rhetorical points.
Did I say stretch the truth? I meant break, beat, spit upon and then toss it into a cesspool to be feasted upon by worms and vermin, for as little as truth means to these lying liars.
Wednesday, Keith Olbermann named John Boehner his “Worst Person in the World” for his exaggeration lie about the costs of tackling carbon. Watch this video for yourself:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lJWX_xmxco]
This is just the tip of the iceberg. At least some people are willing to check their facts and talk about climate in a rational manner. Look, a Press Release! (emphasis added is mine, not in original)
‘Energy Tax’ Rhetoric Ill Serves Debate on Climate Legislation
Republican members of Congress have taken to calling cap-and-trade legislation an “energy tax” or a “light switch tax” on American families and businesses.
Most recently, congressional Republicans misrepresented a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study analyzing cap-and-trade proposals. They distorted the study’s conclusions to exaggerate the costs of cap-and-trade legislation on individual households, by making faulty calculations based on erroneous assumptions and by ignoring a basic principle of economics – the time value of money.
Conservatives, of all people, should not ignore basic principles of economics.
Such tactics, which are designed to score political points and gain headlines, are a disservice to American citizens, who urgently need Congress
to debate the climate issue constructively. Voters are counting on their elected representatives to work together across party lines to develop
balanced legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, lower America’s dangerous dependence on oil, and help us move more quickly to a more
diversified, robust energy economy.The scientific evidence for a human role in climate change is compelling enough to warrant prudent measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Many
religious leaders and business executives agree. An ethic of traditional conservatism is to exercise proper stewardship over the environment that
supports our economy and to reduce risks of environmental harm.A cap-and-trade bill, or competing alternatives such as cap-and-dividend or carbon tax measures, would take the fundamental step of putting a price on
carbon dioxide emissions, thus sending a signal that CO2 emissions carry a cost and free disposal in the atmosphere is no longer appropriate.Environmental legislation works to reduce harmful emissions by putting a price on those emissions, either directly or more commonly, by limiting
their disposal into the environment. The Clean Air Act put a price on sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and other harmful air pollutants. The Clean Water
Act put a price on sewage, hazardous chemical wastes, and other types of water pollution.Few except special interests and politicians who do their bidding would argue that limiting emissions that put human health and the environment at
risk puts a burdensome “tax” on American families and businesses.And even if lawmakers are sincerely doubtful about the human role in climate change, there are sound reasons for reducing fossil fuel dependence anyway.
Our heavy dependence on oil is a strategic liability. It’s only a matter of time before oil prices spike upward again. A large share of remaining global
oil reserves is located in politically unstable parts of the world. Sticking to an energy path of high oil dependence will leave the U.S. chronically
vulnerable to overseas political turmoil over which our country has little control.The recent Republican tactics to fight climate legislation show a dangerous unwillingness to learn the right lessons from the election debacles of 2006
and 2008. A refusal to face facts, acknowledge risks, and make responsible policy choices for the greater good is not conservative. It is reckless
endangerment of our country and it must stop.David Jenkins
Vice President for Government and Political Affairs
Republicans for Environmental Protection
www.rep.org
Thanks David, couldn’t have said it better. Meanwhile, an analysis in the Boston Business Journal of the RGGI cap and trade being done in the Northeast showed that the average family payed 75 cents per year extra in carbon costs. Not exactly $3100, but who’s counting, right?
And in what we can only assume is a terrible April Fools joke, George Will is again distorting climate science. Oh, did I say distorting? Again, I meant lying. Having been corrected by about a million people after his last climate denialist column propoganda, we must assume George Will is either
a) unwilling to listen to rational argument and facts,
b) stupid,
c) senile,
d) being paid off,
e) actively lying and knowing that what he is saying is demonstrably false– not a matter of opinion but flat wrong, or
f) all of the above.
Get ready for more of this– this isn’t even the first wave, but only a trickle of the misinformation that will get thrown out into the public sphere to try to confuse everyone.
