Breakthrough Institute says we can reduce emissions without raising the cost of carbon pollution. It's a fantasy.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The most effective and despicable disinformation campaign in U.S. history is ramping up again, trying to stop President Obama and Congress from passing a serious bill aimed at reversing our dangerous dependence on oil and polluting energy sources.

This campaign rests on three big lies:

• The threat posed by human-cause global warming has been significantly exaggerated.

• Making carbon polluters pay to emit or regulating greenhouse gas pollution would hurt the economy.

• The only viable solution to global warming and oil dependence is to eschew a price for carbon and regulations in favor of government spending on breakthrough technologies.

This disinformation campaign is almost entirely driven by fossil fuel companies and conservative media, politicians and think tanks. It is also advanced by the Breakthrough Institute and its president, Michael Shellenberger. His central myth -- a science fiction fantasy, really -- is that it would be possible to sharply reduce emissions without raising the cost of carbon pollution.

On the Breakthrough Institute Web site, Shellenberger claims Rep. Waxman and Thomas Friedman "keep insisting" to large audiences that "the key to developing clean energy is raising fossil fuel prices -- a claim that has been contradicted by large evaluations of the evidence by the International Energy Agency, McKinsey, Stern and others."

False, false and false.

The entire IEA report, "Energy Technology Perspectives, 2008," is built around making the case for both technology investment and a high price for fossil fuels. To keep total planetary warming below 2.4°C, as the vast majority of scientists and governments recommend, you must cut global emissions in half by 2050 (IEA's "BLUE" scenario, 450 ppm atmospheric CO2 concentrations). As its fact sheet states, "emissions halving in BLUE requires options with a cost up to $200/ton."

The McKinsey report, "The Carbon Productivity Challenge," concludes that "the world can achieve the 27 gigatons per year of abatement required in 2030 to stay below 500 ppm for a marginal cost" of about $50/ton. It states "there is a growing consensus that a carbon price is fundamental to driving increased carbon productivity."

The "Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change" concludes, "Establishing a carbon price, through tax, trading or regulation, is an essential foundation for climate-change policy."

Other than anti-science conservatives and the Breakthrough Institute, I don't know any independent group who thinks we could possibly stabilize atmospheric concentrations of global warming pollution at safe levels without raising prices for dirty energy.

Waxman and Friedman don't insist "the key to developing clean energy is raising fossil fuel prices." They insist that one key strategy for reducing global warming pollution while stimulating innovation and green job creation is making polluters pay for the harm they do.

McKinsey and IEA argue that by aggressively pushing energy efficiency, which Waxman and Obama do in their proposed climate legislation, the net cost to taxpayers is about one-tenth of a cent on the dollar. Even better, Obama plans to return most of the money raised by cap-and-trade to the poor and middle class. That means most taxpayers will be not be harmed by the plan -- and can actually cut their combined energy and tax bill if they choose.

Conservatives have been demagoguing any carbon price as an energy tax because they believe the global warming threat has been exaggerated and want to defeat efforts by Obama and Congress to take strong action. By repeating their talking points, the Breakthrough Institute has rendered itself indistinguishable from those disinformers, like the pigs and the men at the end of Orwell's "Animal Farm."

And like them, the Breakthrough Institute doesn't just oppose a carbon price -- it opposes EPA regulations. Shellenberger quotes Institute fellow Roger Pielke Jr. that "Republicans must be drooling over the possibility that EPA will take extensive regulatory action on climate change" because Obama and the Democrats will be blamed for any "actual or perceived downsides."

Again, besides the Breakthrough Institute, the only other major groups who oppose EPA action on climate change -- which was essentially mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court -- are anti-climate conservatives.

In the Breakthrough Institute's world, America would be forbidden from using the only two strategies that have ever successfully reduced pollution levels -- making polluters pay and EPA regulations. Somehow, saving humanity from self-destruction is committing political suicide even if there are only "perceived downsides." Just imagine the pollution we'd be breathing and drinking if they'd been running the EPA all these years.

To the Breakthrough Institute, the only viable strategy is to entrust the future of humanity to miraculous breakthrough innovation. Its entire strategy just happens to be identical to the one GOP message guru Frank Luntz invented in his infamous 2002 strategy memo on how conservatives could pretend to care about global warming without actually doing anything: "We need to emphasize how voluntary innovation and experimentation are preferable to bureaucratic or international intervention and regulation."

more...

-- By Joseph Romm

http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2009/04/2...rade/index.html

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

STFU, Steven. If you want to tax me, just fvckin' say so. Don't wrap it around all this save the earth nonsense.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street

If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat

If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat

If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet

Steven's the taxman.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The Tax Poem

Tax his land,

Tax his bed,

Tax the table

At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,

Tax his mule,

Teach him taxes

Are the rule.

Tax his work,

Tax his pay,

He works for peanuts

Anyway!

Tax his cow,

Tax his goat,

Tax his pants,

Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,

Tax his shirt,

Tax his work,

Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,

Tax his drink,

Tax him if he

Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,

Tax his beers,

If he cries

Tax his tears.

Tax his car,

Tax his gas,

Find other ways

To tax his a s s.

Tax all he has

Then let him know

That you won't be done

Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers;

Then tax him some more,

Tax him till

He's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin,

Tax his grave,

Tax the sod in

Which he's laid.

Put these words

Upon his tomb,

Taxes drove me

to my doom...'

When he's gone,

Do not relax,

Its time to apply

The inheritance tax.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Randomizer

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Copycat.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

You were my inspiration.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

You were my inspiration.

Thank you.

[Ban Hammer 13,364]

maybe steven's training for a job at the irs.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

maybe steven's training for a job at the irs.

Applying for an IRS career is easy, but there are a few details about our hiring process you'll need to know. Follow the links below to learn more:

1. Get an easy-to-understand explanation

   of our Hiring Process.

2. Follow our Eight Easy Steps to job

   application success!

3. Discover the real meaning of an

   IRS Vacancy Announcement.

4. Make your job search a lot easier.

   Check out our Job Search Help.

* You must have Adobe® Reader® to view Adobe PDF files.

When you are ready to search and apply, here are your links!

http://www.jobs.irs.gov/apply.html

Edited May 6, 2009 by Mister_Bill