AGW Today: Greenpeace Knows Where You Are, Plus Cap And Tax

05 Apr, 2010 by William Teach

Print this article Font size -16+

(Woops! Didn’t know John was doing the same story when I set it up to autopost before heading to work)

Here’s a cute little missive from a Greenpeace writer from the other day, which required someone else from Greenpeace to explain that “no, Gene wasn’t really pushing for violence. Really. I’m serious. Because we at Greenpeace are never violent. We don’t spike trees, assault ships, or push people to violent acts through our extreme rhetoric.”

The proper channels have failed. It’s time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism.

If you’re one of those who believe that this is not just necessary but also possible, speak to us. Let’s talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like.

If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:

We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

And we be many, but you be few.

Gee, that sounds like a threat of violence. Where’s the State Run Media to cover this?

Elsewhere, the Washington Post editorial board thinks we can get a “smart climate-change bill passed.”

First, the encouraging part about this. If America is to deal with climate change, it has to reduce carbon emissions — the pollution caused by burning oil, gas and coal. The most cost-effective way to do that is by placing a price on carbon that gradually rises, which a cap could achieve. If well-designed, carbon pricing will attract private capital into the clean-energy effort and spur the technological innovation that will smooth the transition to a cleaner economy.

Right. Because the Dems did such a wonderful job with the health bill that they have to go back and fix it, companies are taking massive non-cash hits, and, oh, hey, the carbon markets are replete with fraud and are collapsing, much like the religious belief in AGW.

As the Senate begins to look beyond the health-care fight, the question legislators should be asking is not whether to put a price on carbon. It’s how to do it best.

Actually, the question that should be asked is “do we want to heavily damage the economy for a fake issue,” when you folks at the WP pointed out in the first paragraph of your editorial that this legislation would have a wider economic reach than the health destruction legislation.