I receive emails everyday, "Pamela, what can I do"? I will tell you. Each action must be fought. Each piece of legislation must be voted down. Obama is moving with dizzying speed? Well then, so are we. The days of a passive populace are over. This is still America, and our elected officials answer to us.
On your lists of things to do today, do nothing until you do your part to save the country:
Be sure to call your US Representative!!! Insist they vote no on cap-and-trade. Below is 1) the link to find your US Rep; and 2) members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee [(202) 225-2927]. Let's melt down the Capitol Switchboard!
CONTACT YOUR US REPRESENTATIVE HERE.
CONTACT THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE HERE.
Cap and Trade is a fancy word for tax increase. Worse, it is a tax on the middle class to subsidize the affluent. States that rely heavily on energy pay more. Miami, Ohio will subsidize Miami, Florida. Why not tie actual warming to carbon taxing based on evidence? Considering that it has been decreasing since 2002, the gubmint might wind up owing us money.
Global warming is a hoax (here's the evidence).
CALL YOUR PEEPS NOW. We are an energy rich nation. The largest gas reserves were just discovered in Louisiana. We have more oil underground than we know what to do with. China is drilling our oil off the coast of Florida because Castro gave them permission.
Wake up and stop funding the damn jihad!
And don't forget your other righteous task: SAY NO TO KOH.
(SAVE YOUR WALLET AND YOUR COUNTRY!)
UPDATE: Carbon taxation here
McKitrick’s premise is simple—and wait for this—evidence-based!
Why not tie carbon taxes to actual levels of warming? Both skeptics and alarmists should expect their wishes to be answered
Below are the salient points of McKitrick’s proposal. Again, the entire June 12, 2007 Op-Ed can be read here, and his full discussion of the proposal can be evaluated here.
The IPCC [Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change] predicts a warming rate in the tropical troposphere of about double that at the surface, implying about 0.2C to 1.2C per decade in the tropical troposphere under greenhouse-forcing scenarios. That implies the tax will climb by $4 to $24 per ton per decade, a much more aggressive schedule of emission fee increases than most current proposals. At the upper end of warming forecasts, the tax could reach $200 per ton of CO2 by 2100, forcing major carbon-emission reductions and a global shift to non-carbon energy sources.
Global-warming activists would like this. But so would skeptics, because they believe the models are exaggerating the warming forecasts. After all, the averaged UAH [University of Alabama-Huntsville] / RSS [Remote Sensing Systems] tropical troposphere series went up only about 0.08C over the past decade, and has been going down since 2002. Some solar scientists even expect pronounced cooling to begin in a decade. If they are right, the T3 tax will fall below zero within two decades, turning into a subsidy for carbon emissions.
At this point the global-warming alarmists would leap up to slam the proposal. But not so fast, Mr. Gore: The tax would only become a carbon subsidy if all the climate models are wrong, if greenhouse gases are not warming the atmosphere, and if the sun actually controls the climate. Alarmists sneeringly denounce such claims as “denialism,” so they can hardly reject the policy on the belief that they are true.
Under the T3 tax, the regulator gets to call everyone’s bluff at once, without gambling in advance on who is right. If the tax goes up, it ought to have. If it doesn’t go up, it shouldn’t have. Either way we get a sensible outcome.
