This question is one that has been on my mind for sometime now.
Let me start out by making it clear, I am all for the environment, and why shouldn't I or anyone be pro-environment? We rely on the environment to sustain our very lives. So it is in all of our interests to be good stewards of our environment.
But, this latest global warming cause has gotten me thinking? What if global warming isn't influenced by mankind? What if global warming is just a natural occurring phenomena?
If we know that the earth's environment is always in flux, since it has changed previously, why would we expect that it wouldn't change presently?
Seems kind of silly doesn't it?
What if the scenario of Global Warming, as commonly presented as something that falls within our control, was nothing but a ruse? A ploy?
What if global warming, was being used as a tool of equalization, or a means of imposing austerity, particularly on western nations?
What if the excuse of human activity contributing to global warming, was being used as a means to force lower living standards and life style expectations in the first world nations?
What if the much touted carbon tax was but one means of attaining this goal?
What the "carbon-tax" really boils down to is increased taxation, disguised as an earth saving, pollution reducing, necessity.
If that is the case, the so called "carbon-tax" which is really a consumption tax ,will hit the working class the hardest.
Because the working classes, lower and middle, invariably spend a greater percentage of their income on goods and services (consumables).
If your income is $50,000 dollars and your carbon taxes cost you an extra $2000, that works out to an increase in taxes of .04% of income.
If your income is $500,000 dollars and your carbon taxes cost you and additional $2000, that is an increase in tax dollars of .004% of income. In fact the higher income earners additional carbon taxes would have to increase to $20,000 dollars before they would equal the income percentage taxed of a mid-income earner.
From this example we see that lower to middle income earners will pay a bigger proportion of "carbon taxes" based on income, then a high income earner. In other words, the vast majority of people, the working classes, will be further impoverished by the carbon/consumption tax.
What also makes the concept of the carbon tax that much more interesting ?
It is touted as "revenue neutral". This means it will not increase the amount of tax money taken in by the government. Would this really be the case?
Usually a personal income tax reduction is promised along with the addition of the carbon tax. Again a personal income tax reduction would benefit a high income earner, far more then a middle to low income earner, based on percentage of income.
So will the carbon/consumption tax be revenue neutral? Or will it in fact be a tax shift from the monied classes onto the backs of the working class.?
Oh and I have more questions.
Is this obsession with man-made global warming being used as a distraction from other environmental issues that are well within our control and, we pay no attention to?
Is this man-made global warming ideology the justification for the increased usage of gm foods?
An alternative economic activity?
A distraction from the mess of globalisation?