Robert Romano
NetRightDaily
3 April 2013
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has called upon the U.S., its largest contributor, to levy a $500 billion a year carbon tax on consumers to offset what it calls “underpriced” oil, coal, and other energy products.
This “mispricing” is supposedly leading to “excessive energy consumption,” which is “accelerating the depletion of natural resources” and contributing to climate change.
“The IMF is lobbying on behalf of environmentalist radicals, arguing that not implementing a half-trillion dollar a year carbon tax is a de facto energy subsidy,” Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson wrote in a letter to members of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.
The IMF study, published on Jan. 28, states, “Consumer subsidies include two components: a pre-tax subsidy (if the price paid by firms and households is below supply and distribution costs) and a tax subsidy (if taxes are below their efficient level).”…
…The study justifies these taxes as preventing climate change: “The efficient taxation of energy further requires corrective taxes to capture negative environmental and other externalities due to energy use (such as global warming and local pollution).”…
Read the entire article at NetRightDaily
H/T Protein Wisdom
…Remember when the left and the so-called crunchy cons sneered at those of us who saw in these climate change “fixes” a move to justify global wealth redistribution and attempts to truly re-create a two-part global class system of wealthy elite/ruling class and then the rest of us?
And yet here it is, practically unvarnished: a failure to drive up energy costs through excessive taxation means that the government doesn’t have enough money to turn around and help those who are hurt by high-energy costs, effectively keeping the government from controlling the private free citizen.
Which is presented as a bad thing.
The left wants to limit productivity and mobility, because in doing so it promotes dependence — which in turn grants them power — and it increase the amount of generated wealth the must first flow through them, to be used as they see fit.
This is confiscatory. It is theft presented as environmental protection that, as a result of the dislocation it causes, seeks to position itself on the back end as governmental compassion. Which is a bit like having someone cut off your legs to save wear on the carpet, then turn around and offer you occasion wheel cheer access — and expect you to thank them for it.
This is who they are. It’s what they do and will always do. Unless we say no. Because their power, as I’ve noted before, comes only from our willingness to accede to their tyrannical designs.
What will be the spark that convinces us the time to fight back aggressively is upon us?
