The price of Keystone may be a carbon tax

Tax could provide cover for approval of oil sands pipeline

Terence Corcoran
Financial Post
2/11/2013

Hello Canada! Are you ready — ready for a new national tax on carbon that will ding pocketbooks across the country? My bet is that a new carbon tax is coming, made almost inevitable by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s full-bore push to secure Washington’s approval of the Keystone XL pipeline.

For early clues on the carbon tax/Keystone trade-off, tune in Tuesday night to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address. As the president speaks, he will be alert to the chorus of Hollywood stars, environmental activists, editorial writers and industry leaders who are pushing for him to make the biggest climate-change decision he can possibly make: Impose a carbon tax.

It is time Canadians became aware of the giant trap being set in Washington over Keystone. The short version is this: The president approves Keystone, greatly expanding the flow of Canadian oil sands production into the United States. In return, however, Canada has no choice but to accept a carbon tax at home as part of a grand bargain.

I first mentioned the likely Obama pipelines-for-taxes strategy in comments at the annual Financial Post forecast luncheon at the New Year. “I see new taxes coming in the United States, including an energy or carbon tax, to try to cover the deficits. The new energy tax would serve as partial cover for President Obama’s approval of the Keystone XL pipeline.”

That Mr. Obama might offer some kind of carbon tax as a carrot to environmentalists and climate activists opposed to Keystone has since emerged as more than plausible. Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel recently outlined how the president might demand a carbon tax in return for approval of energy projects, including Keystone. Getting a carbon tax through Congress looks tricky. But Ms. Strassel reported that California Senator Barbara Boxer outlined how a carbon tax could be imposed administratively through the Environmental Protection Agency…

The article continues at Financial Post.

Update: Under Pressure From ‘Expert’ Yoko Ono, Gov. Cuomo Delays Decision on Fracking

…these lunatics kick up enough fuss and a vacillating twit like Cuomo, who has further ambitions beyond Albany, has to play the hard-left base of his party. So screw the economy…

Update 2: Krauthammer: Obama’s Energy Policies Are Complete Contradiction From Reality & Ultimately Reality Wins

…“Wind and solar and all of the other stuff, and algae, are not self-sustaining. It is much more expensive. And if you force it on consumers you raise rates. You make like increasing expensive. So I think it’s a complete contradiction against reality and ultimately reality wins.

Update 3: Obama’s Carbon Dioxide Lies

The utter desperation of the “Warmists”, the advocates of global warming—now called climate change—is evident in a recent “study” reported in the Daily Caller in which “an international team of researchers” concluded that “earthworms could be contributing to global warming.” Earthworms! That’s how stupid they think the public is. It is useful to know the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere, the object of much fear-mongering by Greens and Warmists. According to Wikipedia, “Air is the name given to the atmosphere used in breathing and photosynthesis. Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%. While air content and atmospheric pressure vary at different layers, air suitable for the survival of terrestrial plants and terrestrial animals is currently only known to be found in Earth’s troposphere and artificial atmospheres.” The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is extraordinarily low compared to its other elements…

Global warming ‘scientific consensus’ debunked

 A peer reviewed study finds out that if there is a scientific consensus at all, it would have to be skepticism toward anthropogenic global warming.

 

Comments are closed.

Categories