Global Warming: The New Word for Mandates and Population Control

Robert L. Hale

Right Side News
October 5, 2009

It is exceptionally difficult to deny people what they want and enjoy unless force and threats are used to scare them into cooperation and compliance.

featured stories   Global Warming: The New Word for Mandates and Population Control
enviro
If the world’s bureaucrats can make a crisis of global warming aka greenhouse gases aka carbon footprint aka environmental harm, the next step may well be population control mandates.

The President’s chief advisor, Rahm Emanuel, has said, “It’s a shame to waste a good crisis” — certainly this is sound advice. People are willing to give up freedoms and self-determination in times of crisis. In the absence of a crisis, those who wish to force an ideology on a population must create one. Otherwise, it is exceedingly difficult in a free society to convince the population to do what otherwise makes little sense.

We have heard so much about the dangers of global warming over the last few years that the average person believes it threatens the survival of mankind.

It makes little difference that there is considerable disagreement over whether global warming even exists. If indeed global warming exists, it is even less certain whether it is a normal phenomena or caused by man, or whether it is good or bad thing.

Nevertheless, we have been told repeatedly that certain disaster looms unless we stop global warming. The claims range from global flooding in a few short years to food and resource shortages that will mandate the imposition of worldwide Marshall Law. Al Gore recently said that if we do not act in the next several years, it will be too late.

Despite the rhetoric that bombards us, the possibility of positive impacts of a warmer world is simply not discussed. Instead we are told we must take immediate steps — even draconian ones — or life as mankind has known it will come to an irreversible end.

Bureaucrats aggressively push the imposition of policies to curb “greenhouse gases” (GHG). These emissions include carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The feared “carbon footprint” is a measure of GHG emissions. All we hear is how we must reduce the carbon footprint. The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed a bill that will impose “cap and trade” rules on emitters of carbon. The biggest emitters are power plants. This bill, if implemented, will result in an increase in the average household utility bill, according to the U.S. Treasury Department, of $1,761 per year — equal to a 15-percent income-tax hike. If enacted, according to a Heritage Foundation study, it would eliminate over 3 million jobs between 2012 and 2035.

The crisis promoters point to an Oregon State University study (Oregon was the first political jurisdiction in the world to legalize assisted suicide). Professor Paul Murtaugh tells us, “Up to this point, little attention has been given to the overwhelming importance of reproductive choice.” Murtaugh says each child born in the U.S. contributes 9,411 metric tons of carbon dioxide. He claims this is about 5.7 times the amount an average person should contribute.

Where is all this going? Maybe we should look to the United Kingdom. In March, a study produced at the behest of Prime Minister Brown warned that Britain must drastically reduce its population if it is to build a “sustainable society.” Sustainable is defined as, “Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The British study suggests it must reduce its population to 30 million if it wants to feed itself sustainably. The current population stands at 60 million. Jonathon Porritt, spokesmen for the study said, “Cutting our population is one way to reduce (environmental) impacts (on developing countries).”

If the world’s bureaucrats can make a crisis of global warming aka greenhouse gases aka carbon footprint aka environmental harm, the next step may well be population control mandates. In the dead of night, the U.S. House passed a bill that will, in effect, be the largest tax increase in the history of this country. Could power rationing or mandatory population controls be far behind?

Vehicle Tracking Bill Introduced in House

The Newspaper
September 15, 2009

A Member of Congress proposes to use taxpayer money to fund the development of technology to track motorists as part of a new form of taxation. US Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) introduced H.R. 3311 earlier this year to appropriate $154,500,000 for research and study into the transition to a per-mile vehicle tax system. The “Road User Fee Pilot Project” would be administered by the US Treasury Department. This agency in turn would issue millions in taxpayer-backed grants to well-connected commercial manufacturers of tolling equipment to help develop the required technology. Within eighteen months of the measure’s passage, the department would file an initial report outlining the best methods for adopting the new federal transportation tax.

“Oregon has successfully tested a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) fee, and it is time to expand and test the VMT program across the country,” Blumenauer said in a statement on the bill’s introduction. “A VMT system can better assess fees based on use of our roads and bridges, as well as during times of peak congestion, than a fee based on fuel consumption. It is time to get creative and find smart ways to rebuild and renew America’s deteriorating infrastructure.”

In 2006, the Oregon Department of Transportation completed its own study of how to collect revenue from motorists with a new form of tax that, like the existing fuel excise tax, imposes a greater charge on drivers the more that they drive. The pilot project’s final report summed up the need for a VMT tax.

“Unfortunately, there is a growing perception among members of the public and legislators that fuel taxes have little to do with road programs and therefore should be considered ‘just another form of taxation,’” the March 2006 report stated. “By itself, this situation appears to be preventing any increases in fuel tax rates from being put into effect.”

The money diverted from the fuel excise tax on non-road related projects must be made up for with a brand new VMT tax, the report argued. Merely indexing the gas tax to inflation or improvements in fleet gas mileage was rejected as “imprecise.” Instead, the report urged a mandate for all drivers to install GPS tracking devices that would report driving habits to roadside Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) scanning devices.

Blumenauer is a long-time advocate of bicycling and mass transit in Congress. Many of his largest campaign donors stand to benefit from his newly introduced legislation. Honeywell International, for example, is a major manufacturer RFID equipment. The company also happens to be the second biggest contributor in the current cycle to Blumenauer’s Political Action Committee (PAC), the Committee for a Livable Future. Another top-ten donor, Accenture, is a specialist in the video tolling field.

H.R. 3311 awaits a hearing in the House Ways and Means Committee. A copy of the bill is available in a 170k PDF file at the source link below.

HR 3311 (Congress of the United States, 9/14/2009)