CO2 selectively targets poor people, yet again.
U.S. droughts, floods and heat waves likely fueled by climate change in the last two years hit the people who can afford it the least – the poor and middle class, a report published on Friday said.
Exclusive: Less fortunate in U.S. hit hardest by extreme weather – report – Yahoo! News
Yes, the poor lost many yachts, luxury automobiles and seaside mansions that were provided by the government.
Some poor people were hit by natural disaster. All poor people were hit by rising electricity prices and heating costs.
World to end tomorrow. Women and minorities hit hardest.
NO. Lying, incompetent rhetoric about CO2 again targeting the poor.
A carbon tax will also preferentially hurt poor people.
Yes because it would act like a broad based consumption tax, unless the proceeds from the tax were then redistributed.
It will be revenue neutral or even have a positive impact on poor peoples money.
For every dollar you spend on the tax two dollars will be put under your pillow by the CO2 Fairy! 😉
Presumably the US will just borrow more money to make up the difference.
Wait till they see how they fare when they can’t afford heating AND food at the same time if the alarmists continue to crank up energy prices in support of their theory.
This result is allegedly already happening in the UK – i.e. people having to choose between eating or keeping warm in winter.
BAU for the Progressive Elite!
If the CAGW hypothesis were true (which I do not accept) then the poorest people of the world (in Africa, Afghanistan, North Korea etc.) would suffer the most. The death toll in poor countries for earthquakes is massively higher in Iran or Pakistan, than in say California or Japan. What the alarmists do not allow for is that the best solution for the poorest might be to promote economic growth. Future generations might be a little worse off due to extreme weather, but a lot better off through living much longer and enjoying living standards many times higher than that of previous generations. Having escaped a subsistence existence, local crop failures will mean just a slightly higher price of some produce, not malnutrition and starvation.
Of course it would but how would adopting such a policy make eco-worriers feel good about themselves?