White Civil Rights : The Website for Europeans and Americans Wherever They May Live

by Jeff Davis

You know that Global Warming hoax I keep writing about? Would you like to know why it’s so important that everyone understands it’s a politically motivated fraud? Well, read on. The New York Times reports: “To meet the Obama administration’s targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, some researchers say, Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon. To reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, the cost of driving must simply increase, according to a forthcoming report by researchers at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.”

Most Americans don’t know that “greenhouse gases” are part of an unproven theory that is part of the greater Global Warming theory, which is also unproven and which is looking flat out wrong lately. Americans need to question everything coming out of the mouths of liberal politicians. Global temperatures have been on the decline since 1998. There was a huge scandal called Climategate which exposed internal e-mails among top Global Warming “scientists” suggesting that they “hide the decline” in global temperature. Naturally taxes must increase because of Global Warming as yet another excuse to redistribute wealth from White families to the government and later to the vast army of needy black and brown people in the US.

The Times goes on: “The 14 percent target was set in the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget for fiscal 2010. In their study, the researchers devised several combinations of steps that United States policymakers might take in trying to address the heat-trapping emissions by the nation’s transportation sector, which consumes 70 percent of the oil used in the United States. Most of their models assumed an economy-wide carbon dioxide tax starting at $30 a ton in 2010 and escalating to $60 a ton in 2030. In some cases researchers also factored in tax credits for electric and hybrid vehicles, taxes on fuel or both. In the modeling, it turned out that issuing tax credits could backfire, while taxes on fuel proved beneficial.’Tax credits don’t address how much people use their cars,’ said Ross Morrow, one of the report’s authors. ‘In reverse, they can make people drive more.’ ” (more…)