C02: Cap & Trade, YOU'RE Next

The US EPA declared on April 17th of this year that carbon dioxide (C02) is a dangerous pollutant. That sole declaration will allow the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under existing pollution laws without the passage of new legislation. However, Cap & Tax just passed the US House last week. A similar bill was the beginning of the end in Fornicalia (as Congressman Tom McClintock pointed out), just as it would be with a federal bill.

Further, it would appear the EPA is purposely suppressing a report by one of its own staffers that is not in keeping with The Religious Left. From FoxNews:

The 98-page report, co-authored by EPA analyst Alan Carlin, pushed back on the prospect of regulating gases like carbon dioxide as a way to reduce global warming. Carlin's report argued that the information the EPA was using was out of date, and that even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased, global temperatures have declined.

According to internal e-mails that have been made public by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Carlin's boss told him in March that his material would not be incorporated into a broader EPA finding and ordered Carlin to stop working on the climate change issue. The draft EPA finding released in April lists six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, that the EPA says threaten public health and welfare.

But, of course, no agendas are running with Mr Obama or his Administration.

With that in mind, I would ask my readers to push the envelope like a good Obama Tax Miner and do what I call the Logical Extension:

If C02 is a dangerous pollutant; if Cap & Tax needs to be implemented immediately as punishment for businesses, then it would make sense that those personally responsible for their own personal C02 emissions -- American taxpayers -- could and should be taxed additionally.

As Lonnie Schubert points out in American Thinker, carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant, it's simply mandatory for the survival of the chain of life on the planet -- quite the opposite of a pollutant.

But if you want an additional revenue and a tax source, what better thing to do than to go after each individual as liable for the environmental harm -- and tax them accordingly? With Congress, of course, being exempt.

You think this couldn't happen?

BZ

P.S.

Senator Jim Inhofe (R, OK) has called for an investigation into the suppression of this EPA report.