Showing posts with label carbon tax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label carbon tax. Show all posts

Friday, September 28, 2012

If you thought Obama-Care was the only tax your way - THINK AGAIN - United Nations is about to tax Americans directly (and seems you can't do anything about it)


EXCLUSIVE: As the UN opens its General Assembly session, it is already thinking up new global taxes







A 1 percent tax on billionaires around the world.  A tax on all currency trading in the U.S. dollar, the euro, the Japanese yen and the British pound sterling.   Another  “tiny”  tax on all financial transactions, including stock and bond trading, and trading in financial derivatives.  New taxes on carbon emissions and on airline tickets.  A royalty on all undersea mineral resources extracted more than 100 miles offshore of any nation’s territory.
The United Nations is at it again:  finding new and “innovative” ways to create global taxes that would transfer hundreds of billions, and even trillions, of dollars from the rich nations of the world — especially the U.S. — to poorer ones, in line with U.N.-directed economic, social and environmental development.
These latest global tax proposals have received various forms of endorsement at U.N. meetings over the spring and summer, and will be entered into the record during the 67th  U.N. General Assembly session, which began this week. The agenda for the entire session, lasting through December, is scheduled to be finalized on Friday.
How to convince developed countries wracked by economic recession and spiraling levels of government debt – especially the U.S. — is another issue, which the world organization may well end up trying to finesse.
As the U.N. itself notes, in a major report on the taxation topic titled, “In Search of New Development Finance” -- the main topic at a high-level international meeting of the U.N.’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) this summer -- “These proposals are subject to political controversy. For instance, many countries are not willing to support international forms of taxation, as these are said to undermine national sovereignty.”
The world organization, and its constellation of funds, agencies and programs, has been pushing “innovative financing” for nearly a decade.
-
The U.N. clearly hopes it can find a way to move ahead. “ Politically, tapping revenue from global resources and raising taxes internationally to address global problems are much more difficult than taxing for purely domestic purposes,” admits an ECOSOC document produced last April. But, it summarizes,  “the time has come to confront the challenge.”
Shortly thereafter, the tax proposals — known in U.N.-speak as “innovative methods of financing”-- got a limited endorsement from a group of government ministers and other heads of national delegations who attended a major ECOSOC meeting in New York City in July.
The global taxation idea was echoed this week by Jeffrey Sachs, head of Columbia University’s Earth Institute and also a U.N. Assistant Secretary General. Sachs was recently named by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to head a new intellectual lobbying group of experts called the Sustainable Development Solutions Network.  It “will work closely with United Nations agencies, multilateral financing institutions and other international organizations,” according to the Earth Institute website.
On Monday, the controversial economist, a vociferous supporter of the Occupy Wall Street movement, called on President Obama to implement a carbon tax that in turn could be used to finance bonds, paying for investments to combat “climate change” -- one of the major focuses of the new solutions network.
Sachs was quoted by Bloomberg News as declaring that, “I’m happy to have the future pay for a lot of this. It doesn’t have to be current financed.”
In the midst of a heated U.S. national election campaign, any official endorsement of those views is unlikely.
Nonetheless, the U.N. is taking a longer view. The world organization, and its constellation of funds, agencies and programs, has been pushing “innovative financing” for nearly a decade, since the topic was discussed in depth at an international conference in 2002.  The topic was endorsed again at the failed Rio + 20 conference last summer, without much detail attached.
But the need for new revenue is becoming more urgent as the world’s rich countries, gripped in recession, no longer hand out foreign aid with the same generosity as before — though the total reached $133 billion annually last year--while the demands for huge additional amounts of money for social and climate issues continues to grow.
Earlier this year, for example, the overseers of a new, U.N.-sponsored  Green Climate Fund held their first meeting in Bonn to contemplate the spending of some $30 billion annually — rising to $100 billion by 2020 — to meet climate change needs in developing countries.  Where all that money will come from is still not clear.
The U.N.’s latest roster of tax possibilities certainly has what the New Development Finance Report calls “large fundraising potential.” Or, at least some of them do. An around-the-world tax of $25 per ton on carbon dioxide emissions in rich countries, the report says, could raise some $250 billion a year. That new billionaire’s tax would raise anywhere from $40 billion to $50 billion per year, the report estimates, though it adds that the idea “is not yet in any international agenda.”
CLICK HERE FOR A TAX LIST
The U.N. places the same estimated value on the proposed currency tax ($40 billion), and roughly the same thing on its proposed financial tax ($15 billion to $75 billion).
Even more innovative is a notion to, in effect, borrow the lines of credit allocated to rich countries themselves at the International Monetary Fund, and  “leverage” them to create new investment funds for the world’s poor. How to do this while preserving those credit lines as a reserve asset that rich countries could draw on when required, the report admits, remains to be seen.
Another “innovative” idea that may have trouble staying afloat is the notion of charging royalties on undersea minerals more than 100 miles offshore, within what are called “exclusive economic zones” — in effect, inside some country’s sovereign economic territory.
The sensitive issue here is that the world’s current “exclusive economic zones” extend 200 miles offshore — meaning that the U.N. is suggesting that it collect royalties on mineral wealth on half the “exclusive” territory, which it refers to in the report as part of the “global commons.”
For most nations, excluding the U.S., those 200 mile zones were established by the U.N.-sponsored Law of the Sea Treaty, known as LOST, which came into force in 1994 after it was signed and ratified by 162 countries. (The U.S. signed but has not ratified LOST; its 200-mile “exclusive economic zone” was established by presidential decree.)
The new, 100-mile royalty proposal in the U.N.’s financing report would require a new agreement to hand over proceeds from half of that territory to the U.N.-sponsored International Seabed Authority.
George Russell is executive editor of Fox News and can be found on Twitter @GeorgeRussell
Click for more stories by George Russell.

Friday, August 3, 2012

Seattle Times: McDermott to roll out carbon tax bill to address climate change

Click here to read full story on The Seattle Times

WASHINGTON — Cap and trade is all but dead. Cap and dividend didn’t get far. And Congress is too busy with looming budget cuts, expiring tax cuts and other problems to deal with global warming.
It’s against that backdrop that Rep. Jim McDermott on Thursday planned to introduce the latest version of his legislation to combat climate change.

The Seattle Democrat is touting his Managed Carbon Price Act as a two-fer response to the federal deficit and extreme weather patterns that have gripped half of the United States in a drought.
The bill aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by putting a rising price on that pollution. At the same time, it sets targets to gradually lower total greenhouse gas emissions, to just 20 percent of what was released into the atmosphere in 2005 by the middle of this century.

McDermott’s staff say the bill would avoid creating volatility in energy prices that has dogged the cap and trade system in place in the European Union.

Friday, July 6, 2012

REUTERS: UN urges countries to impose global taxes to boost aid


 CLICK HERE FOR FULL STORY ON REUTERS

(Reuters) - The United Nations on Thursday urged countries to impose international taxes to raise more than $400 billion a year, such as a carbon tax, a currency transaction tax and a billionaires tax, to offset cutbacks in aid by many countries amid global economic turmoil.

The U.N. World Economic and Social Survey found the needs of developing countries were not being met, more money was needed to fight challenges like climate change and new taxes would help "donor countries overcome their record of broken promises."

 CLICK HERE FOR FULL STORY ON REUTERS

New York Times comes clean, says: "We need a Carbon Tax to deal with Climate Change)

GET READY AMERICA A NEW TAX IS ON ITS WAY

UNITED NATIONS WILL MANAGE IT !

CLICK HERE FOR THIS ON FORBES.COM

Finally the New York Times gets with the program: they ran an Op/Ed today which explains what is the obvious and complete solution to climate change, a carbon tax. Of course I believe this, I even wrote an entire book insisting that this was, along with free market globalisation, exactly what we needed to do.
The arguments in the Op/Ed are good but not quite complete:

Let’s start with the economics. Substituting a carbon tax for some of our current taxes — on payroll, on investment, on businesses and on workers — is a no-brainer. Why tax good things when you can tax bad things, like emissions? The idea has support from economists across the political spectrum, from Arthur B. Laffer and N. Gregory Mankiw on the right to Peter Orszag and Joseph E. Stiglitz on the left. That’s because economists know that a carbon tax swap can reduce the economic drag created by our current tax system and increase long-run growth by nudging the economy away from consumption and borrowing and toward saving and investment.
CLICK HERE FOR THIS ON FORBES.COM

Monday, October 10, 2011

United Nations bets it all on Australia's Carbon Tax (millions of $$$ spent from UNEP and GEF to sponsor Tax in Australia)

Carbon tax is Prime Minister Julia Gillard's 'foreign plan', Tony Abbott says

Click here for story on dailytelegraph.com.au
Julia Gillard

Necessary tax ... Gillard said the next decade will be difficult without a carbon tax. Source: The Daily Telegraph

THE carbon tax is Julia Gillard's "foreign content plan", according to Tony Abbott, who said today the Coalition would continue fighting the tax even though it is destined to pass parliament.

The Gillard Government’s clean energy draft laws are expected to sail through the lower house on Wednesday, before heading to the Senate where they will be voted on some time next month.

The Opposition Leader this morning continued his attack on the Prime Minister, ahead of Wednesday’s vote.

“We’re going to give it a very good fight and you know this carbon tax is Julia Gillard’s foreign content plan because it will put Australia’s manufacturing at a permanent competitive disadvantage,” he told Channel Nine.

“So, she was talking about supporting local manufacturing last week, this week she wants to pass through the parliament a carbon tax that will permanently damage it and, as I said, it’s her foreign content plan for the goods we buy.”

A new manufacturing industry group – which has brought together a number of large companies including BlueScope Steel, Boral and Amcor – has also criticised the carbon tax, saying it should be deferred.

Manufacturing Australia’s executive chairman, former Reserve Bank board member Dick Warburton, said it seemed “quite wrong” to introduce the carbon tax “until we have a clear picture of what is going on in the rest of the world”.

“In fact countries are actually pulling out of carbon taxes and (emissions trading schemes) and therefore for us to go ahead with very little protection of the emissions at a distinct disadvantage to our economy just doesn’t seem right,” he told ABC Radio.

However a new report, released by Climate Change Minister Greg Combet today, shows climate change is putting at risk alpine water that is worth $9.6 billion a year to the Australian economy.

The Australian Conservation Foundation said the report underlined the urgent need to cut greenhouse pollution.

``The snow-capped peaks of the Australian Alps are a rare and beautiful thing in our mostly dry continent, but they could be gone by the middle of this century if we let climate change continue unabated,'' ACF chief executive Don Henry said.

``This report shows again how vital it is that our federal parliamentarians get on with the job of putting a price on carbon pollution - the primary driver of climate change.''

Meanwhile the government is furiously trying to avoid embarrassment on the issue of asylum seekers.

The government is just on vote away from having the numbers to change its migration laws and resurrect its controversial Malaysia people-swap deal.

Only WA Nationals MP Tony Crook – who sits on the crossbenches – is undecided on the issue. If he sides with the government it will hardly matter, since the Coalition and the Greens will vote down the legislation in the Senate.

But if Mr Crook sides with Mr Abbott in the lower house, it would be the first time in 80 years that a government loses a vote on legislation in the House of Representatives.

Thursday, August 18, 2011

At U.N. everyone in suspense waiting for Australia's Gov to vote on carbon tax. It will be the world's first country to implement carbon tax regime.

United States and Canada are next !


Australian Cabinet to vote on carbon tax

CANBERRA, Australia, Aug. 17 (UPI) -- Australia will introduce a carbon price in Parliament next month and it is expected to become a law by the end of the year, the federal government said Wednesday.

Under the controversial tax, Australia's 500 highest-polluting companies will pay $24 per ton of carbon pollution they emit beginning July 1, 2012. In addition, a market-based carbon trading scheme would be introduced in 2015, allowing major polluters to buy offsetting shares in companies producing emissions less than target levels.

Wednesday's announcement follows a protest by about 2,000 Australians on Tuesday -- the anniversary of a pledge that Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard made during last year's federal election not to introduce a carbon tax – demanding that the government scrap the plan.

The latest Nielsen poll indicates that 56 percent of Australian voters asked said they are against the tax scheme and an Institute of Public Affairs survey showed that 70 percent of accountants polled said small business would be negatively affected by a carbon tax.

Australian Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said Wednesday the government has ruled out putting off the carbon tax.

"This is a reform that is in our economic interests to make," he told Sky News.

"This will drive investment in new technologies, innovation, it will improve the productivity of our economy over time -- there is no case for delaying it here."

The Institute of Public Affairs, a free market think tank, urged the Gillard administration to scrap the carbon tax in light of the looming economic downturn of China.

The world's largest exporter of coal and iron ore, Australia is China's largest supplier of iron ore.

"The recent stock market roller coaster and the European and U.S. debt crises have shed light on the risks associated with Australia's reliance on China's thirst for our resources," Hugh Tobin, director of the Northern Australia Project at IPA, said in a release.

Tobin said that once global demand drops in the resource sector, commodity prices would fall from the current high levels. The combination of falling commodity prices, along with Australia's introduction of proposed mining and carbon taxes, he warned, would make many Australian projects unprofitable.

"China is deliberately moving to reduce its reliance on Australian minerals in favor of increasingly cheaper markets in parts of West Africa and South America," Tobin said. "Why would we want to add on new taxes and make ourselves uncompetitive at a time like this?"