Connect with us

Opinion

Is A Carbon Tax What We Really Want?

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The Carbon Tax (and its sinister partner the Cap-and-Trade market) is the only "solution" that our leaders are proposing for Climate Change.

  • Reflect On:

    Is it not time to question specific 'solutions' to global problems that seem to always benefit the elite, and consider what might be proposed if the health and prosperity of humanity was really the sole concern?

If you are a person who actively supports the implementation of a worldwide carbon tax, it is likely that you have humanity’s best interests at heart. If you have participated in climate marches in order to help speed up the implementation of the carbon tax within your country, you are walking your talk. At CE we certainly appreciate those who take the time and effort to act selflessly in the interests of humanity. Ultimately, we believe that this is an important aspect of how we will improve living conditions on the Earth and actually evolve as a collective.

advertisement - learn more

But let’s get into specifics here. Not about whether or not the science is settled on the matter of carbon emissions being the main cause of global warming, or even if the planet is actually warming–I have extensively questioned the mainstream perception here, here, and here. But for this article, I will assume the science IS settled, and therefore presume your activism is rightly based on your belief that rising levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will cause catastrophic warming of the planet in the coming years. Let’s get specific about one particular ‘solution’ to the problem, which is the carbon tax.

--> Help Support CE: Become a member of CETV and get access to exclusive news and courses to help empower you to become an effective changemaker. Also, help us beat censorship! Click here to join.

In supporting a carbon tax, your recommendation is that the citizens of each country should be willing to contribute some more of their own wealth to their government in order to enact their regional or national carbon tax scheme (I’m assuming you realize that all ‘taxes,’ regardless of who they are directly levied upon, eventually trickle down and affect everyday citizens). Another way of saying this is that you are advocating for citizens of the world to be willing to experience an overall decline in their current standard of living in order to implement the global carbon reduction targets of the Paris Accords. This is simple economic math.

How Does The Carbon Tax Work?

First, let’s define what a carbon tax is:

Carbon tax is a form of pollution tax. It levies a fee on the production, distribution or use of fossil fuels based on how much carbon their combustion emits. The government sets a price per ton on carbon, then translates it into a tax on electricity, natural gas or oil. Because the tax makes using dirty fuels more­ expensive, it encourages utilities, businesses and individuals to reduce consumption and increase energy efficiency. Carbon tax also makes alternative energy more cost-competitive with cheaper, polluting fuels like coal, natural gas and oil.

Carbon tax is based on the economic principle of negative externalities. Externalities are costs or benefits generated by the production of goods and services. Negative externalities are costs that are not paid for. When utilities, businesses or homeowners consume fossil fuels, they create pollution that has a societal cost; everyone suffers from the effects of pollution. Proponents of a carbon tax believe that the price of fossil fuels should account for these societal costs. More simply put — if you’re polluting to everyone else’s detriment, you should have to pay for it. (source)

advertisement - learn more

And so, if you support a carbon tax, then you agree that ‘the price of fossil fuels should account for these societal costs.’ And the societal costs are, presumably, a monetary equivalent to the deleterious effects of global warming on humanity. But does the carbon tax actually fulfill your main objective, to save the planet and create a better future for our children? The next series of questions is designed to address this.

Pertinent Questions

1. Are carbon emissions really “pollution”? I believe the above statement is misleading when it characterizes carbon tax as a form of ‘pollution tax,’ wherein CO2 emissions are naturally equated as ‘pollution.’ I feel ‘pollution’ refers to something that has a direct negative effect on life on the planet, that slowly poisons humans, animals and plants that breathe in these substances. Indeed, in the case of plants, CO2 is their oxygen, and CO2 has no harmful effects on living beings. If there is genuine concern for living beings, why has there been no concerted effort to stem the real air pollution factories put out, that cause a haze in some major cities that actually makes it hard to breathe?

2. Does a carbon tax guarantee a reduction of carbon emissions? Quite simply, no. At best, a carbon tax “encourages utilities, businesses and individuals to reduce consumption and increase energy efficiency.” I think it would be more accurate to say that the carbon tax is financial punishment for people and businesses who want to maintain their current standard of living. In most cases, those who can afford the cost of maintaining their standard of living will simply pay the extra money to do so, and, as we have seen so far, CO2 emissions will continue to rise.

The notion that “carbon tax also makes alternative energy more cost-competitive with cheaper, polluting fuels” is another red herring. Corporations and businesses are driven by profit, nothing else. There is no chance that the majority of businesses will adopt the currently available alternative energy sources unless they are proven to be more cost-effective. Does this mean that taxation will increase until companies are essentially forced to adopt alternatives? Likely, if those in charge really press for meaningful reduction of CO2 emissions. Please note, though, that this can bring many companies to the breaking point, where they will have to reduce wages and compromise on working conditions in order to stay in business and continue to make a profit. Does this sound like a solution for the benefit of humankind?

3. Is the carbon tax the only solution available? Certainly not. There are undoubtedly many alternative solutions, including the large-scale cultivation of hemp, a proven carbon-sequestering crop which I speak about here. We just never hear about these. They are never promoted by Big Money. If we pay close attention, we will see that any natural, truly communal solutions to global warming, actions that have a direct impact on human well-being, are not even considered by the authority, let alone studied. Only the carbon tax and it’s even more sinister partner, the cap and trade system, are promoted by the authority. And that’s because there is money to be made for the elite with these solutions.

4. Where does the tax money go? This is the crux of the matter. There is no promise that the tax money collected by governments will somehow find its way to directly benefit the people. And even if there is a promise, it is unlikely that the promise will be kept. Few would disagree that government taxation has been uncovered as a black hole that ultimately enriches the global elite and the corporatocracy and only scraps filter down to the general population. Powerful interests provide money to politicians, and in turn, the politicians give tax money back to those same powerful interests in the form of government contracts. When we support a carbon tax, we support the maintenance and enrichment of a corrupt system.

5. Does a carbon tax represent humanity coming together to create a better future for itself and the planet? The carbon tax is founded in the old-world notion that only fear tactics and the manipulation of individual self-interest can bring about positive change. We will never be able to ‘come together’ as a global community if what we are really supporting is a mechanism that works off of fear and self-interest. It is important to distinguish a true grass-roots movement that comes together spontaneously through individuals who want to create change for the betterment of the human community. Currently, these are movements that not only DON’T get support from Big Money (because there would be no return-on-investment), but are often actively THWARTED by Big Money. It is clear which movements these are, because participants are subtly condemned by the mainstream press. The Yellow Vest movement is an example. The Brexit movement. The ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement, at least before it got co-opted. Meanwhile, nothing but praise is heaped on climate activists, gun-control activists, or people raising money to help Western medicine find a cure for cancer. This is because these movements ultimately support the financial elite’s infrastructure and agenda.

The Takeaway

I have spoken to several people I respect who take the attitude that the carbon tax is not ideal, but at least it’s something. That they know the carbon tax leads somewhat to the enrichment of powerful people, but there’s no way around it, as that’s the only way anything gets done in the world. I question that notion. I question people’s acceptance of a very limited, even cynical, view of what humanity is capable of. We are at a time in history where we are ripe for making a shift in what we do and how we see ourselves, where we start to believe that the majority of humanity can be motivated to act purely out of love for one another. This shift will be fuelled by the desire to reach for our individual sovereignty and no longer have global elite ‘leaders’ that control our destiny. When we collectively put more of our time and energy into this new paradigm and less into the old control mechanism that has hung over us all our lives, true solutions to the world’s problems will be readily at hand.

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Consciousness

The Leaderless Movement (Documentary)

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A documentary entitled 'The Leaderless Movement' covers a rally of 7000 people at Parliament Hill in Ottawa on August 29th, 2020 challenging Covid measures and other instances of government deception and overreach.

  • Reflect On:

    Are we seeing signs that the 'Great Awakening' of humanity has begun?

Ten days ago I swapped my writer’s pen for a video camera and drove off to Ottawa to document a rally on Parliament Hill that brought 7000 people together to challenge the Covid narrative and other issues involving government deception, overreach, and tyranny.

This is being called a ‘leaderless’ movement due to the awareness on the part of the organizers that humanity as a whole needs to be deprogrammed out of blindly trusting and following ANY leaders, and individuals need to step up and establish their own personal sovereignty.

Ottawa provides a microcosm of the way people all over the world are breaking down old divisions and uniting under a common cause. The rally on Parliament Hill saw a coming together and mutual respect between the English, French, and First Nations.

Meeting with the brave and wonderful people who worked together to organize this event confirmed my belief that we are seeing the beginnings of the great awakening of humanity unfolding before our eyes. The next big rally in Canada is in Montreal on September 12th where organizers say they are expecting 40,000 people to attend.

This article was originally posted at daocoaching.com.

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Julian Assange’s Trial Has Begun: Judge Warns Him Not To Speak Again & Remain Silent

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Julian Assange has been warned by the judge in his extradition case that he could be removed from court with the case continuing in his absence after he interjected while a lawyer for the US sparred with a high-profile witness in favour of assange.

  • Reflect On:

    Why do people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden face such a harsh backlash from Governments? If governments and elite corporations aren't doing anything wrong, what do they have to hide? Why are the censoring so much information?

What Happened: Julian Assange’s legal battle to avoid US extradition to the United States for leaking classified information has begun. The latest news is that “English judge Vanessa Baraitser warns the most famous publisher/journalist in the world – Julian Assange, tortured by UK authorities according to the UN – not to speak again or be removed entirely from the court and be tried for his life in his absence,” according to Afshin Rattansi, a British broadcaster, journalist and author.

Over the years Assange has faced a number of smear campaigns and character assassinations that have been debunked, when in reality there are so many ‘high profile’ people around the word that support him and see quite clearly what is going on.

According to The Guardian,Julian Assange has been warned by the judge in his extradition case that he could be removed from court with the case continuing in his absence after he interjected while a lawyer for the US authorities sparred with a high-profile witness giving evidence in support of the WikiLeaks founder.”

I suggest you visit The Wikileaks Instagram Page for more the most recent and accurate updates.

Why This Is Important: Most of the world knows why they hunted him, and why he’s been treated the way he’s been treated and tortured in prison. The same goes for people like Edward Snowden, it’s because they expose lies, corruption, deceit, immoral and unethical actions that their own governments, as well as governments around the world have participated in. He exposed these characteristics that seem to represents the backbone of the Western military alliance and the American empire. He exposed, in the words of John F. Hylan, former Mayor of New York City, the “real menace of the Republic”, the “invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation.” He exposed the ones “who virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes.” (source)(source)

“National Security” has become an umbrella tool to protect a number of unethical and immoral actions by governments, big corporations as well as those that take place in the world of finance.

How far have we sunk if telling the truth becomes a crime? How far have we sunk if we prosecute people that expose war crimes for exposing war crimes? How far have we sunk when we no longer prosecute our own war criminals? Because we identify more with them, than we identify with the people that actually expose these crimes. What does that tell about us and about our governments? In a democracy, the power does not belong to the government, but to the people. But the people have to claim it. Secrecy disempowers the people because it prevents them from exercising democratic control, which is precisely why governments want secrecy. – Nils Melzer, Human Rights Chair of the Geneva Academy of Int Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, Prof of Int Law at the University of Glasgow, UN Rapporteur on Torture and Other Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Wilikleaks has never had to retract a single story.

Politics has become a cesspool of corruption, and it’s now corporations and big banks that seem to dictate political policy. What we are presented with on our TV when it comes to geopolitical issues and war is far different from what’s happening in reality, and this is what Julian Assange made evident. Whether it’s the funding, arming and creation of  terrorist organizations like ISIS or Al-Qaeda by our governments, creating problems so they can propose the solutions, or documents showing the influence Big Pharma has on global health policy, obtaining this information and using it to inform the public is not a “threat” to the people, it’s a threat to to the people in power. These people in power are using “national “security as they always due to justify the locking Assange up for the rest of his life.

The Takeaway: Do we really live on a planet right now where those who expose truth, expose corporate corruption, and those who want what’s best for the world and want to change the world, are locked away, murdered, silenced, censored, and thrown in jail? Furthermore, what time of ‘machine’ is required to justify his jailing in the minds of the masses? What kind of propaganda tools are used and how powerful are they if they have the ability to completely control human consciousness and perception in a way that best fits their interests?

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

RFK Jr. & Children’s Health Defense Sue University of California For Making Flu Shot Mandatory

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Children's Health Defense and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will sue the University of California for mandating the flu shot for all students, faculty and staff.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are vaccine mandates moving forward when there is adequate evidence showing that they are not a one size fits all product, they cause injury, they've never provided herd-immunity and they are not effective all the time against the target disease?

What Happened: The University of California is one of many in the United States that have made the flu shot mandatory for all students, staff and faculty. Prior to now, it remained a choice for people. Flu shots must be taken by November 1st of this year, according to UC, it’s a “proactive measure to help protect members of the UC community – and the public at large – and to ameliorate the severe burdens on health care systems anticipated during the coming fall and winter from influenza and COVID-19.”

Due to the growing amount of evidence that vaccines are not completely safe for everyone, let alone completely safe, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, renowned attorney and Chair of Children’s Health Defense, is now suing the University of California.

 Kennedy Explains,

Dr. Janet Napolitano says mandatory flu shots will “lessen the chance of being infected with COVID.” However, prevailing research suggests that flu vaccines actually raise the risk from coronavirus infection.

A January 2020 US Pentagon study (Wolff 2020) found that the flu shot INCREASES the risks from coronavirus by 36%. “Receiving influenza vaccination may increase the risk of other respiratory viruses, a phenomenon known as “virus interference…’vaccine derived’ virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus…”

Many other studies suggest the increased risk of viral respiratory infections, including coronavirus, following vaccination for influenza.

  • 2018 CDC study (Rikin et al 2018) found that flu shots increase the risk of non-flu acute respiratory illnesses (ARIs), including coronavirus, in children.

  • A 2011 Australian study (Kelly et al 2011) found that flu shots doubled the risk for non-flu viral lung infections.

  • 2012 Hong Kong study (Cowling et al 2012) found that flu shots increase the risk for non-flu respiratory infections by 4.4 times.

  • 2017 study (Mawson et al 2017) found vaccinated children were 5.9 times more likely to suffer pneumonia than their unvaccinated peers.

Children’s Health Defense is aware of a contrary study published last month by Gunther Fink et. al. That report appears to conclude that flu vaccines may be prophylactic against coronavirus. The study, of Brazilian populations, has many dubious unexplained outcomes including a 47% death rate among study subjects, raising numerous unanswered questions about the methodology and validity of this research. UC campuses should not be encouraging flu shots until we have unambiguous science supporting efficacy against COVID.

It’s important to mention that the coronavirus study listed above from Wolff does not include COVID-19, but the coronaviruses already in circulation prior to the novel coronavirus outbreak.

Why This Is Important: This is important because all of these mandates are being enacted under the belief that they will prevent flu cases, COVID-19 cases, and also help protect other people as well, which is the backbone argument of the vaccine industry. Mandates are also moving forward based on the assumption that vaccines are completely safe and effective for everyone.

The problem is, these assumptions do not match a lot of the science that’s been published over the years regarding the flu shot.

Dr. Peter Doshi is an associate editor at The BMJ (British Medical Journal) and also an assistant professor of pharmaceutical health services research at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy  published a paper in The BMJ titled “Influenza: Marketing Vaccines By Marketing Disease.”  In it,  he points out that the CDC pledges “to base all public health decisions on the highest quality of scientific data, openly and objectively derived,” and how this isn’t the case when it comes to the flu vaccine and its marketing. He stresses that “the vaccine may be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and that “the threat of influenza seems to be overstated.”

He goes on to state:

But perhaps the cleverest aspect of the influenza marketing strategy surrounds the claim that “flu” and “influenza” are the same. The distinction seems subtle, and purely semantic. But general lack of awareness of the difference might be the primary reason few people realize that even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the “flu” problem because most “flu” appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive. (fig 2).⇓ All influenza is “flu,” but only one in six “flus” might be influenza. It’s no wonder so many people feel that “flu shots” don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.

Dr. Alvin Moss, MD and professor at the West Virginia University School of Medicine emphasizes in this video:

The flu vaccine happens to be the vaccine that causes the most injury in this country. The vaccine injury compensation program, 40 percent of all vaccinations in this country are flu shots, but 60 percent of all the compensations are for the flu vaccine. So a disproportionate number of  vaccine related injuries are the flu shot. I think many of you it’s been recommended to you that you get the flu shot, I don’t know if you’re aware of the fact, the CDC statistics are, that every year they look at vaccine effectiveness, for this particular year the vaccine effectiveness is 48 percent, so that means it’s not highly effective. It’s not even all that effective, if you look at the scientific literature…the evidence to support giving the flu vaccine is moderate to weak. It is not strong evidence. They say the evidence to support giving the flu vaccine to people over the age of 65 is not there, it’s inconclusive. So a lot of the things we’ve been told as Americans about vaccinations are not really based on the science. (source)

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury (NCVIA) has already paid out approximately $4 billion to compensate families of vaccine injured children. As astronomical as the monetary awards are, they’re even more alarming considering HHS claims that only an estimated 1% of vaccine injuries are even reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). If the numbers from VAERS and HHS are correct – only 1% of vaccine injuries are reported and only 1/3 of the petitions are compensated – then up to 99% of vaccine injuries go unreported.

Preliminary data was collected from June 2006 through October 2009 on 715,000 patients, and 1.4 million doses (of 45 different vaccines) were given to 376,452 individuals. Of these doses, 35,570 possible reactions (2.6 percent of vaccinations) were identified. This is an average of 890 possible events, an average of 1.3 events per clinician, per month. This data was presented at the 2009 AMIA conference. (source)

This completely contradicts the CDC’s claim that 1/1,000,000 people are injured from vaccines.

Our CETV Episode About The Flu Shot: Facebook is blocking many of our posts from our own audience, Youtube demonetized us and many articles like this particular one may labelled and are labelled as “fake news.” As a result, in order to (attempt to) stay alive and continue doing what we do, we created a platform called CETV. It’s away for people to access information without organizations like Google or Facebook stepping in to censor it. You can sign up for your free trial  if you’re interesting in browsing through what we have, and if you’re interested in supporting us you can get a monthly/yearly subscription after that if you want to continue. In one of our latest episodes, CE founder Joe Martino and I discuss the flu vaccine. Here  is a brief clip of the episode, again, you can sign up for a free trial to watch the full episode.

The Takeaway:  Why are so many concerns being raised with regards to vaccinations being completely ignored and unacknowledged? Why are those who raise these concerns labelled as “anti-vaccination?” Why does the mainstream use these labels, as well as ridicule, instead of actually addressing the points made and countering them? Why are vaccines marketed to be gods gift to humanity when there are so many safety concerns? Would more rigorous safety testing not be in the best interest of everybody? Wouldn’t everybody agree that any concerns with vaccinations should be addressed openly, publicly and transparently?

Vaccine mandates, and others, are simply going to force people to exit various parts of the ‘system’ they will no longer be allowed to participate in. This begs the question, do we want to continue to be dependent on an entity, like the government, for our basic needs, like food and shelter, etc, or is there another way to do it? With so many conflicts of interests and examples of corruption within our federal health regulatory agencies, as well as clear evidence of concern, why do we continue to live the way we do, why do we keep voting when that only upholds a system we no longer want to play with? Why are we letting powerful entities make our decisions and do our thinking for us? What’s really going on here?

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Due to censorship, please join us on Telegram

We post important content to Telegram daily so we don't have to rely on Facebook.

You have Successfully Subscribed!