Pearl Jam Mitigates CO2 from 2009 World Tour in Partnership
bmwweirdoguy
Posts: 228
Hope it's not a repost...
http://www.cascadeland.org/news/press-releases/pearl-jam-mitigates-co2-from-2009-world-tour-in-partnership-with-cascade-land-conservancy
Good stuff!
http://www.cascadeland.org/news/press-releases/pearl-jam-mitigates-co2-from-2009-world-tour-in-partnership-with-cascade-land-conservancy
Good stuff!
"Trial and error isn't a bad way to learn how to build an aircraft, but it can be a disastrous way to learn how to build a civilization..."
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
You can literally alter a person’s survival capabilities by distorting the outcomes of the logic of their instincts. That’s how you can rob a whole planet. That’s how you can condition the planet into having no rights, no freedoms, and to having them turn into slaves… without using the term slave. There are many, many ways to do it and it’s done all the time. We are the most studies species on the planet. Long before they were cutting up bugs and cutting up frogs and all the rest of it and studying them in the wilderness, WE – human beings - have been studied for thousands and thousands and who knows how many thousands… or even millions of years.
Knowledge is never lost. Never lost. The art of governing people was understood in ancient times PERFECTLY WELL. You always have to give them a religion for the era. You must enforce that religion of the era. Anyone who doesn’t go along with it is severely punished or even killed until you have the perfect generation who bow to whatever it is that you stick in front of them and give up everything that they have, including their first born if need be… and they’ll do it willingly. You can alter people’s perceptions if you understand the sciences, very ancient sciences.
So we’re all being turned into a global society where we’re all in it together, as always, and it’s up to US ALL to suffer equally, except for those at the top who plan it all and manage it all… as it’s always been. When you hear things floated a few years back like carbon taxes… what a great con, carbon taxes. Really, under the guise of we all have to suffer to save everyone, we all have to suffer to save everyone, we have to start paying for stuff that is in the air, naturally, by the way. Carbon dioxide is a very low percentage of the so-called greenhouse gases. Nothing would live on the planet - the plants and so on - without carbon dioxide, but that’s never pushed. It’s always a threat, a big unseen threat. The same thing as staving off Armageddon… by your prayers… hoping to stave it off; or in ancient times, you would sacrifice so many children so your enemies wouldn’t come any closer. That’s how it’s done. It’s science, science of the mind.
When you hear again, the carbon taxes… again, they introduce it as though it’s only… They always do this with any kind of tax. ‘The rich are going to pay; you’ll be okay.’ So, international corporations are going to have to pay for their share of carbon production during the processing and all that. Meanwhile, you find out a couple of years later, that all the big international corporations were given millions if not billions of FREE credit taxes and they’ve already started their own trading business between each other, the so-called ‘offset’ idea. So they’re making a profit off it. The whole intention - as always with these things - is to hit everyone else at the bottom and you can’t, you CAN’T get free goodies and free tickets, free anything to do with carbon. You’re going to end up paying for it all of course. That’s what you always do at the bottom… always.
Elitism is elitism. I don’t care what name they give it. Communism, Fascism, Capitalism, it’s all the same thing really, isn’t it? Under Capitalism, those at the top never pay their taxes. They’ve had many documentaries, even the BBC did them on the Queen, after a big tax hike and Elton John spoke out at the time and says, no, they always put loopholes in for their very wealthy - like himself obviously - and they come out unscathed. Sometimes they come out with more, even though they paid nothing in. That’s not a bad deal is it? So that’s the reality of taxes. It’s never for the people at the bottom. Any more than government agencies deal with the poor or so on. By the time anything trickles down to the poor, from the multi-billions of dollars that are supposedly spent and passed through layers of bureaucrats’ pockets on the way down, there’s hardly anything ever, ever left.
Everything is a con game… but this fantastic world order with its carbon taxes always was intended to hit you at the bottom to control you and to get you into a war mode. I said even at the time, they would use the word ‘ration’ and sure enough, we’re getting it all.
Carbon ration account for all proposed by Environment Agency
(Alan: Even having an Environment Agency… it’s right out of some ancient religion. Like the sun priests that would pray for the sun to come up and you give them all that you had. If you didn’t pay them, they wouldn’t pray for the sun and you’d live in perpetual darkness. So here you have an Environment Agency. The environment has always been here, before any agency was created, and it will be here long after they’ve gone. Even in the newspapers, they have Environmental Editors. Everybody’s got a greenie editor. You think this isn’t a mandate? Since when in the past did they have a Christian editor or whatever? Well, a long, long time ago they would. See, this is the new religion. And like all religions, it’s meant to totally dominate and control you… on behalf of those at the top.)
If people used up their yearly ration early, they would have to buy extra from those who had not used their full allowance
(A: Here’s the real intention of it.)
Ben Webster, Environment Editor / From The Times November 9, 2009
Everyone should be given an annual carbon ration (A: A ration, right.) and face financial penalties if they exceed it, under a proposal by the Environment Agency. (A: Did anybody VOTE in an environment agency? Of course we didn’t… but we’re POST democratic you understand.)
Lord Smith of Finsbury (A: Another Lord here.), the agency’s chairman, will say (A: Will say today… see they give out their speech from the scriptwriter before they actually go out and legally, they speak it legally to the press on TV, that’s a legalism. So they hand out what he’s going to say from the scriptwriter beforehand.) today that rationing is the fairest and most effective way of meeting Britain’s legally binding (A: They always put that in…) targets (A: With whom? With the United Nations, you see, the big front organization for totalitarianism the world over. Legally binding targets… were any of you asked to vote on anything like this? No. Of course not… we are post-democratic.) for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
People would be given a “carbon account” and a unique number that they would have to submit when making purchases of carbon-intensive items such as petrol, electricity or airline tickets. (A: That’s going to happen in the States too at the same time, by the way, and everywhere else across the planet, because we are global.) As with a bank account, people would receive statements showing the carbon weight of each purchase and how much of their ration remained.
If they used up their ration within a year, they would have to buy extra credits from those who had not used their full allowance.
Lord Smith, (A: Before he was made the Environment specialist, he was the CULTURAL specialist…) who was Culture Secretary in Tony Blair’s Government (A: They shuffle them around. They’re just front men.), believes that the system would encourage people to think about the carbon cost of their purchases as well as reward those who lived frugally (A: That means poverty.) and did little travelling (A: You know, the bottom classes.), who could make a significant profit from selling their unused credits. (A: Yeah, right!)
Speaking at the agency’s annual conference in London, Lord Smith will say that carbon rationing would help people to “judge how they want to develop their own quality of life in a sustainable way”. (A: Here they are getting sterilized and all the rest of it and have to pay for the air they breathe out with the carbon dioxide. And he’s talking about ‘in a sustainable way,’ to benefit whom?)
He believes that rationing would be fairer than taxing carbon because extra taxes could make certain activities, such as flying, too expensive for people on low incomes. (A: It already is. [Alan laughing] It already is. And the guys at the top just put it down on their expenses don’t they… for their taxes, write-offs, taxes.) If everyone had an equal free carbon allowance, the basic cost of flying would remain cheap but those who flew a lot would quickly use up their ration and have to purchase extra carbon credits for each additional flight. (Back with more after this break.)
Hi folks. I am Alan Watt and we’re Cutting Through The Matrix, reading an article from the Times to do with the carbon taxes we’ve all to pay PERSONALLY, personally. It goes along with the Smart Meters too they are putting in across the world. Ontario has been doing it for the last few years and even my area is going to get it, apparently, next year. These so called Smart Meters can turn items OFF in your house if they think you are overusing something. Mind you, they’ll give you a budget plan so that you’ll KNOW you’re overdoing it a little bit here or there and you have to cut out that extra cup of tea or whatever else it’s going to be, or your cooler goes off or your lights just go off. And they are going to bring in after that, the next stage, which is where you’ll pay in ADVANCE for your expected energy supply, what you expect to use. Then they’ll just cut it off for you when you go up to it or just over it. Isn’t that nice of them?
It’s amazing, especially in Canada because Pierre Trudeau, the big communist guy that got in without a single media in Canada mentioning the fact that he LEAD the Communist International group from Canada to Moscow in 1952. Nobody even mentioned that when he ran to be the Prime Minister. Again, he’s another multi-millionaire communist, to dispel the myth that it’s a ‘working man’s’ thing. He was on TV all through the 60s and 70s, definitely the 70s and 80s, on ads. He would appear on the ads personally because they wanted to use the nationalized system to bring it in and build these big atomic power stations. He had ads saying ‘leave your lights on all night long because it’s so cheap, cheap, cheap.’ That’s what they do. They nationalize things to get the money from the tax payer - and then tell you it’s yours, make you feel better - Then they go and sell it off to their pals for a few pennies. That’s the standard technique they’ve done for about a century in Britain with different things. So here we are going according to plan and now we have to PAY for everything and be cut off if you go over a certain budget.
Remember too, this big deal that the world is signing – the whole world is signing on; Obama is signing on it in December – is going to hit the US like a ton of bricks… that they’re not looking for.
Under the Climate Change Act, (A: Why not just call it weather changes, where you get your umbrella one day and your T-shirt the next. It’s called Climate Change Act…) Britain is obliged to cut its emissions by 80 per cent on 1990 levels by 2050. This means annual CO2 emissions per person will have to fall from about 9 tonnes to only 2 tonnes. (A: I tell you, we’re going to be some skinny, skinny people… if anybody survives this even. I doubt they will even survive it.)
Rationing would make it much easier to meet the target because the total amount of permitted emissions under the Act would simply be divided by the size of population. (A: So it’s going to be an incentive for population reduction. See how it beautifully ties together. Then they’ll use SOCIAL APPROVAL and SOCIAL DISAPPROVAL where if someone’s got a bigger family, they’re using more than you, so you’re ALL suffering collectively and you’ll go and nag them all, put them to shame for having more than one child. This is the same techniques they used in China.)
The Department for Environment (A: Department of the Environment… Gods of the air, eh? Isn’t that beautiful?), Food and Rural Affairs published a feasibility study last year which found that rationing was technically feasible and could be effective in cutting emissions. (A: You don’t want to go into a room with these guys on these big study groups and their big commissions; they get so much food in them, umpteen different courses. You wouldn’t want to be in the same room when they’ve finished eating for the emissions that they put off.)
Defra said at the time: “The study indicates that personal carbon trading has potential to engage individuals in taking action to combat climate change.” However, it said that the idea was “ahead of its time” and would be very expensive to implement. (A: It’s coming.)
The statement concluded: “The Government remains interested in the concept of personal carbon trading and, although it will not be continuing its research programme at this stage, it will monitor the wealth of research focusing on this area and may introduce personal carbon trading if the value of carbon savings and cost implications change.”
The House of Commons (A: That’s like the Congress) Environmental Audit Committee (A: An Environmental Audit Committee…) called on the Government last year to resume research on a rationing scheme and to be “courageous” in seeking to overcome likely public hostility to the idea. (A: It’s a pity the public wouldn’t become a little hostile, to be honest with you, and get courageous and tell them where to stuff it.)
It said in a report: “Opposition to personal carbon trading could be reduced if the public could be convinced (A: That means trained.) of three things. First, that it is absolutely essential to reduce emissions; second, that this can only be achieved if individuals take personal responsibility for reducing their own emissions (A: That sounds rather vulgar, eh?); and third, that personal carbon trading is a fairer and more effective way of reducing personal emissions than alternatives such as higher taxes.” (A: It IS a darn tax! …under a guise, a beautiful guise they are going to CON people with.) The committee concluded: “Widespread public acceptance, while desirable, should not be a pre-condition for a personal carbon trading scheme (A: In other words, it doesn’t matter if we want it or not… public acceptance.); the need to reduce emissions is simply too urgent.” (A: They should take some bicarbonate of soda all at once, these boys.)
David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary (A: What an interesting history. This guy, his people ran out of Germany when Adolf Hitler came in. He and I think he’s got another Miliband in the British government; they’ve made a CAREER since then in the British government. Just found out that his other cousins and aunts worked for the Soviet Union as scientists. Good communists. Back with more after this break.), called for a “thought experiment” on carbon rationing when he was Environment Secretary in 2006.
Hi folks. I am Alan Watt and we’re Cutting Through The Matrix. I’ve mentioned before how China had its cultural revolution. You’ve got to understand the Marxist policies and the ongoing dialectic, as they call it, where they start off with a thesis, then they put in opposition to the thesis, its antithesis, and out comes the NEW synthesis. The synthesis becomes the new thesis and they go on. In other words, this is their idea of creating progress, directed progress. Directed… is the important word there.
This had been used across the world and people don’t even know it, that there IS a cultural revolution going on. In China, they actually had the young people drag even their parents on the streets for holding on to ‘old-fashioned’ values. They were ‘contaminated’ with old worldly ideas and memories. You got to understand they are using the same techniques now to do with people who aren’t going along with the greening and all the rest of it. People who have a little memory of a bit of personal freedom and rights and stupidness and silliness and all the rest of it… of government… they are targeting them. Actually, the cops in the UK and Europe, are targeting the citizens, the over 40s. This is The Mail Online.
http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/articl ... le_id=1038
many words mean not so much
I think it's great to plant trees
I have planted 100,000 myself
global warming is not happening but planting trees is always good.
Thanks PJ
i dare say that in addition to offsetting their carbon, they will run bio fuel as well
Climate change is real people! believe in it. it is happening now
I wave to all my Friends... Yeah!
glad you liked my cut and paste!
peace
deal with it! it is not new
I wave to all my Friends... Yeah!
By Jack Dini, 1/22/2009 8:42:17 AM
It’s OK to have a carbon footprint if you pay enough. You do this by buying carbon offsets. These are used by politicians, environmentalists, movie stars, athletes, and others to claim the impact of their high-consumption lifestyles on the environment can be canceled out by paying someone else to invest in carbon-reducing initiatives, reports Lorrie Goldstein.
Many famous people who are for sustainability and against global warming live in many very big houses, drive many very big cars, and fly in private jets. If you travel frequently by air, even on commercial flights, you can’t escape having a huge carbon footprint. Yet many of the most vocal advocates of cutting emissions—politicians, entertainers, environmentalists, journalists, scientists—are continually jetting off to campaign events and conferences and workshops. Are they going to change the way they operate? If not, how are they going to persuade anyone else to cut back emissions, asks John Tierney.
The World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, was ‘carbon neutral,’ despite all the folks flying to attend, because in large part, people donated money to third world countries to plant trees or build hydroelectric dams for electricity.
The Live Earth concerts held in 2007 created a huge carbon footprint on the globe in the name of climate preservation; an estimated 7,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions. This does not include the private jets of all the celebrities who attended or the thousands of people who drove their cars to each concert. An official volume, The Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook, presents 77 ‘essential skills for stopping climate change.’ Here are some guidelines from the book: “Let’s say that despite your best efforts, you still have to fly to your best friend’s wedding.
You’re dumping 3,000 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and you’re wracked with guilt about your contribution to global warming. Relax, you can throw money at the problem. Go online, find a company that sells clean energy credits, and buy enough to make up for the greenhouse gases your trip created.” The book goes on to state that you must choose your offsets carefully and points out that trains are the most ecologically low-impact way to cover long distances. How many celebrities take Amtrak? And speaking of celebrities and their eco-friendliness, let’s look at a few.
Celebrities
Al Gore, academy award winner and Nobel Peace Prize recipient, has to be high up on the list. Bruce Nussbaum notes, “Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy. Gore’s mansion, (20-rooms, eight-bathrooms) located in Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES). The average household in American consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average. Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year. In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.”
Like a good citizen, Gore buys carbon offsets to assuage his high energy lifestyle, and this is good. But here’s the rub. He buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management, a company he co-founded and serves as chairman. Through this company, he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe. As co-founder and chairman of the firm, Gore presumably draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he ‘buys’ his ‘carbon offsets’ from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself.
Madonna, who was the main attraction at the London Live Earth concert owns a collection of fuel-guzzling cars, including a Mercedes Maybach, two Range Rovers, Audi A8s and a Mini Cooper S. She flies everywhere in her private jet and her Confessions tour produced 440 tons of carbon dioxide in four months last year. This was just the flights between the countries, not taking into account the truckloads of equipment needed, the power to stage such a show and the transport of all the thousands of fans getting to the gigs.
John Travolta says, “Everyone can do their bit. Global warming is a very valid issue—we have to think about alternative methods of fuel.” Travolta once starred in a movie about bringing industrial polluters to justice. But in real life he has probably the biggest carbon footprint of any Hollywood star. He parks his personal Boeing 707 on his front lawn—next to his three Gulfstream jets and a Lear jet. Rather appropriately, he has called his home Jumboair.’
The Red Hot Chili Peppers produced 220 tons of carbon dioxide with their private jet alone over six months on their last world tour which was 42 dates.
All this prompts Ginny Buckley and Max Flint to ask, “Is the hot air emitted by celebrities when they spout ecological platitudes a greenhouse gas?”
Enron and Lehman Brothers
There’s big money to be made in the carbon business. Enron and Lehman Brothers are two examples. Ken Lay became a celebrated corporate executive praised for his ‘21st century’ business visions. But Enron’s internal memos, leaked to reporters during its bankruptcy scandal, revealed other motivations. Christine MacDonald in her book, Green, Inc., notes that Lay had two meetings with President Bill Clinton and Vice-President Al Gore on a treaty capping carbon emissions. An internal Enron memo predicted this would ‘do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States.’ MacDonald adds, “Enron also had plans for using its support among environmentalists, who cooed over Lay.”
Lehman Brothers was at the forefront of the vast trade created by the new worldwide regulatory system to ‘fight climate change’ by curbing emissions of carbon dioxide. Jane Orient notes, “In 2007 they released a long and highly publicized report about climate change in which they preached about decarbonization, trying to make their investors keep getting high profits from the Kyoto carbon trade scheme and the support of huge public subventions. They recommended to their investors what they considered a central value of the carbon ton 50 years into the future. All of this of course, with the applause of the usual choir of politicians, the entire media, and the Greens.”
Thousands of green militants have been using the Lehman report as a proof of global warming and impending chaos. The report is the basis for policies on climate change in Spain, Argentina, and several other countries, it is used by economy professors playing climatologists, and by newspaper editorialists. Yet in spite of their ability to predict the climate 50-100 years ahead, they couldn’t predict their own bankruptcy.
THe band could sit around and do nothing, but they don't, they do something.
While offsetting carbon is not the whole solution, at least it is a start.
I wave to all my Friends... Yeah!
that years ago! Plant a tree don't tax us.I just think GOVT has no right taxing the world's population on personal carbon footprints most folks can't pay all their bills NOW then to add a carbon tax come on! To me it is a total scam!