Posted on 08/25/2023 2:53:44 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Climate Change Pollution, or CCP. Coincidence?
Throw in DEI and other social justice damages, and the number would be 100%.
Which, is the idea.
They can threaten to fine you, but they rarely ever do. The only question you are required by law to answer is how many people live at this residence. I had a census taker threaten to get the sheriff if I didn’t fill out their nosy form. I told him to go ahead and told him how many people resided at my address. I never saw him again.
I answered only the number of people in my house.
Nothing else.
LOL, it’s their CUSTOMER FAULT!!!
they’re the one’s buying products, right?
so just put big CLIMATE CHANGE TAX stickers on goods telling them just where the price increases come from...
see how that plays
This is such an obvious case of the logical fallacy called “begging the question”. They take it as an established fact that carbon dioxide is a climate-changing pollutant. No such thing has been (or can be) proven.
I think we should start with ALL Media and Entertainment companies, then mandate they use 100% renewable energy free of fossil fuels for every last thing they do.
woohoo!
a brand new revenue stream for fedgov
who didnt see that coming?
when is the exhale tax coming?
How the HELL do you calculate “damages”?
This idea of accounting for “externalities” has been around for five decades or more. It never works. It’s supposed to account for the “social costs” of a business.
Their scores of stupid climate models are all over the map in their predictions. Take their models back in time a few years and NOT ONE of them predicted where we are today.
If warming is true, do they account for far fewer people freezing to death? Reduced winter heating bills? Higher agricultural yields due to CO2 and temperatures? Less starvation? Do they account for the loss to society of precious resources directed toward wasteful and unreliable “green” energy? Do they account for the millions of people who will die with unreliable electricity?
I’ll bet their Cost/Benefit model covers a zillion costs and not one benefit.
As several others have pointed out, all you have to give the census is the number of people living there. I have amused myself for decades by avoiding giving even that. What you describe sounds more like the American Community Survey, which is even more intrusive. They try to bluff people into thinking they have to answer it or pay a fine, but that’s BS. Just throw it away, and if anyone ever asks, say you never got any such thing.
“supposed” climate change. 🙄
THOSE DISPOSABLE DIAPERS TAKE 500 YRS.
I don’t know anyone who answers any questions on a census or anything else but how many people live in the residence-that is all they need-or require-as for the rest, the answer is a simple no es su asunto-or, in the vernacular-f*** you and the horse you rode in on...
Does anyone have 4K photographs of a carbon footprint. Is it a size 8M, or larger?
What nonsense. Carbon Dioxide is a constant 3-4% of air. A fluctuation of a few million parts is trivial.
Carbon dioxide is NOT POLLUTION.
Try 0.04 %
I’ve been saying that for 3 decades! skinny people have less to worry about than larger folks because we don’t breath as deeply so our exhaled carbon tax should be minimal. “save money...lose weight” will be the new leftist mantra along with “eat bugs, you’ll lose enough to pay less exhaled carbon tax”. coming to a country near you.
Sorry ... forgot the .0.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.