Paris Is Burning Over Climate Change Taxes -- Is America Next?

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

2 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

 

See this link for English:

Demands of France's yellow vests as uploaded by France Bleu, November 29

 

You will find several lists of demands, with sometimes conflicting claims, but there is no such thing as an "official" list.  The yellow vests movement lack of organization and structure led to multiple uncoordinated attempts to list the demands. Different groups ranging from far-left communists to far-right nationalists, are trying to put forward their own agenda. So we have to be cautious with the lists emerging on social networks, they may not really be representative of the whole movement.

My feeling is that most oft the Yellow Vests demonstrating in the streets are more concerned about how to end the month with enough money to pay the bills rather than NATO membership, migrant policy, geopolitics or reforming the constitution.

[TXPower + 643]

7 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I think that would be far better. They wouldn't be in this situation at all. 

Agreed Ron.  You are correct in your assessment.  The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time......

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

14 hours ago, Illurion said:

I am actually surprised that you wrote this,  as up until now,  you have struck me as an apologist for GLOBALISM and the NEW WORLD ORDER.

I am proud of you.

Everything you wrote is accurate,  and is a damning indictment of how much damage can be inflicted on a Country, and a Culture by following the tenets of Globalism and the New World Order.

 

I do not want to offend you,  but as for the future alternatives that the French face,   i do feel that you have shown yourself to be "weak" in that you have shown a "reluctance to do what needs to be done."

 

Customarily, I do not respond to "opinion posts," which is what you have done above, as folks are entitled to their opinions and they stand or fall on their own merit, according to the viewer.  I do respond to fact posts and to "concept" or policy posts.  That said, in the above of yours I make an exception. 

First, I am not an "apologist" for anything.  I have a low opinion of the so-called "New World Order," which is basically a concept promoted by the Clintonites.  The morality of the Clintons is best exemplified by their behavior in leaving the White House at the end of the Bill Clinton Presidency  (and I don't much care about that sex stuff with Monica, hey they were adults, although it was tasteless behavior), in which Mrs. Clinton ordered the movers to take along some $200,000 at least of US Government furniture.  That furniture is the property of the United States Citizens and was paid for by the taxpayers and those sofas are not there to be stolen by Mrs. Clinton.  It demonstrates the profound insolent arrogance that you see among those with no sense of noblesse oblige, a tasteless, contemptible behavior usually found among shoplifters. 

"I am proud of you."  Do try to avoid that.  Try to be proud of yourself, in what you do every single day, how you comport yourself in society, that others will say at your funeral wake, "He was a decent man."  Death comes soon enough, especially for me. 

You write: " I do not want to offend you,  but as for the future alternatives that the French face,   i do feel that you have shown yourself to be "weak" in that you have shown a "reluctance to do what needs to be done."    I respond:  You  have no idea just how brutally tough I am.  I might not quite be up there with Chad Conway, the ex-Marine, but I assure you I am plenty tough enough.  Nobody starts and runs manufacturing plants in today's world without developing toughness.  I have personally defeated entire governments, busted their bureaucracies to their knees. It is a delusion to think that I am not "tough."  I can and will do whatever it takes.

One final note to newer readers:  for those of you who enjoy my various posts, I try to stick to the facts.  Going off on ideological rants is not productive, and also not probative to the truth.  I am and remain a committed Monarchist, and as for the USA or France or whatever, I really don't much give a damn if it is the Republicans or the Democrats or the libertarians or the Catholics who run things, that is up to the Voters to sort out.  I remain offended by the behavior of the Likud Party of Israel and I find Benjamin Netanyahu to be a huge destroyer of peace in the Middle East; pretty much all the problems there can trace back to Jewish theft of land and murder of the natives. And yes, I am a member of Jewish Voice for Peace, although I am assuredly Aryan.  'Wilhelmus van Nassouwe / ben ik van Duitsen bloed'.   [And for those of you who do not get the reference, that is the opening line in the Netherlands National Anthem.]   

 

Edited December 10, 2018 by Jan van Eck

[NickW + 2,714]

On ‎12‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 5:28 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

My additional comment...  as already opined repeatedly last week, the carbon tax was just the spark that started the unrest.  The proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

They want to tax the air (CO2) that humanity exhales. Insanity.

Removing or delaying Macron's carbon tax won't resolve other larger, simmering issues.

Take note of this letter from French Generals to Macron (translation provided below).

It appears that Macron has lost the support of his military, as well as the people.

Stick a fork in Macron, his globalist agenda is done, at least in France.  

Globalist plans for a nation-less world have run into difficulty.

https://www.minurne.org/billets/19275

 

Translation:

Mister President,

You are about to sign the "Global Compact on Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration" on 10 and 11 December, which establishes a genuine right to migration. It may impose itself on our national legislation through pre-existing treaties or the principle of common responsibility set out in this pact.

It seems to us that the only sovereignty left to France will consist in freely setting the way in which the objectives of the pact will have to be implemented. You can not give up this new part of the national sovereignty without a public debate when 80% of the French population considers that it is necessary to stop or drastically regulate the immigration. By deciding alone to sign this pact, you would add an additional reason for revolt to the anger of an already battered people. You would be guilty of a denial of democracy or treason against the nation.

In addition, the finances of our country are drained and our debt is growing. You can not take the risk of a costly migration air call without having previously shown that you will not have to resort to higher taxes to meet the objectives of the Pact. On the other hand, you must be able, in terms of security, to curb the consequences of the arrival of extra-European populations. Finally, you can not ignore that the very essence of politics is to ensure security abroad and harmony within. But this harmony can be achieved only on condition of maintaining a certain internal consistency of society, the only way to permit the will to "do together", which becomes more and more problematic today.

In fact, the French state is late in coming to realize the impossibility of integrating too many people, in addition to totally different cultures, who have regrouped in the last forty years in areas that no longer submit to the laws of the Republic.

You can not decide alone to erase our civilizational landmarks and to deprive us of our carnal homeland.

We therefore ask you to defer the signing of this pact and call the French to vote by referendum on this document. You are accountable to the French for your actions. Your election is not a carte blanche (unlimited discretionary power to act).

We support the initiative of General MARTINEZ against the signature of this pact which is set to be adopted by the Member States of the UN at the Intergovernmental Conference of Marrakech.

Général Antoine MARTINEZ

Charles MILLON – Ancien Ministre de la Défense

Général Marc BERTUCCHI

Général Philippe CHATENOUD

Général André COUSTOU

Général Roland DUBOIS

Général Daniel GROSMAIRE

Général Christian HOUDET

Général Michel ISSAVERDENS

Amiral Patrick MARTIN

Général Christian PIQUEMAL

Général Daniel SCHAEFFER

Général Didier TAUZIN

Colonel Jean Louis CHANAS

 

If only once, British Generals, Admirals, and Air Marshals showed such backbone in a letter to the UK's PM

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

9 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Allright this will be the last comment from me on a political or cultural thread. No real point in carrying a discussion we will never agree on over the internet. 

 

And that's fine, these guys are just venting.  That said, I would be very surprised if Macron can politically survive an uprising against him of this intensity.  He may not resign voluntarily, but at some point the Party leadership will recognize that to have him continue will result in the political destruction of the Party in the next election.  There is precedent for this: look at what happened to  Kathleen Wynne and the Liberal Party of Ontario:  from something like 126 seats to 5.  Now, that is decimation!

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

12 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I think that would be far better. They wouldn't be in this situation at all. 

A good number of (rural) French are in fact armed with shotguns and deer rifles.  Ultimately, those will come out.  They have not, so far, as shutting the govt down with street barricades is entirely satisfactory  (and also traditionally French).  But if it goes to the guns, time to head for the underground bunker.  

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

Judging by the flame patterns in this video of the fuel tanks at La Rochelle, I have to conclude that indeed the oil tanks were breached and some petroleum product, presumably diesel, was let to leak out.  You don't get those explosive bursts of balls of flame from a tire-pile fire. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znxnALUUwws 

It reminds me of the fire patterns attempted in the Torrey Canyon, when the RAF dropped firebombs on the tanker in an effort to get the crude to burn off before it befouled half of France. 

What remains surprising is that this is La Rochelle, a sleepy port city that, at one time, was a builder of big ferries that would run from say England to Spain.  That business seems to be in the toilet,  and the shipyards are mostly empty.  So you have industrial unemployment as a big driver of anger.  

Edited December 10, 2018 by Jan van Eck

[Bobby P + 88]

Good to see people challenge the global "Climate change" narrative. This will only spread and will cause more people and nations to question the motives behind these increased taxes. 

[Red + 252]

7 minutes ago, Bobby P said:

Good to see people challenge the global "Climate change" narrative. This will only spread and will cause more people and nations to question the motives behind these increased taxes. 

If you have actually followed the thread and also what has actually happened in France you would realise that climate change is a near irrelevance.  I watched several hours of news commentary over the weekend specifically on these riots and never once heard climate change mentioned. 

BTW, the only "narrative" on climate change is in the media and what you dream about.  There is no such narrative in the science.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Nicely written overview:

In France, les deplorables strike back

... It was Macron’s green obsession that eventually sparked the explosion. The gilets jaunes are a grassroots movement, born in hundreds of provincial small towns and villages across the country. They are farmers, small businessmen, truck drivers, waiters, nurses — or jobless. They have no official spokespersons. It was on Facebook that they resolved to adopt as their symbol the yellow, high-visibility jackets that the French are required to keep in their cars in case of accidents.

For years, they have seen their livelihoods threatened — by plant closures, inflation, the disappearance of public services like small train lines, hospitals, schools and local post offices. They need their cars, however old and beat-up, to drive their kids to school, to shop, to find and hold a job.

Their lives are fenced in by an ever-growing skein of nanny-state regulations. Before the fuel tax, there was the unpopular rollback of the speed limit on France’s roads to 80 kilometers (49 miles) per hour from 90 (56). The same week, bureaucrats added dozens of new requirements for vehicles, forcing many cars off the road. Macron’s government offered drivers a $4,500 bonus to buy electric cars: a Marie-Antoinette moment seen as an insult by les déplorables. ...

[Qanoil + 116]

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

 

● ● ●  Excellent article.  Well worth reading.  ● ● ●

 

France: Understanding the Gilets Jeunes Uprising

Having lived in France for years, REX explains why these are the most important protests in France since 1968 ...

Forget what FakeNews is telling you. This is no ordinary manifestation.

This is a genuine uprising by millions of city and country folk, young and old, crossing different ethnic and cultural lines.

Macron’s diesel tax hike wasn’t the cause of the gilets jaunes movement. It was the spark detonating a bomb, that has been building for decades.

It is the first time since 1968, that France has seen such a genuine and uprising popular uprising, against the French state.

This protest is different. And it has very specific, historic reasons, as this article will reveal.

[PeterfromCalgary + 60]

Carbon taxes are extremely regressive!  Poor and middle class people spend a much higher portion of their income on energy than the rich.  Therefore, a much bigger portion of poor and middle class people's income goes to paying carbon taxes despite the fact that they emit less carbon per person.

Yes there are other issues in France beside the punitive carbon taxes but these regressive carbon taxes are definitely a very big problem for the poor and middle class people of France!

Government elites need to realize if they tax carbon they may lose their cushy, well paid, tax payer funded jobs!  Emmanuel Macron will find this out soon enough!

Edited December 10, 2018 by PeterfromCalgary

[Red + 252]

15 minutes ago, PeterfromCalgary said:

Carbon taxes are extremely regressive!  Poor and middle class people spend a much higher portion of their income on energy than the rich.  Therefore, a much bigger portion of poor and middle class people's income goes to paying carbon taxes despite the fact that they emit less carbon per person.

Yes there are other issues in France beside the punitive carbon taxes but these regressive carbon taxes are definitely a very big problem for the poor and middle class people of France!

Government elites need to realize if they tax carbon they may lose their cushy, well paid, tax payer funded jobs!  Emmanuel Macron will find this out soon enough!

Using your thinking, all taxes are regressive.

Poor and middle class people spend the greater proportion of their earnings on surviving. 

All people on the government's payroll rely on taxes, and if they really think they need more tax to pay themselves, they could equally adjust rates for companies and individuals.  

[NickW + 2,714]

20 minutes ago, PeterfromCalgary said:

Carbon taxes are extremely regressive!  Poor and middle class people spend a much higher portion of their income on energy than the rich.  Therefore, a much bigger portion of poor and middle class people's income goes to paying carbon taxes despite the fact that they emit less carbon per person.

Yes there are other issues in France beside the punitive carbon taxes but these regressive carbon taxes are definitely a very big problem for the poor and middle class people of France!

Government elites need to realize if they tax carbon they may lose their cushy, well paid, tax payer funded jobs!  Emmanuel Macron will find this out soon enough!

That is not an unresolvable problem. The revenue from a Carbon tax can be used to lower taxes in other areas that disproportionately impact poor people and middle class if you want to include them. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 hours ago, Qanoil said:

I suspect Mr. Macron is getting a bit of a taste of THIS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIxOl1EraXA

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, PeterfromCalgary said:

Government elites need to realize if they tax carbon they may lose their cushy, well paid, tax payer funded jobs!  Emmanuel Macron will find this out soon enough!

They will finally get clued in when the Deplorables are tearing down the iron gates out front.  Won't be long. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

6 hours ago, Red said:

If you have actually followed the thread and also what has actually happened in France you would realise that climate change is a near irrelevance.  I watched several hours of news commentary over the weekend specifically on these riots and never once heard climate change mentioned. 

BTW, the only "narrative" on climate change is in the media and what you dream about.  There is no such narrative in the science.

The rationale for higher gasoline taxes was to lessen the use of gasoline. That rationale is all about global warming in the pea brain of globalist Macron and all the other globalists. It is a red herring argument that is not even true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

[Red + 252]

53 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

The rationale for higher gasoline taxes was to lessen the use of gasoline. That rationale is all about global warming in the pea brain of globalist Macron and all the other globalists. It is a red herring argument that is not even true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

It is mostly the view of those ignorant about climate science that taxing carbon is a bad thing.

Otherwise, had you known about the other significant changes in France's recent budget ( here ) you would realise that significant other concessions were made in their tax regime, so there was a degree of robbing Pierre to pay Paul.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

7 minutes ago, Red said:

It is mostly the view of those ignorant about climate science that taxing carbon is a bad thing.

Otherwise, had you known about the other significant changes in France's recent budget ( here ) you would realise that significant other concessions were made in their tax regime, so there was a degree of robbing Pierre to pay Paul.

I study both sides and believe that the climate scientists you favor are frauds and propagandists. The obvious facts seem to belie their claims. I doubt you have spent as much time studying the issue as I have.

See https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B7YYeQTmESPhjlS_dj4zMTxWOiJhmLjxN1I_1NJcJFY/edit?usp=drive_web&ouid=115021267467773684978

I promote natural gas to eliminate coal use. That is the best way to decrease air pollution and CO2, although I am not very concerned about CO2 as it benefits plant growth. 

Edited December 11, 2018 by ronwagn

[Red + 252]

10 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

I study both sides and believe that the climate scientists you favor are frauds and propagandists. The obvious facts seem to belie their claims. I doubt you have spent as much time studying the issue as I have.

I began studying climate in 1974, and my degree thesis was on the impact of changing rainfall patterns on the Murray Darling River system - over 40 years ago.  

Whereas your claims on climate science are utter nonsense.  Climate basics start at the EBM, and extend nowadays to the ESM.  I have never seen any science countering the EBM, so if you know of any, seeing you have strong claims, then please offer them.

10 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

I promote natural gas to eliminate coal use. That is the best way to decrease air pollution and CO2, although I am not very concerned about CO2 as it benefits plant growth. 

Promoting one fossil fuel ahead of another, when there alternatives to both, can only make sense to you, I suppose.  Furthermore, arguments on the CO2 benefit to plant growth growth are not particularly strong.  It's like saying I am not concerned about asbestos because it really is an excellent insulator.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

30 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

I doubt you have spent as much time studying the issue as I have.

Ron has a

h u g e 

collection of documents on this and has been reading both pro and con for many, many years. Ron has looked at both pro and con, in depth.

While anyone is free to disagree with Ron (or with anyone else for that matter) it would not be suitable to call Ron "ignorant" about climate change.

[Red + 252]

2 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Ron has a

h u g e 

collection of documents on this and has been reading both pro and con for many, many years. Ron has looked at both pro and con, in depth.

While anyone is free to disagree with Ron (or with anyone else for that matter) it would not be suitable to call Ron "ignorant" about climate change.

Really?

Then he will have no problem demonstrating he is not.  

[ronwagn + 6,290]

3 minutes ago, Red said:

Really?

Then he will have no problem demonstrating he is not.  

I already have, but you are too uninformed to realize it. 

[Red + 252]

1 minute ago, ronwagn said:

I already have, but you are too uninformed to realize it. 

The first defence of those in denial of climate change is to respond off topic.

However the EBM is so basic to climate science it should have taken less than a few minutes to counter it, if a counter were available.  I therefore double down on my views.