Can somebody point me in the right direction? Please?

[Doremus]

I'm researching the supposed UN environmental tax for a discussion I'm having with a repuke. This is the first I've heard of it and frankly it sounds like a repuke talking point meant to stir up hysterics among the freeptards.

I've googled, but all I'm finding are freeper sites spewing nonsensical bile.

Can somebody give me a crash course or a link to a reputable source?

THANKS!

[piesRsquare]

1. This might help...

http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/sustdev/changing.htm

Scroll down to where it says, "'Green' Pricing".

Excerpt:

"One method is to charge different tax rates on environmental "goods" and "bads". In Sweden, lower taxes on unleaded petrol encouraged drivers to stop using leaded fuel. Some countries have begun to charge for natural resources. Perhaps, the best known of these "user-pays" fees are water charges. Meters are installed in each home and the occupier pays for the water. Since consumption is directly linked to cost, it is hoped that those paying will use less. Some Governments are taking special action to avoid placing an extra burden on the poor, who will spend a larger percentage of their income on user fees than wealthier people. Measures sometimes include providing an initial free allocation before the charges kick in and giving a rebate on personal income tax.

In an effort to discourage polluting behaviour, some countries charge people who pollute -- whether drivers of private motor cars or big industrialists -- the "full" environmental and social costs of their activities. Provided the "polluter-pays" charge is high enough and the polluter has alternatives available, the polluting activity is likely to be stopped."

It's from June, 1997, but it's something. Good luck! :hi:

[piesRsquare]

2. United Nations Environmental Program

United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP)
http://www.unep.org/

[Doremus]

3. Thanks for the replies! This bonehead is convinced the UN *itself*

wants to impose a worldwide environment tax. According to him, our own Congress is sufficiently concerned about it that they have drafted legislation preventing it.

Unmitigated hogwash no doubt, but I wanted sufficient background before I hit him with it.

The UN website talks about individual countries using taxes as an incentive to conserve, hardly a new concept. This guy is talking about DIRECT UN taxation. Anyone know what he's talking about?

[ngant17]

4. If you're dealing with a freeper and a repuke

"cognitive dissonance" might be part of the problem.

They might be adept at a sophistry rather than using logic and reason and rational thinking to approach a problem.

When you have them in a corner with the facts, they'll act as irrational as a wounded animal with only instincts left to attack you.

I appreciate your effort to argue with this group, but don't assume there will be any intelligence on the other side to seriously debate the issue.

[Doremus]

5. Cognitive dissonance is too complimentary for this person.

More like ignorant sycophant. :)


Before I go after him I want to find out if there's a kernel of truth around which he spun his assumptions or if it's made up entirely of whole cloth. I'm assuming he read it somewhere, probably on a RW wacko site. The bit about Congress supposedly taking action is of particular interest as I don't recall any recent mention of proposed UN taxation.

In the meantime, thank you for your assistance in this debunking project. ;)

[Dogmudgeon]

6. I have a stock speech for these idiots

"Not only does the UN want to impose world-wide taxes, but we ... um, I mean the UN ... wants to confiscate all your guns, fluoridate your cigarettes, put porn on NBC during prime time, classify vitamins as narcotics, make Hillary the North American regional commissar and absolute dicktator, ban Christianity and replace it with Lesbianity, imprison parents for spanking their kids, put raw sex in the churches, change all the speed-limit signs to metric, and force our children to learn Esperanto at gunpoint ... did I miss any of your group's bogeymen?"

They're nuts, but worse, they are evil bastards with enough power to destroy the world, and they're making great progress in that regard. If people can make fun of astrology buffs and 9-11 conspiracy theorists, it should be no trouble to mock people who are not just a little weird, but truly frightening.

--p!
(Kaj "Saluton!" al nova Esperantisto-DUano ngant17. Sed bonvolu ne sxangxu niajn trafik-montrilojn!) :^)

[Doremus]

7. Perfect!

:rofl: