DAVID DE ROTHCHILD CONFRONTATION

We Are Change San Francisco confronts David de Rothschild on Climategate, sustainability agenda

Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
August 2, 2010

Members of We Are Change San Francisco caught up with David de Rothschild, heir to the notorious Rothschild family, and asked him some relevant questions.

Heir to a global system of manipulation, lies and enslavement for the average family, David de Rothschild has put his reputation on the line to push for climate change taxation. David de Rothschild shilled for the Copenhagen climate summit and stumped for his ‘earth saving’ plastiki boat that runs on human feces fuel. He has boldly advocated carbon taxes that his family’s carbon exchange firm would benefit directly from. He has even gone so far in the name of arguing for phony global warming as to claim that icecaps melt on Mars because the planet is closer to the Sun than Earth.



Now David de Rothschild is even taking on crowds and talking to ordinary people to redeem support for phony climate change legislation. At one moment in the video, he attempts to explain away the impact of Climategate in his presentation. Rothschild claims he appreciates the ‘skepticism’ of the public over global warming, but calls it a “futile debate,” arguing that other environmental factors still demand our action… and carbon policing laws.

PUBLIC POLL: PRIORITIES FOR 2010 - GLOBAL WARMING DEAD LAST

 

Public's Priorities for 2010: 

Economy, Jobs, Terrorism, 

Global Warming dead last - 01.26.2010

Energy Concerns Fall, Deficit Concerns Rise - GLOBAL WARMING FALLS

From:     To:

Summary of Findings

Dealing with global warming ranks at the bottom of the public’s list of priorities; just 28% consider this a top priority, the lowest measure for any issue tested in the survey.  

Since 2007, when the item was first included on the priorities list, dealing with global warming has consistently ranked at or near the bottom. Even so, the percentage that now says addressing global warming should be a top priority has fallen 10 points from 2007, when 38% considered it a top priority.

Protecting the environment fares somewhat better than dealing with global warming on the public’s list of priorities, (as it should) though it still falls on the lower half of the list overall. Some 44% say that protecting the environment should be a top priority for Obama and Congress, little changed from 2009

As Barack Obama begins his second year in office, the public’s priorities for the president and Congress remain much as they were one year ago. Strengthening the nation’s economy and improving the job situation continue to top the list. And, in the wake of the failed Christmas Day Gov't sponsored terrorist attack on a Detroit-bound airliner, defending the country from future terrorist attacks also remains a top priority.

At the same time, the public has shifted the emphasis it assigns to two major policy issues: dealing with the nation’s energy problem and reducing the budget deficit. About half (49%) say that dealing with the nation’s energy problem should be a top priority, down from 60% a year ago. At the same time, there has been a modest rise in the percentage saying that reducing the budget deficit should be a top priority, from 53% to 60%.

Other policy priorities show little change from a year ago. For example, despite the ongoing debate over health care reform, about as many now call reducing health care costs a top priority (57%) as did so in early 2009 (59%). In fact, the percentage rating health care costs a top priority is lower now than it was in both 2008 (69%) and 2007 (68%).

In addition, the percentage placing top priority on providing health insurance to the uninsured stands at 49%. That is little changed from a year ago and off its high of 61% in January 2001. Notably, there is now a wider partisan gap in opinion about this issue than for any of the other 20 issues in the survey: fully 75% of Democrats rate providing health insurance to the uninsured as a top priority compared with just 26% of Republicans.

More than six-in-ten Americans say securing the Social Security system (66%) and securing the Medicare system (63%) should be top priorities for Obama and Congress. About as many (65%) say that improving the educational system should be a top policy priority. For all three items, public evaluations are not significantly different than they were one year ago.

In the wake of the financial crisis, the public does not place increased financial regulation among its top policy priorities. Fewer than half (45%) say stricter regulation of financial institutions should be a top priority for the president and Congress.

Budget Deficit and Energy

Feds Prepare To Tax Toilet Paper In Name Of Climate Change

Feds Prepare To Tax Toilet Paper In Name Of Climate Change

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, July 21, 2009

The vampiric and gluttonous feeding frenzy currently being enjoyed by the federal government under the pretext of climate change is set to be expanded with a range of new taxes on products disposed of via waste water, including cosmetics, toothpaste and toilet paper.

The “Water Protection and Reinvestment Act,” H.R.3202, introduced last week by Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore), will be “financed broadly by small fees on such things as bottled beverages, products disposed of in wastewater, corporate profits, and the pharmaceutical industry,” according to Blumenauer’s fact sheet.

Though the taxes are “designed to be collected at the manufacturer level,” only the most naive would doubt that multinational corporations would just pass the cost on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, as is routine.

Items disposed of in wastewater, such as toothpaste, cosmetics, toilet paper and cooking oil will be subject to a 3% excise tax, while water beverages will be hit with a 4% tax, “because these products wind up in the water stream and require clean up by sewage treatment plants,” according to the bill.

The legislation also cites “climate change mitigation” as a justification for imposing the taxes. The Feds’ new feeding frenzy will rake in around $10 billion dollars a year.

The bill even defines “toilet tissue” in section 4172. “The rulemaking to define what rises to the level of a bottom-wipe is in the name of a good cause: to tax the stuff,” writes Chris Horner. “The current band of feds don’t think you’ve paid enough tax — this has been established ad nauseam — and now want a dedicated revenue, er, stream, to pay to replace corroded pipes and overburdened sewer systems nationwide.”

The necessity of cleaning up a water supply poisoned with the toxic soup of human disposals seems like a reasonable proposal, especially in light of evidence that antiandrogens in our rivers and lakes are contributing to global sperm reduction and essentially chemically sterilizing men, and yet when the filters are ready to be installed at water treatment facilities that would remove this junk, the government steps in and blocks them under the justification that they contribute to CO2 emissions.

The fact that the global warming feeding frenzy has now reached a level of insanity to the point where the federal government is essentially preparing to tax us to defecate and urinate shows how far down the line we really are. What’s next? A tax on breathing? After all, we humans exhale that evil life-giving poisonous gas carbon dioxide. The New York Times actually introduced the idea of the government imposing a tax on breathing in a March 2007 editorial.

As we are lectured about the necessity of why we must have every aspect of our lives regulated and taxed in order to save the earth, we learn that the government’s last efforts to do so, during the ozone layer scare of the 80’s and 90’s, actually harmed the environment.

The Washington Post reported on Monday that hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), introduced in the 90’s to replace ozone-depleting gases in deodorants, fridges and air conditioners, actually “act like “super” greenhouse gases, with a heat-trapping power that can be 4,470 times that of carbon dioxide.” So while the government was brow-beating us about the evils of emitting CO2 because it apparently caused global warming, they were actually mandating that we use a gas which contributed to global warming to an substantially greater degree.