Government Bytes


Whoever is Writing for Greenpeace‘s Website Should Not Have Made It Past Junior High

by Douglas Kellogg / /

Greenpeace’s recent post that attempts to assail NTU and NTUF for working against cap-and-trade features a failure in logic so self-evident, your average eighth grader could spot it.

Here is the meat of their entry on NTU/F:

The National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF) advocated inaction on climate change, calling the science behind Kyoto inconclusive. "If Congress deems carbon dioxide emissions to be a problem worthy of attention, then it should confront them without raising taxes on struggling American families in the process."

In an open letter to Representative Mary Bono-Mack, NTUF advocated against the cap-and-trade in the ACES bill as a "tax hike" without acknowledging the environmental or economic benefits.

The first paragraph collapses on itself, as any reader is left scratching their head, thinking: “How is saying Congress should address concerns about carbon dioxide without a tax hike the same as saying do nothing?”

One would assume Greenpeace is taking the stance that a tax hike MUST occur to enable action on ‘climate change’. Even so, using a quote that counters the claim you made in the prior sentence might not inspire much confidence in your understanding of logic.

After that initial stumble, Greenpeace face-plants by misidentifying NTUF as authors of a letter on cap-and-trade, when it was NTU. In doing so, they include a direct link to the clearly NTU authored letter!

Though, let’s give them credit for properly quoting and citing NTU, so that it is so stunningly clear that they are wrong about NTUF’s involvement, and transparent in their commitment to tax hikes and spending binges in the name of environmentalism.

We’ll avoid the cheap attacks, there’s plenty to read about Greenpeace’s donors and mission elsewhere.