Friday, January 29, 2010

States already enforcing Cap and Trade scams--while Americans weren't looking!

"Despite the fact that the carbon trading market, along with “smart meter” programs, have been exposed as slush fund scams owned by the very globalists fearmongering about man-made climate change namely Al Gore and Maurice Strong –
  • designed to line the pockets of habitual con men who have been caught over and over again lying about the evidence behind global warming,
  • unsuspecting public

  • who still think that cap and trade hasn’t been implemented.

In reality, as Bloomberg News reports, “State government actions are likely to dominate the emerging U.S. carbon market in 2010,” with programs set to expand.

  • A group of Northeastern states already has a carbon market and two more regional programs in the Midwest and West plan to follow suit,” states the article."...
Reference: "Cap and Trade Scam to be Enforced at State Level," 1/29/10,
  • In checking this out, I found many of "the usual suspects," NRDC shake down artists and the like. The northeast was put together a few years ago, it's a done deal, a huge scam over something that does not exist. Working Americans tricked and enslaved and have no idea it's going on. Media now pushing a new angle, ie., it doesn't matter about the details of global warming, it's a good idea to have clean energy anyway, right?
  • What idiot wants dirty air, that's anything but the point. The point is the environment has been perverted by criminals into billionaire cap and trade scams-already documented to be
  • infested by organized crime. Did you know carbon trading is the leading profit center at Europe's investment banks? I've linked to this many times already.
  • Thanks again to a complicit and vain media. ed.


Wednesday, January 27, 2010

UK chief-Carbon Trading more important than global warming.

"No less chagrined must be Gordon Brown, who sees the carbon market as key to the global response to climate change, and to the economic fortunes of the City of London.
  • As Brown told WWF in 2007, the government wanted binding limits on developed country emissions in a post-2012 climate agreement, because London was the world's carbon trading capital,
and "only hard caps can create the framework necessary for a global carbon market to flourish". Thus he made it clear that the health of the carbon market took a rather higher priority than the health of the climate system."...
  • Prime Minister Gordon Brown counts on carbon trading to save London. As has been the case from Day 1, the whole AGW idea was just an excuse to transfer money from point A to point B. The author says stick everyone on the planet with a carbon tax if the (organized crime infested) carbon market goes bust. The NY Times and WaPo would jump for joy at this idea. Of course I don't know who would pay the
  • NY Times' share had they not been bailed out recently by a Mexican rich guy. I guess they think they'd be exempt. Not that CO2 is even a pollutant. (ed.)
"Some people have good reason to be shocked that banks have pulled out of the carbon market, not least recent economics graduates whose dissertations on carbon finance now qualify them only for unemployment. And JP Morgan, which paid a jaw-splitting $204m for carbon trader Ecosecurities last September, must be feeling a little sore. Perhaps it relied on the GHG Emissions Credit Trading report (yours for a mere $397), which predicts a $4.5 trillion carbon market by 2020.
  • No less chagrined must be Gordon Brown, who sees the carbon market as key to the global response to climate change,
  • and to the economic fortunes of the City of London.

As Brown told WWF in 2007, the government wanted binding limits on developed country emissions in a post-2012 climate agreement,

  • because London was the world's carbon trading capital,

and "only hard caps can create the framework necessary for a global carbon market to flourish".

  • higher priority than the health of the climate system.

The same outlook was evident among the designers of the Kyoto protocol, which created the global carbon market through its various carbon trading mechanisms, such as the clean development mechanism (CDM). The great achievement of the protocol was not to reduce carbon emissions – they actually rose at an increasing rate under its watch, three times faster in the early 2000s than during the 1990s – but to create a market in emissions rights and notional emissions reductions worth tens of billions of dollars a year.

With the failure of the Copenhagen climate conference to agree a successor to the Kyoto protocol for beyond 2012, it is right that confidence in the future of carbon markets has fallen. Hopes have all but evaporated that the industrialised "Annex 1" countries will reach agreement in time, thanks to the rifts that emerged at Copenhagen between the US and China. Other Annex 1 countries will not sign up to an agreement that does not include the US. The US will not sign up to an agreement that does not constrain the emissions of China and other big developing country emitters. And China is in no mood to sign up to anything much at all, at least until the Annex 1 countries take a serious lead.

So is the carbon market dead? Well, reports of its demise may have been exaggerated. The world's major carbon market is not that created directly by the Kyoto protocol, but the European Union's emissions trading system (EUETS), which allows emissions "allowances" to be traded among the EU's carbon polluters. Set up as part of the EU's means to achieve its Kyoto target, it turns over around 3 billion tonnes of carbon each year, three times the Kyoto compliance market.

The EUETS also allows for a proportion of emissions reductions to be met using Kyoto protocol carbon credits. And even if there is no global 2012 agreement, the EUETS is set to continue, as the means to deliver the EU's promised 20% cut in EU-wide carbon emissions by 2020. There is thus the bizarre prospect that a "zombie" Kyoto protocol may continue to create CDM-based carbon credits for the EUETS market, even after the protocol itself has effectively expired, with no new emissions reduction targets beyond 2012.

But that still leaves the carbon market seriously short of growth prospects. And here the problem is not so much Copenhagen, as the US. Specifically, Massachusetts. The Waxman-Markey bill that would have created a US carbon market to rival the EUETS was already in deep trouble before Barack Obama lost his controlling majority in the US senate. Now, the election of pickup truck-driving and proud of it Republican senator Scott Brown means the bill is looking dead in the water – and the putative US carbon market with it.

So what next? Bjorn Lomborg and I disagree on many things, but we do have one important point of accord: that a uniform global carbon tax would represent a considerable improvement on the flawed and ineffective carbon markets that we have created to date. To work properly, the tax must be global; and it must be levied "upstream", at the small number of locations where fossil fuels are produced and their flows are concentrated, rather than the billions of locations at which they are burnt.

It should begin at a modest level of a few dollars per tonne of CO2, so as not to frighten participating countries off – and even a $3 carbon tax, almost invisible in terms of cost impact, would raise $100bn per year. To encourage developing countries to sign up, the rich countries should double-match fund the carbon tax revenue, and put the whole into a climate fund. This could be spent in participating developing countries to finance their adaptation to climate change, fund forest conservation, advance the development and deployment of renewable energy, and research geo-engineering techniques – just in case we need them to stabilise the world's climate. All this would be, incidentally, in perfect harmony with the Copenhagen accord.

Over time the carbon tax should rise – or, better still, be replaced with a more sophisticated economic mechanism based on the auction of carbon permits, subject to a reserve price, as set out in my "Kyoto2" framework. But a simple, modest carbon tax is surely the best first step we can take towards getting there. As well as raising much-needed funds to finance climate solutions, it would also send an important signal to companies and investors – that long-term investments in clean energy, energy efficiency and a low carbon future will be rewarded: something that today's boom-and-bust carbon markets have failed to achieve." UK Guardian, 1/25/10, "Don't let the carbon market die," by Oliver Tickell, via Tom Nelson

Monday, January 25, 2010

GOP hurries to squandor Scott Brown victory. Predictably. See Frank Luntz, global warming shill.

Tells Environmental Defense Fund, republicans don't want to argue whether global warming exists or whether cap and trade will fix it.
The entrenched side of the GOP spent years losing our country- in between jaunts in front of TV cameras. They're not quite finished. Now, at the height of reports documenting fraud of global warming and cap and trade schemes,
He has sold his services to the Environmental Defense Fund to counsel them how to persuade republicans that global warming and cap and trade are great. (McCain and others already are on board of course).
  • Luntz claims many republicans already think both are great and want the programs! Even if global warming doesn't technically exist, acting as if it does is a good idea! Just tell the sodbusters the trillion dollar carbon trading scam largely infiltrated by organized crime- is all for national security and they're so stupid they'll buy it!
And Luntz will show them exactly what words to use that will fool stupid republicans into falling for the greatest scam in history.
  • I'm grateful Scott Brown is an Independent. The entrenched GOP do not care and never will. They prove day after day they have an almost criminal lack of interest in this country, and are holding on only for money and limelight.
"GOP pollster Frank Luntz used to be famous for advising Bush in 2002 to focus on the “lack of scientific certainty” in the debate about global warming. Fast forward eight years and now he’s jumped the fence, well, sort of. He’s teaming up with Fred Krupp of all people, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, to help the group figure out how to talk to the American people about global warming in a way that makes them care about it.
  • The EDF wants Congress to pass a bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and believes Americans really do want to see one pass. Two new polls prove it, one by the Benenson Strategy Group, which shows that 58 percent of Americans favor a cap on emissions.

The other is by Luntz, and also shows Americans support climate regulation, but only when it’s

reporters for the American Public Media show Marketplace told us on Friday....

Turns out Americans want action on climate change but not for the reasons they have heard over the years—that it’s important because pollutants in the air are bad for us,

  • because a warming planet will cause rising seas, drought, hurricanes, vanishing species, etc.

We believe it’s real but we’re only going to do something about it if you use words like “green jobs” or, better yet, “American jobs.” If you get rid of “sustainability” and instead say “cleaner, safer, healthier.”

  • When asked whether or not they want companies to focus on “greater energy efficiency” vs. “being carbon neutral” 47 percent of those surveyed said they wanted to hear about energy efficiency. Only 12 percent cared about businesses becoming carbon neutral.

Luntz’s message to government and business: ‘“Carbon Neutral” Should be Eliminated from your Vocabulary’ is also the heading on that graph from the report.

“Carbon neutral” conjures up “Hollywood types flying across the country and buying carbon offsets.” “Accountability for polluters,” on the other hand, conjures up good governance, says a story last week in The New Republic. The story goes on to say that Luntz:

insists that Americans would support a cap on carbon emissions—80 percent of Dems, but also 43 percent of Republicans he surveyed are either definitely or pretty sure climate change is a problem that’s caused in part by humans.

  • But he doesn’t believe cap-and-trade can pass as long as “it’s called ‘cap-and-trade,’ and all the messaging that’s been used against it. The title has become so demonized that
  • they’ve got to come up with a new name.”

—it seems Luntz has found that the only way to get them to respond to legislation that will

  • address the problem is to cite that old standby: national security.

A jittery nation we are, clearly, as national security “tops every other reason to support cap and trade”—according to Luntz’s report."...******

From Environmental Defense Fund site: 1/21

Luntz: ""Americans want their leaders to act on climate change – but not necessarily for the reasons you think," Luntz said. "A clear majority of Americans believe climate change is happening. This is true of McCain voters and Obama voters alike.

And even those that don't still believe it is essential for America to pursue policies that promote energy independence and a cleaner, healthier environment.

In reference to recent political events, Luntz added: "People are much more interested in seeing solutions than watching

Luntz's firm, The Word Doctors, conducted a national poll of 1007 registered voters (+ 3% margin of error). ...Luntz's research unveiled areas of clear agreement on climate legislation between Obama and McCain voters, and among the general public:

Republicans and Democrats agree that national security is the top reason to enact comprehensive climate policy. Luntz noted that national security "crosses demographic lines,

is embraced by opinion elites and

doesn't require a belief in climate change.""...

  • Republican Frank Luntz is no better than RJ Pachauri.
Pew Poll: 1/25/10 Global warming dead last on list of Americans' concerns


Friday, January 22, 2010

Nobel Prize winning UN Climate chief has conflicting memory of dates to add to other errors

1/23/10, TimesOnlineUK: "Dr Pachauri also said he did not learn about the mistakes Generously, giving a few extra days from this published report, that would be at most
  • January 10, 2010.
But the BBC published a report on
  • December 5, 2009
with Pachauri's response to reports of Himalayan errors. He said the reports were "voodoo science.":
  • ***BBC report 12/5/09 Pachauri informed about Himalaya mistakes:

"When asked how this "error" could have happened, RK Pachauri, the Indian scientist who heads the IPCC, said:

  • "I don't have anything to add on glaciers."...and

Mr Pachauri dismissed the study as "voodoo science" and

  • said the IPCC was a "sober body" whose work was

Labels: , ,

Saturday, January 16, 2010

The one thing that gets to billionaires

"...Elites more than anything fear the democratic power of the people, and do
  • everything within their means to diminish it."... 7/14/08

Saturday, January 09, 2010

Enron lobbyist: Kyoto 'historic CORPORATE achievement'

"The intense lobbying paid off. (Ken) Lay became a member of president Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development, as well as his friend and advisor. In the summer of 1997, prior to global warming meetings in Kyoto, Japan, Clinton sought Lay’s advice in White House discussions.
  • The fruits of Enron’s efforts came soon after, with the signing of the Kyoto Protocol.
An internal Enron memo, sent from Kyoto by John Palmisano, a as senior director for Environmental Policy and Compliance, describes the
  • historic corporate achievement that was Kyoto."...
"Enron's Other Secret," National Post by Lawrence Solomon, 5/30/09


Saturday, January 02, 2010

Famous NY Times climate guy in desperation invokes Rush Limbaugh

Andrew Revkin made his name as a NY Times climate alarmist, part of a group set on making US citizens permanent wage slaves to brutal equatorial dictators, unelected, unaccountable UN grifters and a pack of billionaire carbon traders. Now having left the Times but retaining his blog, Revkin can refocus on unformed minds of children and generally ridiculing realists. Like a true climate alarmist, Revkin uses any opportunity to change the subject from facts to feelings, joining billionaires of the left and taking aim at 'the science's' real target: a radio talk show host named Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh recently experienced chest pains allowing the left to show again in their mobness they are the ones with neither heart nor mind. It will probably help land Revkin his next high profile gig. via Tom Nelson