Politicians And Liberal Policy Makers Take Note: Buying Into The Bad Carbon Myth Is Damaging To Your Career

Obama is behind the curve again.  His advisers (or his teleprompter) are putting out totally flawed ideas that other governments around the world are recognizing as abysmal failures.  Here, now, I am referring to the idea of carbon taxes, carbon offsets, or any other schemes to raise tax revenues on the backs of higher energy prices for consumers.
 
Politicians around the world who bought into the idea of fossil fuel-burning, carbon dioxide causing global warming and climate change are realizing what a mistake they have made.  It is costing not only the public in terms of lost jobs, higher energy costs, and a lowered standard of living, but now as near bankruptcy looms, politicians are the ones feeling  the heat.  It will only get warmer in the frying pan these self-serving clowns (politicians) find themselves in.  The following article describes the problems liberal politicians in Australia are encountering because they have bought into the climate fear-mongering.  I have no sympathy.  They should, and do know better.  They have allowed the greed of carbon taxes overwhelm the obvious.  Man's activities are not causing catastrophic climate change, and to try and alter the global climate is political folly, or even suicide.  Eventually, the truth prevails.
Peter

Australia's carbon mess a warning to the world: Clyde Russell

     

 

The evil Mr. Carbon scaring the children.

 

 Source:

• http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/17/column-russell-carbon-australia-idUSL4N0FN0ER20130717?feedType=RSS&feedName=industrialsSector&rpc=43

 

Wed Jul 17, 2013 1:47am EDT

--Clyde Russell is a Reuters market analyst. The views expressed are his own.--
By Clyde Russell
LAUNCESTON, Australia, July 17 (Reuters) - Any government thinking of introducing policies to limit carbon emissions should look at Australia for an example of how not to do it.
Australia's efforts to combat climate change have been poison to politicians from all sides of the debate, contributing so far to the demise of two prime ministers and an opposition leader, and there may be more to come.

The latest twist has seen Prime Minister Kevin Rudd decide to switch from a straight tax on carbon emissions to a floating emissions trading scheme (ETS) a year earlier than planned.

This has nothing to do with improving the workings of the scheme or limiting carbon emissions and everything to do with trying to win back voters angered by rising electricity prices and industries that have seen their international competitiveness eroded by the tax.

The theory is that power and other prices will decline as the cost of carbon permits is expected to be around A$6 per tonne - the level at which European permits are currently priced - compared to the tax of A$25.40 ($23.09) per tonne that had been planned from July 2014.

Assuming European carbon permits don't rise in price, which is a fairly big call given efforts to reduce the supply of permits, Rudd's changes will save the average Australian household A$4 a week in electricity costs.

Whether this is enough to assuage public anger and help Rudd's Labor Party win re-election will become clear in the coming months as he has to call a federal election by end-November.
But Rudd's efforts to remove the carbon tax as an election issue only serve to underline how badly the whole thing has been handled.

When Rudd was first elected prime minister in 2007 he called climate change the "greatest moral, social and economic challenge of our time", signed Australia up to the Kyoto Protocol and proceeded to design an ETS.

This even enjoyed rare bi-partisan support from the then leader of the Liberal opposition Malcolm Turnbull.

However, it was Turnbull's support for the ETS that helped undo his leadership and he was ousted by his colleagues in December 2009, being replaced by the more conservative Tony Abbott, who withdrew his party's support for Rudd's plans.

Rudd's own popularity fell as he struggled to gain public support for his carbon scheme and a controversial new mining tax, leading to his ouster in a party coup in June 2010.
His replacement as prime minister, Julia Gillard, scrapped the planned ETS, making a promise that any government she led wouldn't introduce a carbon tax.

This commitment came back to haunt her after the August 2010 election, in which she managed to hang on to power by cutting a deal with Australian Greens and two conservative independent lawmakers to form a minority government.

Part of her agreement with the Greens was the introduction of a carbon tax with a fixed price per tonne of emissions up until July 2015, at which point it would change to a floating, traded price.
The broken promise was seized upon at every opportunity by the Liberal opposition and conservative media commentators, and in turn contributed to Gillard's poor performance in opinion polls.
When these polls showed her Labor Party heading for a massive defeat in an election she scheduled for September, her colleagues once again ousted a prime minister, bringing back Rudd in a party room vote last month.

Rudd's popularity with the public has seen the Labor Party inch closer to the Liberals in opinion polls, putting pressure on Abbott, who courted ridicule as a climate sceptic earlier this week by describing the ETS as a "so-called market in the non-delivery of an invisible substance".
However, the Liberals are still ahead in opinion polls and if they win the upcoming election, Abbott has promised to scrap the carbon tax and the move to an ETS, replacing it with what he terms "direct action" on climate change.

But even if his party does win the election, it may not control both houses of parliament, and the lack of a majority in the upper house Senate may cruel Abbott's plans, as legislation has to clear both chambers.

It's little wonder that businesses and the public want some kind of resolution to the issue, but the upcoming vote may not deliver this, at least not immediately.
Part of the problem with Gillard's carbon tax is that it was more of a welfare programme than a plan to reduce emissions.

The tax raised was used to fund a raft of welfare measures to compensate for the higher prices caused by the tax.
The plans of both Rudd and Abbott would see the revenue from the tax fall dramatically or disappear altogether, but the welfare payments would remain, leaving the nation's budget with the worst possible outcome.
Rudd said his plan to move earlier to an ETS would cost the budget some A$4 billion, which would be recouped through spending cuts and tightening rules around company-funded vehicles for employees.

Abbott has so far only promised to end a small portion of welfare payments and seek spending cuts across the government.
Absent from both plans is much talk about climate change and carbon emissions.
Australia is the world's 15th-largest polluter and the highest per capita in the developed world, largely as a result of 80 percent of power being coal-fired and the prevalence of carbon-intensive industries such as mining and liquefied natural gas plants.

The existing carbon tax may actually be able to claim some credit for reducing emissions, with Australia's overall greenhouse gas emissions dropping 0.2 percent in 2012 from the prior year, and those from electricity generation by 4.7 percent.
But this success, while modest, is completely drowned out by the political machinations.
What the Australian experience shows is that any government tackling climate change needs as broad a consensus as possible, and that it should be done for the right reasons, not political expediency

Penn & Teller Video On Al Gore and Carbon Credits

If you are offended by profane language do not view and listen to the following video. If you would like to see and hear an opinion of Al Gore and his global warming scam involving "carbon credits", that you will not hear about in the mainstream media, by all means, watch this.
Peter

Al Gore Is An Energy PIG
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S8mnvdb-Ac

Barack Obama Buys Into Man-Caused Global Warming Myth

I thought Barack Obama was supposed to be a bright guy, Harvard educated and all. Here he is proposing that power companies and "other industries" pay for their pollution, meaning primarily carbon dioxide emissions. This means he accepts the ludicrous idea that this can stop, or control global warming and climate change. I say this destroys his credibility.
Peter

from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/us/politics/09obama.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin


Obama Proposes Capping Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Making Polluters Pay
By JEFF ZELENY
Published: October 9, 2007
WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 — Senator Barack Obama presented a plan on Monday to decrease the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and fight global warming by creating an auction system requiring power companies and other industries to pay for their pollution. By the year 2020, he said, emissions would be reduced to levels from 1990.

In a speech in New Hampshire, Mr. Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate from Illinois, called for imposing a national cap on carbon emissions, investing $150 billion over 10 years to develop new energy sources and reducing dependence on foreign oil by 35 percent by 2030.
“No business will be allowed to emit any greenhouse gases for free,” Mr. Obama said in Portsmouth, N.H. “Businesses don’t own the sky, the public does, and if we want them to stop polluting it, we have to put a price on all pollution.”

The energy speech was the latest effort by Mr. Obama to cast himself as a critic of how business has been conducted in Washington. Every president since Gerald R. Ford, Mr. Obama argued, has pledged to curb fossil fuel use, but the United States’ dependence on foreign oil has climbed.
He proposed instituting a mandatory “cap and trade” program across the economy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the level recommended by top scientists, a figure that he did not specify Monday. Under his plan, businesses would be required to buy allowances to pollute, which would create financial incentives to limit energy use or reduce emissions.

Mr. Obama said if he was elected, the government would set a national cap on carbon emissions, which by 2050 would be reduced to 80 percent below the levels in 1990. Though he did not mention his campaign rivals by name, Mr. Obama criticized those who opposed gradual increases in gasoline mileage standards for cars, which included Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

“When they had the chance to stand up and require automakers to raise their fuel standards, they refused,” Mr. Obama said. “When they had multiple chances to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by investing in renewable fuels that we can literally grow right here in America, they said no.”

Mr. Obama, who had faced criticism from some environmental groups for supporting the Bush administration’s energy bill in 2005 and for pushing legislation to help Illinois’ coal industry, was praised Monday by the League of Conservation Voters, an independent group. The group’s president, Gene Karpinski, said, “By embracing a mandatory cap-and-trade program, the Obama energy plan would provide incentives to cut production of carbon dioxide and other pollutants that cause global warming.”

In Iowa, meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton began a “rebuilding the middle class” bus tour on Monday that included a 50-minute speech on economic prosperity with new proposals to benefit unions and homeowners in particular.
Speaking in Cedar Rapids, she called for reviewing pacts like the North American Free Trade Agreement every five years — not as aggressive a position as John Edwards’s call for renegotiating Nafta or Representative Dennis J. Kucinich’s call for canceling it, but an idea that received applause nonetheless.

And she proposed giving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac new flexibility to help companies and homeowners replace expiring adjustable-rate mortgages with fixed-rate loans.
Patrick Healy contributed reporting from Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Big Business, Environmentalists, Global Warming: What A Mess

The following article is from The Boston Globe and describes the activity in Congress over what to do about "global warming". The key players are environmental groups and large corporate interests who stand to benefit from proposed legislation. Note where some businesses think their is money to be made in selling "carbon credits". That explains their motivation. It has nothing to do with a concern for the environment. This is a very high-stakes game.

Interestingly, left out of the loop are scientists, thanks I believe, to the public perception that "the debate is over". The assumption is that yes indeed, man is causing global warming because of carbon dioxide emissions. Of course we're saying here that man is not causing global warming, and that the debate on this subject is far from over. Someone needs to tell our politicians, or we're all going to be "sold down the river".
Peter

from: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/08/22/unlikely_allies_advance_global_warming_policy/

Unlikely allies advance global warming policy
Environmentalists join industry, and both see progress
By John Donnelly, Globe Staff August 22, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Pushed by an unlikely partnership of corporate leaders and environmentalists, the White House and Congress are now grappling with decisions on global warming unimaginable only a year ago, including whether to implement tough fuel-efficiency standards for motor vehicles, require utilities to buy power from renewable sources, or mandate cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions.
Several environmentalists credit their new bedfellows -- business leaders they once lambasted -- for accelerating the agenda toward action this fall, and a showdown between lawmakers and President Bush.

There's no guarantee that any of the issues will be resolved. Despite the flurry of activity, some believe serious action will not happen until the next president takes office in 2009.
Bush, a former Texas oilman, has long opposed controls on greenhouse gas emissions and has threatened to veto the Senate's auto fuel-efficiency standard and the House's requirement that utilities make greater use of renewable energy. Bush prefers to promote biofuels, with a goal of replacing 20 percent of fossil-fuel consumption with alternatives like ethanol by 2020. The president will soon host a summit of the world's largest greenhouse gas emitters in hopes of reaching an agreement on cutbacks by the time he leaves office.

But skeptical business leaders do not want to wait that long for a deal. The United States Climate Action Partnership -- a coalition of 25 corporations, including DuPont, General Electric, Detroit's Big Three automakers, three oil companies, and nongovernmental groups such as Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council -- has its own proposal.
It recommends a mandatory carbon cap-and-trade system that would set a target of reducing emissions by 60 percent to 80 percent of today's levels by 2050. In Congress, at least nine pieces of legislation are expected to be debated this fall; almost all call for similar reduction targets.

"To me, this is the defining business issue of our generation," said David Crane, chief executive of coalition member NGR Energy. His company owns power-generating facilities that can bring electricity to some 20 million homes. "It's going to take 50 years to do something about global warming, but we need to start to do something right away."

David Hawkins, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center, said he and other environmentalists have been talking with corporate heads for five years "to get this on their radar screen because of our belief this will happen faster if they are engaged."
No one in the partnership would say the motivation of corporations is solely based on altruism; several have calculated that changes are forthcoming and they would like a hand in setting the policy. Business leaders say a mandatory cutback on greenhouse-gas emissions would help them plan longer-term and could become a moneymaker -- especially a cap-and-trade system in which companies buy and sell credits based on how much pollution they create or eliminate.

There is another underlying perception that any deal might be better now than later, said Vicki Arroyo, director of policy analysis at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. "Some members of the business community are coming to the notion that they would prefer to deal with this Congress and this president," she said.

Hawkins said the activity over global warming has been at a furious pace since the White House signaled its intention last year to put the polar bear on the endangered species list. Since then, he said, "political attention to global warming in 100 days was greater than probably any 10-year period."

Among the developments: A United Nations scientific panel found with near certainty that humans have contributed to global warming; Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," won an Oscar; the House formed a committee on global warming, headed by Representative Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat; Democrats held scores of hearings on climate change in Congress; and investor pressure against building coal-powered electricity plants led to TXU Corp., a Texas-based organization, canceling eight of its planned 11 plants.

In coming weeks, Congress will further define the political battles over global warming with the Bush administration as a House-Senate committee tries to resolve two very different energy bills.

Before the August recess, the House OK'd a bill rolling back nearly $16 billion in tax breaks for oil and gas companies. It also granted a $4,000 tax credit for hybrid car buyers, set new efficiency standards for household appliances, and mandated that utilities use renewable energies as part of their power supplies.

The Senate's bill calls for the auto industry to build a fleet of cars, light trucks, and sport utility vehicles that average 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
It also calls for a sevenfold increase in the use of ethanol by 2022 and requires Detroit to build half of its cars manufactured by 2015 to be fueled by a blend of ethanol and gasoline.
John Donnelly can be reached at donnelly@globe.com.

Carbon Credits Make No Sense

Carbon credits as a way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions is one of the dumbest ideas to come along in a long time. Not as dumb as the idea that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming in the first place, but still, a very, very non-sensical idea. The cartoon below illustrates the point.
Peter

The Cost Of Controlling Global Warming? You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet

If you want to feel a real chill, read the following article and consider hundreds and hundreds of lawyers around the country filing lawsuits against companies that emit carbon dioxide, (which of course we all know causes global warming). Then of course these polluting companies will need lawyers to defend themselves. All of this is going to cost a lot of money. Guess who is ultimately going to pay?

Then of course there will be the buying and selling of "carbon credits". Anyone emitting the pollutant carbon dioxide will have to pay for that "right". They estimate this market could be as much as $100 BILLION per year!!! There will be buyers and sellers, and the inevitable "middle man", or broker. And you think your electric bill is high now? Just wait.

Guess what all of that leads to? A cleaner environment you say? More stable and predictable weather maybe? Don't hold your breath. It all leads to higher costs to the consumer, not just for the energy you use, but everything you eat, wear, or use to provide shelter. The economic forecast looks grim. Blame it all on carbon dioxide and global warming.
Peter


from: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-greenlawyers_25bus.ART.State.Edition2.4358ea8.html

Don't like the heat? Try suing
Lawyers anticipate a rising sea of work tied to climate change
12:00 AM CDT on Monday, June 25, 2007
By ERIC TORBENSON / The Dallas Morning News etorbenson@dallasnews.com

Think this global-warming controversy will blow over soon? The lawyers don't.
Top Dallas firm Thompson & Knight started a dedicated climate-change practice June 4 with 26 lawyers. Today, Dallas' Vinson & Elkins will unveil its 41-lawyer group, headed by a former senior counsel for the World Bank.

The law firms – and a dozen others nationwide – are getting ready for a predicted explosion of climate-related work tied to government regulation, lawsuits against energy companies and new markets that will trade the rights to emit carbon.

"We're not here to act as climatologists," said Thompson & Knight's climate chief, Scott Deatherage, though he has a degree in marine biology and knows plenty of the science behind global warming. "We're here to steer our clients through what is likely to be new regulation, and that's going to have risks and opportunities."

One potential opportunity is the $30 billion global market for rights to put carbon into the air; if the U.S. comes on board, the market could grow by $100 billion, and the credits are likely to become investments that draw Wall Street attention.
Vinson & Elkins' Christopher Carr, who helped the World Bank oversee its carbon finance unit, predicts a nationwide "cap" on carbon emissions in just a few years.

"It's not a question of if; it's when, and most importantly, how it will be set up," Mr. Carr said.
By their geography, the Dallas firms have a number of energy companies as clients. But they also expect to represent plaintiffs who've been harmed by global warming and pollution.

Potential suit in Canada
Steve Susman of Susman Godfrey in Houston has been a pioneer in such litigation. He led the charge this year to force TXU Energy into building fewer coal-fired plants in Texas than it had planned.
Now he's among several lawyers talking with a group of Inuits in northern Canada who have seen an entire island sink under rising seas from global warming. The tribe is weighing its options, including suing carbon-emitting corporations such as power companies for heating the planet, he said.

"Melting glaciers isn't going to get that much going, but wait until the first big ski area closes because it has no snow," said Mr. Susman, who teaches a climate-change litigation course at the University of Houston Law School. "Or wait until portions of lower Manhattan and San Francisco are under water."

Some lawyers are trying to tie the damage from Hurricane Katrina to global warming – and the energy companies who may have contributed to that warming.
Mr. Susman predicts large insurance companies, which have paid out billions of dollars in claims in the past two decades because of powerful hurricanes, eventually will become plaintiffs in broad greenhouse-effect litigation against energy companies.

It might seem difficult to convince judges and juries that losses from intense storms or rising sea levels came from carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants. Even if American power plants caused the warming, what of China and India and other industrial countries' roles in the process?

But lawyers are testing those waters.
"You're going to see some really serious exposure on the part of companies that are emitting CO{-2}," Mr. Susman predicted. "I can't say for sure it's going to be as big as the tobacco settlements, but then again it may even be bigger. We're not going to know until the regulatory environment becomes clearer."

Ahead of the game
Attorneys such as Mr. Carr and Mr. Deatherage see big changes coming from Washington, and many of their Texas-based energy clients want to be ahead of the game when rules are made.
"I think we'll have a climate-change statute post-2008," Mr. Deatherage said. Energy companies are jockeying now to make sure investments in clean-air technologies qualify for tax or carbon credits down the road.

Public-nuisance laws that are being cited in suits related to environmental hazards such as lead paint could come into play with global warming and energy companies.
Whether states and municipalities can really extract potential damages for the "nuisance" of global warming isn't clear. California has sued automakers over global warming; the automakers, in turn, have sued the state over clean-air rules.

The Bush administration's recognition of climate change along with overall Democratic momentum in Congress has pushed both energy-related companies and their law firms into action.
The regulatory side, not the litigation side, is where the bulk of the legal work will come from, said Mr. Carr, who hopes to bring his experience with carbon-credit trading to bear with Vinson & Elkins' numerous energy clients.
"While there may be some litigation in the shorter term, the transactional area is going to be a significant source of long-term legal work," he said. "To me, it's personally important that we get the business legislation right."

Public opinion
Others also downplay the idea of big money from climate-change lawsuits. Going after Big Tobacco had plenty of public support, but going after Big Energy could be a different story.
"While it made a nice little story to gang up on tobacco companies who are killing us with a poison product, it won't be so fun to gang up on energy companies when they're in fact keeping the lights on and getting you to work on time," said Darren McKinney of the American Tort Reform Association in Washington, D.C., which works to reduce frivolous lawsuits. "We're not going to get public support for litigation that drives energy costs through the roof."

But as they succeeded in extracting concessions from tobacco companies, Mr. Susman predicts lawyers will be effective players – more so than, say, diplomats – in helping solve the problem of global warming.
And, he said, the law firms girding today for the coming environmental war are making a good business decision, Mr. Susman said.
"I think these guys are smart, because there's going to be a lot of litigation in this area and they want to get ahead of it," he said.

Save The Rainforests: Is This the Answer? Essentially More Taxes?

Here is another opinion from the NY Times. The authors suggest that rich countries, (polluters) should buy carbon "credits" for emitting carbon dioxide. In other words, they pay X amount of dollars for creating Y amount of carbon emissions. This money then goes to pay poorer countries NOT to cut their rain forests down. This is like paying farmers not to grow crops. It is paying the poorer countries for doing nothing. Imagine the opportunity for corruption. Do you think the farmers in the poorer countries will see any of that money?

To me this is promoting one huge global welfare state. Is that what we really want?
Peter

from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/16/opinion/16powers-hurowitz.html?th&emc=th

Op-Ed Contributors
Home on the Rainforest

By WILLIAM POWERS and GLENN HUROWITZ
Published: June 16, 2007
DEEP within Madagascar, more than 1,300 square miles of rainforest continue to breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen every day, helping to keep the planet cool. That may not seem like a big achievement for a bunch of trees, but elsewhere around the world tropical forests like this one are being felled to make way for timber and mining operations, cattle ranches and, increasingly, sugar and palm oil plantations to fuel the world’s growing thirst for ethanol.

So how did this particular rainforest — a tropical paradise whose canopy teems with rare lemurs and serpent eagles — avoid destruction? Its survival is the fruit of one of the first experiments in carbon ranching: allowing polluters to make up for their greenhouse gas emissions by paying third world countries like Madagascar to preserve their tropical forests. Madagascar uses the money it gets from multinational corporations to safeguard the forest and pay for poverty reduction programs.

Programs like this represent the world’s best hope to save vanishing tropical forests and avert global climate catastrophe. It’s vital that the senators and representatives now racing to create new climate legislation include incentives for carbon ranching. Otherwise they will not come up with the comprehensive solution that’s needed to address the climate crisis. Despite all the attention paid to China’s industrial pollution splurge, that country’s inefficient factories, power plants and vehicles don’t contribute as much to global warming as the destruction of the world’s tropical forests does.

Reversing tropical deforestation could be surprisingly cheap and easy because it can be driven by simple economics. Right now, it’s worth more to a logging company or a peasant to convert the rainforest to stumps or soybeans than it is to leave that rainforest intact. One hectare (about 2.5 acres) of forest cleared and converted to ranchland or crops produces a piece of land worth, on average, $200 to $500. But that’s nothing compared to the value of preserving the rainforest as a sponge for carbon dioxide.

On European markets, the right to emit one ton of carbon dioxide trades today at more than $20. With each hectare of intact rainforest storing around 500 tons of carbon dioxide, that means that each hectare has a value of $10,000 as carbon dioxide storage, far more than the value of even the most productive tea or soy plantation.

As a recent World Bank report put it, “Farmers are destroying a $10,000 asset to create one worth $200.” To the farmer or agribusiness corporation, of course, that makes perfect sense, because that $10,000 is all theoretical. It can’t put food on the table or deliver dividends to shareholders.

That’s got to change — or we could see the rapid disappearance of much of the world’s remaining tropical forests and the oxygen and animal habitat they provide.
The indigenous people who make the world’s forests their home are retreating in the face of agricultural expansion. Their interactions with loggers, miners and ranchers are destroying their cultures and bringing disease to their communities. By providing powerful incentives to leave the forests intact, carbon ranching can allow these people and their cultures to survive as well.
Carbon ranching would also be a good way to bring the developing world into the effort to reduce emissions. A coalition of “rainforest nations” led by Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica has indicated it will participate in carbon ranching projects without demanding any increase in foreign aid.

Corporate polluters also like carbon ranching because conserving rainforest is often cheaper than reducing their own emissions. Some, like Mitsubishi in Madagascar, are already doing it voluntarily because they want to be seen as supporting environmental efforts and anticipate that future legislation will let them get credit for it. Crucially, support from business guarantees that the idea will get a hearing in this polluter-friendly White House.

Indeed, the Bush administration has already financed some relatively small tropical forest conservation projects — most recently forgiving $24 million of Guatemala’s debt in exchange for that country’s putting the money toward conservation. So carbon ranching may provide a rare piece of common ground for the president and Congress.

To be effective, however, any legislation must include certain safeguards. First, no polluter should be allowed a free pass on cleaning up its own industrial pollution just because it protects rainforest — saving tropical forests should be part of the climate equation, not the whole equation.

Second, if a company pays to protect a forest that for whatever reason ends up getting destroyed anyway — as the politics or economics of the tropical country change — both the company and the country should face strict financial penalties. That would provide a powerful incentive to make sure those forests stay protected.

Time is short. The world’s rainforests are shrinking. With global temperatures rising rapidly, it’s essential that Congress and President Bush act quickly before the vast forests that cool the planet disappear forever.

William Powers is the author, most recently, of “Whispering in the Giant’s Ear.” Glenn Hurowitz is working on a book about the importance of courage in Democratic Party politics.

Carbon Credits....

I had no idea this business was as huge as it is. We don't hear about it in the US, but consider this from Europe. It is mind-boggling. All from the Financial Times in London
Peter

1-10 of 630 FT Articles results for Carbon Credits
Sort by: Relevance Date
Email Bookmark
COMPANIES INTERNATIONAL: Credit Suisse in forestry carbon offset venture
...Forestry Management (SFM), based in London.The carbon credits that are generated by the venture will be sold...environmentally conscientious travellers buy carbon credits to offset the carbon emissions caused by their journey."I believe...
May 18 2007, By Kevin Morrison in London, Financial Times
WORLD NEWS: Carbon credits market triples to $30bn
The market in carbon credits grew faster than expected last year...while $5bn was from the sale of carbon credits by developingcountries.China was...selling 61 per cent of last year's carbon credits, while India took 12 per cent and...
May 03 2007, By Fiona Harvey in Cologne, Financial Times
Ask the Expert: Carbon offsetting and carbon credits
...not without problems. The EU's carbon credits trading scheme has seen the value...carbon offsetting and the regulated carbon credits markets. Gilles Corre is director...would open the way to 'produced' carbon credits - we could move progressively...
Apr 27 2007, FT.com site
Carbon credits market triples
The market in carbon credits grew faster than expected last year...while $5bn was from the sale of carbon credits by developing countries.China was...selling 61 per cent of last year's carbon credits, while India took 12 per cent and...
May 02 2007, By Fiona Harvey in Cologne, FT.com site
FRONT PAGE - FIRST SECTION: Industry caught in 'carbon credit' smokescreen
...their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution...burgeoning regulated market for carbon credits is expected to more than double...very little - or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains...
Apr 26 2007, By Fiona Harvey and Stephen Fidler, Financial Times
Credit Suisse in forestry financing first
...Management (SFM), based in London.The carbon credits that are generated by the venture...environmentally conscientious travellers buy carbon credits to offset the carbon emissions...considered a potential buyer of carbon credits from forestry schemes.Mr Bernstein...
May 17 2007, By Kevin Morrison, FT.com site
MARKETS AND INVESTING: Credit Suisse in forestry financing first
...Management (SFM), based in London.The carbon credits that are generated by the venture...environmentally conscientious travellers buy carbon credits to offset the carbon emissions...considered a potential buyer of carbon credits from forestry schemes.Mr Bernstein...
May 18 2007, By Kevin Morrison, Financial Times
Carbon credit trading given a boost
...break in the Budget on Wednesday.Carbon credits held in offshore funds, primarily...which have already started trading carbon credits using derivatives and other ways...It will also buy and dispose of carbon credits to reduce further the fund's carbon...
Mar 21 2007, By James Mackintosh, FT.com site
BUDGET 2007: Trade in carbon credits is eased
...break in the Budget yesterday.Carbon credits held in offshore funds, primarily...which have already started trading carbon credits using derivatives and other ways...It will also buy and dispose of carbon credits to reduce further the fund's carbon...
Mar 22 2007, By James Mackintosh, Financial Times
FT REPORT - FT FUND MANAGEMENT: High noon tolls for the carbon cowboys
...Financial Services Authority, carbon markets can help to deliver...market mechanism whereby carbon credits are formed in the developing...There are allegations of "carbon cowboys" selling, or...times over, non-existent credits. The solution here as...
May 14 2007, By Lionel Fretz, Financial Times
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next

Carbon Credits: Be Prepared For Continued Fraud and Scams

This report comes from a friend...... Is it any wonder companies the world over are rushing to "go green". Yes. They want green, as in your "greenbacks".
Peter

Industry caught in carbon 'smokescreen'

Companies and individuals rushing to go green have
been spending millions on "carbon credit" projects
that yield few if any environmental benefits.

A Financial Times investigation has uncovered
widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse
gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for
emissions reductions that do not take place.

Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon
trading for very small expenditure and in some cases
for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.

Some companies are benefiting by asking "green"
consumers to pay them for cleaning up their own
pollution. For instance, DuPont, the chemicals
company, invites consumers to pay $4 to eliminate a
tonne of carbon dioxide from its plant in Kentucky
that produces a potent greenhouse gas called HFC-23.
But the equipment required to reduce such gases is
relatively cheap. DuPont refused to comment and
declined to specify its earnings from the project,
saying it was at too early a stage to discuss.

The entire article here:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html

Carbon Offsets Scandal?

This is just the kind of financial scandal I've been predicting is going to happen with the ongoing push to stop global warming and climate change. The idea of an individual or corporation buying "carbon offsets" (like planting trees, installing solar or wind power) so they can continue "polluting" (releasing carbon dioxide) is just about the most ridiculous thing I can think of.

There are numerous flaws in this concept. First, is the notion that you can "sin all week long", as long as you go to Church on Sunday and put a hefty contribution into the collection basket. Does that mean the rich are the only people who are going to be forgiven? Are people really that shallow that they can soothe their guilty consciences this way?

Secondly, it is very clear that reducing carbon dioxide emissions has a near-zero hope of stopping global warming and climate change. Does anyone not realize that these costs are going to be passed on to the consumer? Think again, this will just like an added, hidden tax. Finally, do you know who is going to benefit from this? The middle-man, the broker, the sellers of the "carbon credits". And of course the makers and installers of solar panels and windmills will benefit. So a lot of people stand to make money from this, so there will be supporters. A lot of people make money selling "snake oil" too. Is this a fraud and a scam, or what?
Peter

Probe Carbon Offsets, Congressmen Say
By Fred LucasCNSNews.com Staff Writer May 21, 2007(CNSNews.com) -

For those who support it, it offers the reward of "carbon neutrality" without having to lower one's standard of living. To critics, it allows guilt-free pollution. Either way, the burgeoning carbon offset industry needs more oversight, say two members of Congress. In a letter to the Government Accountability Office, Republican Reps. Tom Davis of Virginia and Darrell Issa of California asked for an investigation into emission offset programs.

About 60 different companies sell carbon offsets to U.S. consumers but operate under virtually no standards, the congressmen said. They cited reports alleging that some organizations get money for emissions that don't exist and that others make large profits on cleanups that would have taken place anyway."We want to understand the products sold in these markets and make sure they are doing what they say they are," said Davis, the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. "Offsets are becoming a convenient shortcut for individuals and industry to become 'carbon neutral.' Now that we see legislation introduced to direct the federal government to do the same thing, we need a complete picture," Davis said.

Congress is considering multiple bills this year to curb global warming, including a proposal to require federal agencies to use a portion of their budgets to buy offsets. Climate campaigners have created a procedure that allows an individual, business or institution responsible for high levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions -- blamed for climate change -- to buy "offsets." They do this by paying a levy that is supposed to go towards renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power. The money can also be used to plant trees -- so-called "carbon sinks" that remove carbon from the atmosphere.

Thus, according to advocates, high energy users can pay to become "carbon neutral" -- they are making up for the amount of CO2 they produce by funding eco-friendly projects elsewhere. Already Delta Air has announced that it will be the first "carbon neutral" airline by allowing passengers to voluntarily pay a surcharge directed toward forestry projects. Also, many electric companies allow customers to pay extra for conservation measures.

However, one environmental group's study into the issue concluded, "There are no widely-accepted standards, for example, as to what qualifies as an offset for purposes of making consumers carbon neutral." The study by Clean Air Cool Planet, a New Hampshire-based group that partners with companies and educational institutions in the northeast to help reduce CO2 emissions, continues, "In the absence of an accepted standard, almost anyone can offer to sell you almost anything and claim that this purchase will make you carbon neutral."

Another study, by the Tufts University Climate Initiative, also voices skepticism."Voluntary offsets are of limited value to solve the increasing threat of climate change," the Tufts study said. "They should not be seen as a way to buy environmental pardons." But the Tufts study goes on to say, "Voluntary offsets do have their place in spurring innovation and financing carbon reducing projects that would otherwise not have happened." They are especially appropriate for individuals who have done their best to reduce their personal emissions but would like to neutralize some of the unavoidable emissions that they are responsible for," it says.

Responsible people in the carbon offset industry agree that there should be greater oversight, said Ted Dodge, executive director of the National Carbon Offsets Coalition, an industry group. "At some point, we need federal standards," Dodge told Cybercast News Service. He understands some of the skepticism about carbon offsets but believes the industry does offer a positive step forward. "If you want to tackle climate change, you don't take anything off the table," Dodge said. "Is it the final answer? Probably not.

Technology will at some point pass us by."Carbon offsets gained notoriety earlier this year after former Vice President Al Gore's company, Global Investment Management, confirmed that it pays for the carbon offsets of Gore and other employees of the firm. Gore, a leading campaigner on global warming, announced that he bought carbon offsets to compensate for his high energy use. Reports indicated that he ran up average monthly power bills of $1,200.
digg_skin = 'compact'

Buy A Carbon Debit To Offset Al Gore's Credits

Carbon Debits
Psssst! Wanna piss off Algore? Then go buy some Carbon Debits. As it says on the site:
We are on a mission to take away every one of Al Gore's meaningless carbon credits by simply providing carbon debits. Help us make this dream a reality by purchasing one of the packages below. Don't let Al Gore assuage his guilt with meaningless penance, heap it back on with carbon debits – every one of which we will let him know about.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Kill a tree!
From Jeff in Tucson.
Posted by Denny Wilson on 10:37 PM