Mar
The funniest joke no one ever tells: Enron helped develop the Carbon Trading Scheme
This is a constant line you hear from the AGW supporters:
It [Gore's film 'An Inconvenient Truth'] presupposes that American corporations oppose any measure to cap carbon emissions because it will hurt their profits.
But, strangely enough:
….we should start with Al Gore’s own words, taken from the bonus material on the DVD release of An Inconvenient Truth:
“A lot of business leaders are changing their positions. New businesses and CEO’s and corporations every week are now joining this new bandwagon saying ‘we want to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.’”
Where did Al Gore’s skepticism go? I thought businessmen just wanted to pad their bottom line; now they want to save the planet?
How could such a transformation happen? Is Al such a persuasive speaker, has big business seen the light?
……the company that helped draft the initial concept for a carbon trading system: everyone’s favorite, now-defunct, energy trading firm, Enron.
In 1997, then Enron CEO, Ken Lay wrote an op-ed entitled “For Prevention’s Sake: Focus on Climate Solutions.” In it he strongly advocated the Kyoto Protocol, which would cap carbon emissions worldwide.
Now that’s a worry. I wonder why.
…..but Enron did help establish and trade extensively in the $20 billion-per-year sulphur dioxide cap and trade scheme the EPA set up to deal with acid rain. Enron’s link to carbon trading is simply undeniable.
Let no one fool you about who is going to rake in the dollars. It’s been done before and it’s a proven money-spinner.
Source for above: Swift Economics
In case you had doubts:
……..sentiment is best articulated by the most liberal member of congress, Dennis Kucinich:
Carbon markets can and will be manipulated using the same Wall Street sleights of hand that brought us the financial crisis.
It is regressive. Free allocations doled out with the intent of blunting the effects on those of modest means will pale in comparison to the allocations that go to polluters and special interests. The financial benefits of offsets and unlimited banking also tend to accrue to large corporations. And of course, the trillion dollar carbon derivatives market will help Wall Street investors. Much of the benefits designed to assist consumers are passed through coal companies and other large corporations, on whom we will rely to pass on the savings.
Source for above: Dennis Kucinich
Does anyone ever tell you this?
Possibly related posts:
- Woman Who Invented Credit Default Swaps is One of the Key Architects of Carbon Derivatives, Which Would Be at the Very CENTER of Cap and Trade
- Carbon emissions are such a “nuisance”
- IPCC Gets a Solid “F” in WSJ Poll
- Can Assemblyman Dan Logue suspend California’s cap-and-trade law?
- The AGW theory is dying yet the carbon market goes on
To Lukerya:
Where on earth is the source of all this anger that you and others here seem to tap when anyone disagrees with your peculiar take on this topic? Unaccustomed to disagreement? Insecurity?
As the Queen of our Conservative College of Climate Science and Circus Arts might say- “How’s that hoaxey, fraudey thing goin’ for ya?”
Anger? No. Amusement at your silly attempts and blind faith.
Disagreement is not something unfamiliar to me, but I suppose I can not expect you to believe me on a word. Lets just say that “skeptic” is in my job description.
Ed, you said
‘They have been told Gore invented all this’
I’m not sure what the ‘this’ is you’re talking about, but the article I linked to gives quite detailed information, that I can neither confirm nor deny, though there are similar articles on the internet.
I have a feeling that Al would be quite pleased if people believed he invented Global Warming. That’s what he was given a Nobel Prize for after all.
Myu comments about Gore were simply a response to the fact that he has become the lightning rod for the deniers. No question he is easy to dislike, that he is narcissistic and a promoter, but he is just the messenger. Any one who cites him as some expert is as silly as someone quoting Moncton or Inhofe. They all represent their own political self interests. Because that is what this game is about. Who’s sppecial interests win.
My perspective on the whole topic of climate chnge anmd what, if anything, to do about stems from a very strng case of deja vu. 25 years ago, in the US the topics were acid rain and sulfur dioxide mitigation. The anto regulatory crowd used identical arguments to what deniers say now: man can’t aFfect climate; kunk science; it’ll ruin the economy; it’ll kill utulity bills, no such thing as acid rain; its a liberal plot, cap and trade is just taxation without representation etc., etc.). The only difference is that there was no internet to exploit with all manner of misinformation or to hide your identity. . In the end sulfur regulation and cap and trade worked and is currently working, None of the political or economic fearsheld water.
More or less it Is the same cast of characters in opposittion.
Ed, why keep harping on about that discredited meme – acid rain? Try reading the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Project (NAPAP) which entailed hundreds of scientists working in small groups over a period of 10 years at a cost of $550 million. Submitted to Congress in 199, the NAPAP study found that among thousands of U.S. lakes, only 4 percent were somewhat acidic. One-quarter of those were acidic due to natural causes, leaving only 3 percent somewhat influenced by human activities.
The study found many of the Adirondack lakes were acidic when explorers first entered the region, and likely contained few fish at the time. Logging the virgin forests prior to 1900 reduced the regional lake acidity. Acidity then rebounded with the decline of logging.
Perhaps the best news in the NAPAP report was that whatever the cause, overly acidic lakes can be easily and inexpensively corrected by the addition of lime. All of this was completely ignored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), environmental activist groups, and the news media.
Ignoring the findings of 10-year NAPAP study is among the most egregious and costly errors ever made by Congress and EPA.
John:
You all have a penchant for focusing on tidbits and missing the point. Acid rain became a rallying cry and a catalyst but sulfur regulation was not done to clean up lakes.
I’m actually quite astonished at this response. Britain and most of Europe is rife with stark examples of what sulfur compounds in the air do to statuary and metal work. Are you going to tell me their are natural cycles of sulfur oxide concentrations and that the earth compensates fot it?
Are you going to claim that the US SO2 level today is half of what it was in. 1985 because it dropped “naturally?” Or that no matter the level it is all “good?”
You cite a 10 year old study that was using data from the very beginning of implementatio. And ignore reality.
I was there when sulfur was debated here and participated in the discussions. Denier claims, charges and allegations today are a mirror image of the opposition then. You’re just reoeating history.
Ed, lakes are an important prime indicator of the health of the inland biosphere- as shown by the study the fears over acidification were hyped up and proved negligible. Minerals, whether in statues or mountains always erode – its what wind and rain do over time, so your reference to statues is an utter red herring. Moreover, ferrous metals will always rust back to their natural state when exposed to the elements, too.
There are several facts that cannot be ignored:
- the concentration I’d sulfur oxide is less than half today than it was in 1985.
I the electricty generation mix has not changed
- a scheme was put in place to gradually reduce such emissions, effectively beginning in late 80”s and using cap and trade as the mechamism
Now where is the red herring?
Why is an 11 year old study that had limited post regulatory data relevant to this discussion?
Are you saying that there is no cause and effect?
Are you claiming the sulfur reduction was natural?
A bit of anecdoctalk evidence: in the 80′s in NE US on a “clear” night it was rare to see Kolchab. Now it is quite common.