Cap and trade?

Why is this the sole solution to global warming? Is it because Gore already has his friends and a company in line to benefit? Why is this the only solution being offered?

If it's wrong to pollute, and we have laws in place to prevent it why are we talking about setting up a new market to trade the privilege? Why are we considering that by selling the privilege we will create a market. A market in what pollution? How is that right?

What we are allowing to happen is a tax on the air we breathe, next it will be water.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663

The only difference is today those costs will be offset by increasing costs to the consumer. A new market commodity is devised some will make billions, but the worker and average citizen will pay for it, in medieval times the rich just bought their privileges to sin.

Today we will pay their way to heaven, while they live lifes that have no context to those we live.

 

Its a con job, it has nothing to do with making the world a better
place.

Gore's company to collect the carbon credits is called

Blood and Gore out of london.

Makes you wonder.

 

It's illegal to pollute, why then are we setting up a system whereby some are allowed to pollute? This isn't about capital it's about what is allowed or isn't.

Gore and others have set up a system whereby he can sell indulgences. When did we say anyone could indulge let alone trade their ability to indulge?

 

Here is FRAUD Gore being asked about the money he stands to make (in front of Congress). His response is priceless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbLK4RZDdzI

 

I pay every two years to have my truck inspected to pass smog. If I have enough money can I still run a smog making truck?

 

Global warming (or its new form, climate change, as some places are getting cooler) my arse. It is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the public in history

 

Do I believe he invested because of greed? Well yeah, what else would explain his support. Polar bears or the fact that he's already set up funds on Wall St. to profit by new laws and regulation. Who ever heard of cap and trade before this? Why are we now even considering selling rights to pollute? If it's wrong to pollute then no one has the right to sell indulgences. It's wrong, there is no commodity to sell.

 

The great global warming swindle said it all. It's a government sponsored job creation scheme.

 

If we blink on this it will be law. There are too many posed to profit from it. Much like metering internet usage. These are the next bubbles that will fund the wealthy.

 

Your truck didn't pass because it had zero emissions, it passed because it emitted pollution below the level allowed by the regulations. Therefore, you were "allowed" to pollute while you drove your truck around making money for your greedy business interests, doing gardening only for those rich enough to afford your services.

The world isnt going zero emissions overnight. Cap and trade is an economically efficient way to cut emissions.

 

Are people claiming that global warming doesn’t exist or that they have a better solution to it than cap and trade?

Because the things are different.

One seems akin to being a holocaust denier the other could be an interesting contribution to a very important debate.

I hope this isn’t one of those dumb commentary’s that goes along the lines of ‘lets just cross our fingers, while doing nothing to try and curb the human race from pumping greenhouse emissions into an already sick environmental system’.

That really does just piss me off because I have a child.


*

*

 

While I already pay a bi-annual fee for the right to transport myself to work you also want me to pay additional taxes on food and gasoline, while diesel fleets are exempt. And you see this as a workable solution? No one alllows me to park my truck and sell that privelege to anyone else for a market driven price. If I don't drive it I don't pay but then I have to pay someone else to get me to work.

 

Well, I am claiming that manmade global warming does not exist and that it's being used to promote a big scam, to which cap and trade is only one part of. When I look at global warming, I look at the scientific evidence that points to the sun being the cause.

To compare a person who does not believe in the unproven myth of manmade "climate change" (that's what they're calling it now) to a Holocaust denier is pretty low, and just shows you how low some of these Nazis will go to have people support their unfounded lies. The manmade global warming denial/Holocaust denial comparison stems from the corporate controlled media. They are the ones who put that out there.

 

Cap and trade is the only song in town. Even Reagan during the eighties ask the American citizen to conserve and instituted speed limit reductions, turned down the heat and up the air conditioners in government offices. But we hear nothing along those lines today.

In today's economic climate I find it strange that the only solution is setting up a global greenhouse gas market. That's going to save us?

Take a look at who is setting this up and read some of the testimony:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/ind...ittee-on-energy-and-the-environment&Itemid=71

 

Rat

Oh I’m not surprised you’re coming out to once more defend wealth’s vested interests.

And yet again you’re pushing the seemingly exact same line as the extreme right wing John Birch Society.

I suppose that’s your job here, I mean it does seem to be the only reason you post.

*

My reasons for comparing global warming deniers to Holocaust deniers is to do with the way both seem to be based in political bias and ideology, a certain dogmatic certitude that blocks out the rational or reasonable.



*

 

Gardener

Actually there are a lot of green campaigners and activists that are not that enamoured by such schemes, and many openly call it counter productive and/or a scam.

Carbon Trade Watch
http://www.carbontradewatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=44

*

“One lesson the current financial crisis teaches us is: beware of the new carbon markets that constitute today's main official response to climate change. These markets are startlingly similar to the financial derivatives markets that have thrown banking systems into chaos and the world economy into a tailspin”

“The main cause of global warming is rapidly increasing carbon dioxide emissions -- primarily the result of burning fossil fuels. Some responses to the crisis, however, are causing new and severe problems -- and may even increase global warming. This seems to be the case with carbon trading -- the main current international response to climate change and the centrepiece of the Kyoto Protocol.”
Larry Lohmann, Corner House

As for alternatives try reading ‘Heat’ by George Monbiot (a long time critic of cap and trade).
http://www.amazon.com/Heat-How-Stop-Planet-Burning/dp/0896087794

I’ll try and dig something out of his.

*

 

But why is it on the table?
Hurray! We’re Going Backwards!

Bush trashed the climate talks. But look what Gore did
By George Monbiot

(my bold)
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/12/17/hurray-were-going-backwards/

 

To me part of the problem is that the agenda is being taken over by big capitalism that’s not interested in the issues but smells profit.

Take the power issue

The discussion seems to be dominated by and frame in the context of ‘big’ supply, nuclear power plants, large scale wind farms or deserts filled with solar panels.

That suits big money capitalism it is about making a profit by supplying energy.

But the problem isn’t supply it’s demand and more importantly why the demand is so great.

If you flew over London or New York with a thermal imager, you’d know what I mean. The wasted energy is obvious. Then there is the way air conditioners are used to cool down building that have been designed and built to resemble (and act like) greenhouses.

An environmental researcher once told me that if every home, office and factory in the UK were, properly insulated and took basic energy efficiency measures (like installing low energy light bulbs) then the UK wouldn’t need to build any more power stations it would be decommissioning them. I don’t know if that’s right but it wouldn’t surprise me if it was.

For example in Sweden the building regulation stipulate the need for proper insulation at the design level but those regulations were tougher back in 1978 than they are in the UK today. The British government only began installing double glazing in it’s public building and house stock, when it was forced to by a EU regulation.

Many European countries have already gone further, Germany for instance was way ahead of us even before the election of Angela Merkel whose now “declared that she would provide £1bn annually to ensure that every house in the country would be air-tight and properly insulated within 20 years”.

The thing is that this is not good news for the big energy concerns; who make money by selling coal, oil, gas and electricity, these kind of measures actually have the effect of reducing how much coal, oil, gas and electricity is needed to be supplied.

Their profits would fall.

So no wonder big finance and its friends on the right are either trying to claim global warming has nothing to do with anything man does so do nothing (like Rat) or are pushing for the ‘big’ power plant schemes like nuclear and are seemingly trying to play down the alternative ideas. They want to invest in something that will get them guaranteed and growing revenue, they don’t want people being able to buy into technology that would lower energy bills (and in some cases the ability to sell energy back into the grid).

*

However maybe things are changing this is from a recent UK national paper in of all places the financial section.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/homeimprovements

here is a quote from the section on solar panels.

*

 

Why do you keep mentioning the John Birch Society? It's like you're obsessed with them or something. I have nothing to do with the JBS or any other organization. If you're simply trying to make it known to people that I talk about many of the same things they've been saying for years, then yes, that is true. I have nothing wrong with making it absolutely 100% clear my disdain for liberalism, socialism, nazism and communism.

Couldn't this also apply as much to yourself or anyone who has a particular viewpoint? I could say the same thing about you -- that's it's your job to spread the stuff you're spreading. Such a remark means nothing. To think anyone who doesn't hold the same beliefs as you has an agenda is pretty ironic.

Well, I don't deny that global warming exists, as it has in the past. I realize that the earth's climate has never stopped changing and has went through warming and cooling cycles in the past. I also realize that planets like Mars are also going through a warming trend, and that could not possibly have anything to do with human activity.

---------

I would say that "wealth's vested interests" are the ones who stand the most to gain from the climate change ruse. I mean, it is the wealthy elite that gave birth to the modern environmental movement, and today it is their media that is shoving all this "green" nonsense and global warming hysteria down everyone's throats.

 

Rat

Well, I’m not claiming you are, although you wouldn’t you admit you were if you didn’t want people to know you were?
I mean you have being falsely claiming you are ‘neither of the right or left’ for some years now, when you are clearly of the right.

So you’re making it absolutely clear you are a right winger just like other John Birchers and will stop claiming you are ‘neither of the right or left’?
*
Quote:
I suppose that’s your job here, I mean it does seem to be the only reason you post.

The point I was making is that you, have often been dishonest about your particular viewpoint, like trying to hoodwink others into believing you are unbiased politically and were not of the right and don’t actually support things that would increase the power of wealth.
I’d also highlight that you don’t seem to come here to debate, that in most cases you only wish to disrupt debate.
If you were open and honest, and showed a willingness to debate your views in a rational and reasonable way, then I wouldn’t have the feeling that you only reason in coming here are malign.
*