Obama and the Clean Energy Scam

Obama Seeks 'New Path to Environmental Goals' for the Energy Fat Cats to Cash-in

January 27, 2011

AP – Facing a Congress that is more hostile to environmental regulation, President Barack Obama is moderating his environmental goals: a clean energy standard that mixes nuclear, natural gas and "clean coal" with renewable sources such as wind and solar.

In his State of the Union address Tuesday night, Obama called for 80 percent of the nation's electricity to come from clean sources by 2035. That goal represents a new strategy to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide blamed for global warming, following the death of cap-and-trade legislation that Obama pushed in Congress for the last two years. The president didn't mention global warming in his speech, but a clean energy standard is another way to combat rising temperatures.

The new target would double the percentage of electricity that comes from clean energy sources, according to a White House fact sheet. Clean coal, which would be produced by an experimental technology not yet available commercially, and "efficient natural gas" would be given only partial credits toward the goal.

Under the cap-and-trade system, government places a limit on pollution and allows companies to buy and sell pollution permits under that ceiling. Companies that can reduce their emissions cheaply can then sell their unused credits to those that cannot afford the costs of emission controls.

The clean energy standard represents a second fallback position to cap-and-trade. Last year, a powerful coalition of renewable energy producers, environmental groups, governors and even some utilities couldn't push a renewable electricity standard of 15 percent across the finish line, in part because of regional resistance. In the Southeast, for example, it was argued that the region lacks renewable sources like abundant levels of wind.

The nuclear industry soon touted the idea of a broader clean energy standard, which got a nod from Energy Secretary Steven Chu last month. Chu said a goal of 50 percent by 2050 would be "about right" — but it turned out to be much less than Obama is proposing. The energy secretary told reporters Wednesday that he had been responding to a suggested level.

"Now, since that time, we have gone back and looked at it and it depends on how you define it," Chu said after an online clean energy town hall.

The U.S., he said, already gets about 40 percent of its electricity from clean energy sources and more than 30 percent from carbon-free sources.

Chu called the new proposal "a recognition that solutions can be different in different parts of the United States, but ... this is the goal we're looking for and depending on the region, you have different options of getting to that eventual goal."

The administration's plan has echoes of the GOP's "all of the above" approach to energy.

"Let's not pick just wind or solar, let's pick everything," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Thursday. "Let's do all of it."

But whether the administration can win over many Republicans isn't clear yet.

Rep. Doc Hastings, a Washington Republican who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee, said Obama "needs to embrace a robust plan to produce all types of American energy — from renewable to American-made oil and natural gas — and it has to be done without harmful government subsidies or unrealistic mandates."

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., a big proponent of nuclear power, said the policy was an improvement over a renewable energy standard, which he dismissed as "just a national windmill policy." But he said he didn't support a clean energy standard either.

At the other end of the political spectrum, several environmental groups were opposed to elements of the broader mandate.

"Developing clean energy sources for more of our electricity is another way to skin the carbon cat," said Bob Deans, a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council, playing off Obama's comment last November that cap-and-trade was just one way of skinning the cat.

"It's important, though, that we do the job right, not simply redefine the cat."

Deans called clean coal an oxymoron and said the government should not be subsidizing nuclear power, because of concerns over waste and nuclear proliferation.

"Coal, nuclear power, biofuels and natural gas are inherently dirty," said Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth. "Telling Americans anything else is just misleading."

But Obama received some support from key Democratic lawmakers.

"This year we need to double down instead of walking away," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., one of the leaders of the climate legislation effort last year. "Today's energy economy is a $6 trillion market, and the fastest-growing segment is clean energy."

Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., a longtime supporter of a renewable energy standard, said that the country needs an "all-of-the-above approach," including natural gas and nuclear.

"I was encouraged to hear President Obama agrees with me," said Udall, D-Colo.

Flashback: Exxon Mobil Now Supports Carbon Tax

But is it all that surprising?

January 10, 2009

Old-Thinker News - The media is hailing Exxon Mobil’s announcement in favor of carbon tax proposals as a shocking, unbelievable move. But is it really that surprising? Could well meaning environmentalists be in for a shock to find that a seemingly “grass roots” movement has from the beginning been initiated from the top down?

As the Calgary Herald reports,

“Exxonmobil corp., the world’s largest crude oil refiner, supports taxing carbon dioxide as the most efficient way of curbing greenhouse gas emissions, its chief executive said.”

The announcement came from Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon Mobil, speaking at the Woodrow Wilson international center for scholars in Washington, which has served as a platform for discussing various globalist initiatives for many years. That Tillerson would make this announcement is interesting, due to the fact that the Rockefeller family, who built Standard Oil [Standard Oil of New York later became Mobil, a predecessor to Exxon/Mobil], recently identified him as “resistant” to “…take the threat of global warming more seriously”. Are we to accept this story? Was there any real resistance in the first place?

A May 2008 article from the International Herald Tribune painted a glowing picture of the Rockefeller family in their quest to “press for change at Exxon”. As reported, “David Rockefeller, retired chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank and patriarch of the family, issued a statement saying, “I support my family’s efforts to sharpen Exxon Mobil’s focus on the environmental crisis facing all of us.”

The Rockefeller family has held a very special interest in environmental matters for decades. Population control and reduction is a central directive of many Rockefeller initiatives. The recent focus on Global warming is no different. Steven Rockefeller’s Earth Charter is an example.

There are countless real environmental issues such as genetically engineered organisms being released into the environment causing unknown mutations, consuming potentially dangerous cloned animal products, mass honey-bee die offs, etc. However, global warming was identified by the Club of Rome’s 1991 report The First Global Revolution as a unifier to funnel the energy of citizens and businesses alike into supporting globalist initiatives. The report states, “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

Many of the “green” proposals to fight global warming will have a direct impact on your standard of living. Obama has admitted that sending “price signals” to change behavior is an option. Obama stated during a 2007 PBS interview, “We’re gonna have to cap the emission of greenhouse gasses. That means the power plants are gonna have to adjust how they generate power. They will pass on those costs to consumers.”

Carbon Taxes Will Go Directly to the World Bank, Not to Developing Countries to Lower Carbon Emissions or Alleviate Poverty

Dominique Strauss-Kahn (head of the IMF) and George Soros (billionaire money-lender) call for a giant international slush fund to bankroll the infrastructure needed to implement global carbon taxes, which they need in order to tax all humans, countries and industries for emitting carbon dioxide, the very gas we exhale. The creation of revenue streams to bankroll the structure of global governance that will oversee the implementation of a “green world order” will again be up for discussion at a series of new Copenhagen process negotiations set to take place in April, May and June... Leaked policy documents reveal that the United Nations plans to create a “green world order” by 2012 which will be enforced by a structure of global governance and funded by a gargantuan $45 trillion transfer of wealth from richer countries, as the globalists’ insidious plan to centralize power and crush sovereignty while devastating the economy is exposed once again. [Paul Joseph Watson, IMF Head Calls For Huge Global Warming Slush Fund, Prison Planet.com, March 8, 2010]

As was uncovered during the Copenhagen summit, the program of “global redistribution of wealth” and transaction taxes largely centers around looting the wealth of the middle classes in richer countries and then using that money to bankroll the establishment of world government. As the leaked “Danish text” revealed, the money generated from consumption taxes will go directly to the World Bank, not to developing countries to lower carbon emissions or alleviate poverty. Under the terms of this proposal, poorer countries will not simply be handed the money pillaged from richer nations; instead, they will be forced to accept “green loans” in the name of combating climate change, a policy that would land the already financially devastated third world with even more debt, payable to globalist institutions such as the IMF. Even if you accept that global institutions, which have proven to be completely corrupt time and time again, should be empowered to steal from the rich and give to the poor, these proposals don’t even do that. This is all about bankrolling the expansion of world government and creating a giant slush fund that will be used to coerce smaller countries into allowing themselves to be ruled and regulated by a global bureaucracy funded by increasingly destitute taxpayers in the West. [Paul Joseph Watson, Globalists Plan to Dismantle Middle Class With UN Tax, Infowars.com, September 19, 2010

Read More...