Rockefeller-owned ExxonMobil Predicts Global Warming Catastrophe

We are told that very expensive carbon regulations are the only way to respond to global warming, despite ample evidence that this approach does not pass a basic cost-benefit test. We must ask whether a "climate-industrial complex" is emerging, pressing taxpayers to fork over money to please those who stand to gain.

Some business leaders are cozying up with politicians and scientists to demand swift, drastic action on global warming. This is a new twist on a very old practice: companies using public policy to line their own pockets.

The Rockefeller family built Standard Oil of New York, which later became Mobil, a predecessor to Exxon/Mobil. On December 6, 2015, the Zionist-controlled Washington Post reported on Exxon's position on the man-made global warming scam:

"During a visit to The Post last week, Exxon experts told us that with no government action, average temperatures are likely to rise by a catastrophic 5 degrees Celsius, with rises of 6, 7 or even more quite possible."

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 scam is no different. Steven Rockefeller's Earth Charter is an example.

The partnership among self-interested businesses, grandstanding politicians, and alarmist campaigners truly is an unholy alliance. The climate-industrial complex does not promote discussion on how to overcome this challenge in a way that will be best for everybody. We should not be surprised or impressed that those who stand to make a profit are among the loudest calling for politicians to act. Spending a fortune on global carbon regulations will benefit a few, but dearly cost everybody else.

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 in their 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."

Man-made Global Warming Scam is About Creating Climate Billionaires Via Carbon Trading Schemes While Lowering the Standard of Living of Everyone Else

United Nations 'Green Climate Fund,' Which Taxpayers of Developed Countries Are Forced to Fund, Goes Directly into Private Equity Funds of the Financial Elite to Create Climate Billionaires Like Gore and Obama — Poor People of Undeveloped Countries Will Never Reap the Benefit

The people behind this scam are not altruistic environmentalists. They are financiers, investment banks and hedge funds. There is already a Carbon Credit Futures market, carbon credit trading exchanges in European (ECX) and in Chicago (CCX), and carbon credit derivatives products. Sound familiar? This is all about creating billions of dollars, quite literally, out of thin air, based up on a hoax, sold to us by world luminaries and super salesmen like Al Gore, who of course has invested heavily in all things to do with climate change, and is flying around the world in his private jet, peddling his wares. He is set to become the world’s first carbon billionaire, and if the “business” of carbon trading continues expanding, there will be many more to follow. Al Gore is chairman of Generation Investment Management (GIM). David Blood, the former chief executive of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, is the CEO. But the bottom line is that GIM is about making money. GIM owns a 10 percent stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange, and the Chicago Climate Exchange owns half of the European Climate Exchange. So if the United States and Europe adopt a government-enforced "cap and trade" carbon credit trading scheme, Al Gore and his fellow investors will rake in billions of dollars. The man-made global warming scare is the greatest scientific fraud in the history of mankind, and its associated carbon credit trading scam is the greatest hustle. [Source]

Goldman Sachs owns a 10 percent stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange, where the carbon credits will be traded. Moreover, Goldman owns a minority stake in Blue Source LLC, a Utah-based firm that sells carbon credits of the type that will be in great demand if the bill passes. Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, who is intimately involved with the planning of cap-and-trade, started up a company called Generation Investment Management with three former bigwigs from Goldman Sachs Asset Management, David Blood, Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris. Their business? Investing in carbon offsets. There's also a $500 million Green Growth Fund set up by a Goldmanite to invest in greentech … the list goes on and on.

Maurice Strong and the Chicago Climate Exchange

The “privately-owned” Chicago Climate Exchange is heavily influenced by Obama cohorts Al Gore and Maurice Strong. For years now Strong and Gore have been cashing in on that lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming...

The Canadian born Strong is little known in the United States. That’s because he spends most of his time in China where he he has been working to make the communist country the world’s next superpower. The nondescript Strong, nonetheless is the big cheese in the underworld of climate change and is one of the main architects of the failing Kyoto Protocol...

These are the leaders in the Man-made Global Warming Movement... It may be interesting to note that the Chicago Climate Exchange in spite of its hype, is a veritable rat’s nest of cronyism. The largest shareholder in the Exchange is Goldman Sachs. Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley is its honorary chairman, The Joyce Foundation, which funded the Exchange also funded money for John Ayers’ Chicago School Initiatives. John is the brother of William Ayers...

Even as man-made global warming is being exposed as a money-generating hoax, Obama is working feverishly to push the controversial cap-and-trade carbon reduction scheme through Congress. Obama was never the character he created for himself in the fairy-tale version in “Dreams of My Father”. He’s the agent of Change and Hope for cohorts making money down at the Chicago Climate Exchange.

The Barbarians are pushing at the gate of the Global Warming fraud, and to borrow a line from children playing Hide and Seek, Here they come, ready or not!

Strong is on the Chicago Climate Exchange board of directors. The CCX “is North America’s only and the world’s first global marketplace for integrating voluntary legally binding emissions reductions with emissions trading and offsets for all six greenhouse gases.”

The more global warming gets hyped, once again by Al Gore, the more green technology is worth. So while Strong may be “a socialist in ideology,” he is definitely a “capitalist in methodology.”

Strong, the architect of the Kyoto Accord, has made millions off of environmentalism, but still finds himself unable to pull America into the snare. But he has a plan for that also. In 2006, he described what he thought was necessary to keep the green movement alive… fear.

Maurice Strong would not shed a tear at the collapse of the American economy or our way of life. He has stated before that “current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.”

In other words, the demise of the American way of life is necessary for the survival of the Earth. This perspective poses little threat from a normal environmentalist. In the hands of the “Michelangelo of networking,” “an international traveling salesman with buts [sic] of paper in his pocket” and “a cross between Rasputin and Machiavelli,” it is an all too real threat to America.

Obama and the Chicago Climate Exchange

Carbon tax schemes are predicated on the illusion of anthropogenic climate change. Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history, however, constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history. Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. A large body of scientific research — including a NASA study — suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years, not humans.

Trading carbon credits in carbon markets is the newest investment scheme. Energy traders and Wall Street financiers are at the heart of this scheme. The Chicago Climate Exchange (a carbon trading exchange), which includes some 400 companies, is now the largest cap-and-trade market in the world. The largest shareholder in the Exchange is Goldman Sachs.

While on the board of the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama helped fund the Chicago Climate Exchange, which will likely play a critical role in the cap-and-trade carbon reduction program he has pushed through Congress as president. In 2000 and 2001, while still a state senator, Obama voted along with other members of the board of the Joyce Foundation to give more than $1.1 million to help the Climate Exchange get off the ground.

The “privately-owned” Chicago Climate Exchange is heavily influenced by Al Gore and Maurice Strong. For years now, Gore and Strong have been cashing in on lucrative carbon trading schemes. [Maurice Strong is known as the “Godfather of the international environmental movement” and the “architect of the Kyoto Protocol.” Both of those are ironic titles for a man who started out in the oil business.]

Gore buys his carbon off-sets from himself—the Generation Investment Management LLP, an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C., of which he is both chairman and founding partner. The Generation Investment Management business has considerable influence over the major carbon credit trading firms that currently exist, including the Chicago Climate Exchange.

Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as “the world’s first, and North America’s only, cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.”  Strong, the silent partner (the Canadian-born Strong is little known in the United States), is a former Secretary General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the much hyped Rio Earth Summit) and Under-Secretary General of the United Nations in the days of an Oil-for-Food beleaguered Kofi Annan. He spends most of his time in China where he has been working to make the communist country the world’s next superpower. The nondescript Strong, nonetheless, is the big cheese in the underworld of climate change and is one of the main architects of the Kyoto Protocol.

The Climate Exchange is the brainchild of Richard Sandor, an economics professor who has worked for both the Chicago Mercantile Association and the Chicago Board of Trade. Known as "Mr. Derivative" for his work in creating interest rate futures markets, Sandor first proposed the creation of the Climate Exchange in 2000, just before the signing of the Kyoto Accord on greenhouse gas reduction. The United States subsequently refused to participate in the accords.

Speaking at the State of Green Business Forum in Chicago in 2010, Sandor urged the attendees to do whatever they could to push for a national cap-and-trade program. After giving a quick history of where value creation for businesses came from in past decades, he said that the next big area for value creation will be in the commoditization of air and water -- they will be made commodities through cap and trade (see the video, "The Story of Cap and Trade," https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYi78LaY8u4). In the case of carbon, that would set quotas for carbon emissions, and those who exceed their quotas can trade those extra cuts to those that are unable to use their own quotas.

Globally, the number of CDM projects (UN-backed clean development mechanism) entering the pipeline is increasing rapidly. The onset of a carbon tax is already underway in numerous countries (the World Bank will be the collection agency for a global CO2 tax). In January 2005, a new system of CO2 emissions trading went into effect in the European Union. David Miliband, the UK's environment secretary, announced that Britain would become the world's first nation to legislate a climate change bill setting legally binding timetables for a low-carbon economy.

This decision affects every British industry, business and household. Britain's former prime minister, Gordon Brown, said:

"My ambition is to build a global carbon market founded on the EU emissions trading scheme and centered in London." 

Every citizen would be issued a carbon "credit card" or "ration card" — to be swiped every time they buy petrol, pay an energy utility bill, or book an airline ticket — under a nationwide carbon rationing scheme (according to a feasibility study commissioned by Miliband).

Under the scheme, everybody would be given an annual allowance of the carbon they could expend on a range of products, probably food, energy and travel. If they wanted to use more carbon, they would be able to buy it from somebody else on a carbon exchange. In the future, each person will start the year with 1,000 carbon credits, for example, on a carbon ration card. Personal carbon rations would cover everyone’s direct use of energy in the household and for personal transport, including air travel. Each time someone fills up their car, for example, they would put the card in a slot on the pump and it will deduct a few points.

The main features of personal carbon rations are:

• An equal annual ration is allocated for each adult, with a smaller one for children.
• Rations are tradable.
• The ration covers the direct energy used in the household and for personal travel.
• A phased year-on-year reducing ration is signaled well in advance.
• The arrangement is mandatory (in order to be effective, carbon rationing would have to be mandatory, just like Obamacare)

From the document, "Kyoto Chip - Awareness raising of personal CO2":

"There is no easy technical way to deal with CO2. The best way to reduce it and the other emissions is to use the car only when it is necessary and to cycle, walk or use public transport where possible. Personal awareness is the other path to follow. It is obvious that not only the choice of which vehicle and its fuel efficiency is important, but also how much use is made of the vehicle.

"The approach suggested in this document aims at creating even greater awareness and an active personal involvement by individual European citizens in their personal level of CO2 emission. Once every driver knows their annual allowance, and how much their vehicle uses, then they can make much better choices about the trips they make and which mode they choose to make them.

"Part of this is already done in the UK where the annual ‘road tax’ is based on the CO2 emissions of the vehicle you own. We believe that the next logical step is to empower citizens by giving them the knowledge and possibility to make a real change based on their choices and behavior.

"The ’Kyoto Chip’ is about CO2 rationing on a personal level and -- doing so- - raising more awareness about personal CO2 use. David Miliband, the UK environment secretary, is keen to set up a pilot scheme to test the idea, and has asked officials from four government departments to report on how it could be done. The move marks the first serious step towards state-enforced limits on the carbon use of individuals, which scientists say may be necessary in the fight against climate change."

"It extends the principle of carbon trading -- already in place between heavy polluters such as power companies and steel makers -- to consumers, with heavy carbon users forced to buy unused allowances from people with greener lifestyles."

http://www.velomondial.net/page_display.asp?pid=29 

Rockefellers and the Carbon Tax

January 10, 2009

Daniel Taylor, 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."

Glenn Beck, Crime Inc. and the Nest of Communists

April 26, 2010

Glenn Beck, Fox News - Cap-and-trade: what is it? It’s the trading of puffs of air. Company A pollutes more than Company B. Company A must pay a fine, which is transferred to Company B, who earns a credit. The companies continue to pollute the exact same way, it just costs Company A more and Company B gets rewarded.

If I am going to build this into an industry, I need a to-do list:

• First we have to put together a carbon exchange:

While Obama was on the Joyce Foundation board, the group steered $1.1 million in grants instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange.

• Now we need investors:

Al Gore’s company — Generation Investment Management — is the fifth largest shareholder in the Chicago Climate Exchange. Gore’s company has several former Goldman employees on the roster.

Then Goldman Sachs steps to the plate and buys 10 percent of the combined company.

• Next we need the technology:

Fannie Mae, under the leadership of the Franklin Raines, purchases patent on system to trade residential carbon credits that was described as "how carbon and other pollutants yet to be determined" would be "combined into a single emissions pool" and traded — just as Fannie’s toxic portfolio of subprime mortgages were. It appears Raines wasn’t content with destroying only the housing market.

So you have the same crooked people who have contributed to the financial meltdown — Goldman, Fannie, socialists and out and out crooks — actually trying to "fix" the economy and the environment and, oh boy, believe me the fix is in.

• Now we need the law:

Well, the law is cap-and-trade. Remember when cap-and-trade was supposed to happen right after health care? Well, immigration has Congress’ attention now, so let’s skip ahead to:

• The cover:

Al Gore has been pushing cap-and-trade for quite some time. Obama has been pushing it as well. Many on the progressive left want it. Why? If it’s about the environment, cap-and-trade is a proven failure. It’s been tried it in Europe: failure. Now, a voluntary system — the Chicago Climate Exchange — is tanking. Why? Because you can’t get people to voluntarily buy air, when there’s plenty of air to go around. It’s scam. It’s like being at the beach and selling people a bucket of saltwater. I’m three steps away from the ocean — it’s free.

The entire green movement can’t stand on its own two feet and the only time anything green ever gets money is when it comes from government. Even some of the top scientists who believe in global warming say this won’t do anything to stop companies from polluting. They’ll just be paying a little more for it and companies like Enron were scheming to make money off of it — they even lobbied for cap-and-trade.

Some of the eco groups don’t even do what they promise. The Vatican found this out when they became "carbon neutral," but not one tree was planted in Hungary’s so-called "Vatican forest" for offsets. Who scams the pope? You want to know about warming? I got "eternal warming" for you.

So the question is: Why is it still being pushed? The redistribution of wealth and to enrich the corrupt.

We did a little digging and followed the money and the answers tell a familiar story. And before we get going on this, I just want to warn you: If there’s one thing I’m learning about progressives, they really like creating groups. They’ve got tons of them and it seems they just pass the money from one to the next. It’s almost like money laundering. It’s why health care can pass: You don’t know what the hell anyone is talking about and everyone always sounds so happy. Words and names of groups mean nothing. Unfortunately for them, people’s faces still matter. We know them by reputation.

"Crime, Inc." nest of communists: The Crime Ring Combines the White House, Goldman Sachs, Obama, Al Gore, Emerald Cities Collaborative, Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), George Soros, Valerie Jarrett, Goldman Sachs, Center for American Progress, Franklin Raines, Gerry Hudson, SEIU, Van Jones, AFL-CIO, ACORN, Green for All, Fannie Mae, Enterprise Community Partners, Art Lujan, Jack Hayn, Andy Stern, Phaedra Ellis Lamkins, Joyce Foundation, Livable Cities Initiative and "The Wizard": New Party and Apollo Alliance Founder, Joel Rogers.

The crime ring is robbing us blind. The financial bill will give the FTC new control over the Internet!?! Study the CCX members closely. There are mega companies involved in the international global warming scam.

'Green Climate Fund' Seeks UN-Style Diplomatic Immunity

[There is] an entrenched evil currently running the planet into an abyss. Yes, there is obvious desperation in their moves of late. But the game just seems to continue — ad nauseam — the people who have sheltered and protected the Khazar Banksters while impoverishing the middle class by exporting the American economy and industry based on unending warfare production. Those huge off shore accounts of the ill gotten gains of secret congressional accounts have not been tapped and returned; after all, it is the Rothrocks and the devil agency “Goldman Sucks” that are still running our Wall Steet “Dog and Pony” shows. I still get ridiculed for telling people to really think about the travesty of 9-11 and what it has cost them in terms of freedom. I really want to believe the Bens of this world. The fact that legislation was passed by a majority tells me that these people are either paid for, believe they are part of the 1%, or are afraid to stand up for the common good because they have been threatened with something. We know that the world is run by an unworthy gang of misanthropic inbred elites and their lackey minions. And, yet, through their spoils (and the spoiled), they have amassed great treasure that has no real value. Their moral compass is broken; their political capital is zero; their fiat currency is worthless; and their method of rule has become comical. These thespian thieves have now been pushed toward the gates of the temple to be whipped into the desert of their own creation…” [Source]

March 22, 2012

FOX News - The Green Climate Fund, which is supposed to help mobilize as much as $100 billion a year to lower global greenhouse gases, is seeking a broad blanket of UN-style immunity that would shield its operations from any kind of legal process, including civil and criminal prosecution, in the countries where it operates.

There is just one problem: it is not part of the United Nations.

Whether the fund, which was formally created at a UN climate conference in Durban, South Africa last December, will get all the money it wants to spend is open to question in an era of economic slowdown and fiscal austerity.

Its spending goal comes atop some $30 billion in "fast start-up" money that has been pledged by UN member states to such climate change activities.

A 24-nation interim board of trustees for the Green Climate Fund (GCF) is slated to hold its first meeting next month in Switzerland to organize the fund's secretariat and to get it running by November, as well as find a permanent home for the GCF's operations.

The board expects to spend about $6.7 million between now and June of next year.

But before it is fully operational, the GCF's creators -- 194 countries that belong to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) -- want it to be immune from legal challenges and lawsuits, not to mention outside inspections, much like the United Nations itself cannot be affected by decisions rendered by a sovereign nation's government or judicial system.

Despite its name, the UNFCCC was informed in 2006 by the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs that it was not considered a UN "organ," and therefore could not claim immunity for its subordinate bodies or personnel under the General Convention that has authorized UN immunity since the end of World War II.

A UNFCCC resolution granting similar immunities would need to be "accepted, approved or ratified" by each individual member of the Kyoto Protocol before it took effect, the UN legal office advised.

Even if UNFCCC members decided to ask the UN General Assembly to grant them similar immunity it would require each UN member state to make changes in domestic legislation, the opinion declared.

According to an official of the US Treasury, which strongly supports the existence of the GCF, the full extent of the immunities still remains to be worked out by the fund board, although the wording of various UNFCCC resolutions indicate that immunities like those held by the UN are clearly envisaged.

Obama, in latest climate move, pledges $3 billion for global fund

November 14, 2014

Reuters - President Barack Obama on Friday pledged a $3 billion U.S. contribution to an international fund to help poor countries cope with the effects of climate change, putting the issue front and center of the G20 Leaders Summit in Australia.

The large size of the contribution took climate policy watchers by surprise and doubles what other countries had previously pledged ahead of a Nov. 20 deadline. It would be the second major move on climate change taken by Obama after big Democratic losses in last week's midterm elections.

"Along with other nations that have pledged support, we’ll help vulnerable communities with early-warning systems, stronger defenses against storm surges, and climate-resilient infrastructure," Obama said in remarks ahead of the official opening of the G20 summit.

"We’ll help farmers plant more durable crops. We’ll help developing economies reduce their carbon pollution and invest in clean energy."

The timing of the announcement was seen as putting pressure Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who is hosting the summit and once described climate science as "absolute crap". Abbott had hoped the G20 summit would focus on growth and jobs.

"When most nations are saying we have to finance climate change responses, whatever Australia desires, it has to agree or it risks looking like the spoiler at what should be Australia's moment," Tim Costello, the head of World Vision Australia and the C20, or Civil Society 20, told Reuters.

Highlighting Australia's exposure to climate change, Obama said longer droughts and more wildfires were likely.

"The incredible natural glory of the Great Barrier Reef is threatened. Worldwide this past summer was the hottest on record. No nation is immune and every nation has a responsibility to do its part."

The Green Climate Fund will work with private sector investment and help spur global markets in clean energy technologies, creating opportunities for entrepreneurs and manufacturers including those from the United States.

"The fund will be able to deploy innovative instruments. That is the key distinguishing characteristic of the GCF; it has the opportunity to mobilize significant flows of private capital," Abyd Karmali, managing director of climate finance at Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

Rich countries had pledged in 2009 to mobilize $100 billion a year by 2020 to help developing countries tackle carbon emissions.

Earlier this week, Obama announced a climate deal with China. The United States will strive to cut total greenhouse emissions by about 25 percent by 2025, while China will aim for a peak in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

In the run-up to the global climate talks in Paris next year, developing nations view finance as a vital part of any deal.

Hela Cheikhrouhou, executive director of the fund, lauded the U.S. pledge as a game-changer. 

"It could have a domino effect on all other contributions," she said.

The U.S. pledge roughly doubles the $3 billion already promised for the fund, which will hold a first donors' meeting in Berlin on Thursday.

Germany and France had earlier pledged $1 billion each, and Mexico, South Korea, Japan and others have pledged smaller amounts.

The UN has set an informal goal of raising $10 billion for the fund before a meeting of environment ministers in Peru, next month. Developing nations have been urging $15 billion.

Some environmentalists were unimpressed by the pledge. Friends of the Earth said $3 billion "falls magnitudes below what is actually needed by developing countries."

Goldman Sachs and the Chicago Climate Exchange (Excerpt)

July 2, 2009

Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone - Goldman Sachs started pushing hard for cap-and-trade long ago, but things really ramped up in 2008 when the firm spent $3.5 million to lobby climate issues. (One of their lobbyists at the time was none other than Patterson, now Treasury chief of staff.)

Back in 2005, when Hank Paulson was chief of Goldman, he personally helped author the bank's environmental policy, a document that contains some surprising elements for a firm that in all other areas has been consistently opposed to any sort of government regulation. Paulson's report argued that "voluntary action alone cannot solve the climate change problem."

A few years later, the bank's carbon chief, Ken Newcombe, insisted that cap-and-trade alone won't be enough to fix the climate problem and called for further PUBLIC INVESTMENTS in research and development. Which is convenient, considering that Goldman made early investments in wind power (it bought a subsidiary called Horizon Wind Energy), renewable diesel (it is an investor in a firm called Changing World Technologies), and solar power (it partnered with BP Solar), exactly the kind of deals that will prosper if the government forces energy producers to use cleaner energy.

As Paulson said at the time,

"We're not making those investments to lose money."

Goldman owns a 10 percent stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange, where the carbon credits will be traded. Moreover, Goldman owns a minority stake in Blue Source LLC, a Utah-based firm that sells carbon credits of the type that will be in great demand if the bill passes.  

Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, who is intimately involved with the planning of cap-and-trade, started up a company called Generation Investment Management with three former bigwigs from Goldman Sachs Asset Management, David Blood, Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris. Their business? Investing in carbon offsets.

There's also a $500 million Green Growth Fund set up by a Goldmanite to invest in greentech … the list goes on and on.

Goldman is ahead of the headlines again, just waiting for someone to make it rain in the right spot. Will this market be bigger than the energy futures market?

Related:

• Deep Ecology – The Hidden Agenda
• The Green Movement Is the One World Religion
• Obama is Owned by 'a Bunch of Fat Cat Bankers'
• A Tiny Elite Owns 80% of the World's Wealth
• Climate Protection Act of 2013 (Boxer-Sanders) Will Increase the Price of Fuel and Other Goods and Services and Will Destroy Manufacturing

Rich Countries (or Their Populations Anyway) Will Have Their Standards of Living Reduced Significantly Under Carbon Taxing Schemes

The Climate Protection Act of 2013 (S.332) and its companion bill, the Sustainable Energy Act (S.329), introduced by Sanders and Boxer on February 14, 2013, are currently before the Committee on Environment and Public Works. This bills will pave the way for a new carbon tax and cap and trade scheme.

S. 332: "A bill to address climate disruptions, reduce carbon pollution, enhance the use of clean energy, and promote resilience in the infrastructure of the United States, and for other purposes."

S.329: "S. 329. A bill to eliminate certain fuel subsidies and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain energy tax incentives."

Opening a packed Capitol Hill press briefing, Sanders inveighed against partisan squabbling which he insisted must yield before the ineluctable laws of physics. Earlier scientific projections were wrong, Sanders said, “the crisis facing our planet is much more serious than they previously believed.” Sanders and Boxer conveyed alarming warnings of “global climate disruption” from a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee briefing on Wednesday. The panel of four scientists had concluded that without aggressive action, the earth will warm by 8 degrees Fahrenheit within a century, with consequences including 3 – 6 feet of sea level rise, more frequent and forceful damaging storms, drought, extreme crop loss and submerging of coastal cities.

Reporters immediately questioned how the two bills could move forward. Boxer said she has just begun seeking co-sponsors and hasn’t conferred with Majority Leader Harry Reid about scheduling. But she expects to conduct hearings and markup in Environment & Public Works and to bring the measures to the Senate floor. Replying to a question about EPA greenhouse gas regulations, she said, “We’ve beaten back” Republican repeal efforts. “The Clean Air Act is the law of the land” which the President “must carry out.” Boxer suggested that public opinion on climate is “far ahead” of Congress, “no one is asking for dirtier air or water.” But she offered no plans to reach across the aisle to enact their bills, either in the Democratic-controlled Senate or the Republican House. She called on environmental and public interest organizations to build support for climate legislation. Sanders suggested that the public hold accountable “Republicans who refuse to even recognize the reality of climate change.”

The Climate Protection Act certainly is the most potent climate legislation ever introduced in the Senate. 

The status of the two bills has not changed since their introduction in February 2013: both are still assigned to the Committee on Environment and Public Works and have not been sent to the House or Senate as a whole.

"The World Bank/IMF is owned and controlled by NM Rothschild and 30 to 40 of the wealthiest people in the world. For over 150 years they have planned to take over the world through money. The IMF/World Bank are systematically tearing nations apart. It's not privatization. They steal from the people and hand it over to themselves. The World Bank/IMF pays off politicians to transfer a nation's water systems, railways, telephone companies, nationalized oil companies, gas stations, etc. to IMF-backed transnational companies, which they later destroy after transferring the assets to dummy corporations." [Rothschild Bankers Looting Nations Through the IMF and World Bank]



As of the year 2000, there were seven countries without a Rothschild-owned Central Bank: Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Iran. Then along came the convenient terror of 9-11 and soon Iraq and Afghanistan had been added to the list, leaving only five countries without a Central Bank owned by the Rothschild Family: Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Iran. America's true reason for intervention and missile attacks against Libya became very clear on March 29, 2011 with a sudden creation by the rebels of a new Central Bank. Libya was one of only five nations remaining who did not a Central Bank owned by the Rothschilds. Now there are only three countries left without a Rothschild-owned Central Bank: Cuba, North Korea and Iran. And guess who immediately became target number one after Gadhafi was killed? Iran. 

Cap and Trader Demands Carbon Derivatives Bubble

October 18, 2009

Infowars - In The Guardian, Nicholas Stern argues for poverty, misery, and the latest bankster scam. He says the “rich countries” not only have to reduce emissions significantly but also tax their not-so rich populations and give the money to developing countries. Current efforts to reduce carbon emissions are not enough, according to Stern.

“By 2050, the global population is projected to rise to 9 billion, so average per head emissions will have to be lower than 2 tonnes per year on average. For rich countries, this will require a cut in annual emissions by at least 80% by 2050,” he writes.

In other words, between now and 2050, the “rich countries” (or their populations anyway) will have their standards of living reduced significantly. They will be forced under international treaty to fork over $100 billion a year to developing nations [money which will not go to the people but into the pockets of the ruling elite].
 
Stern suggests “high-ambition” commitments, including a rollback of international shipping and aviation. He says a the transition to a low-carbon economy will “create a new era of prosperity and growth.”

Lord Stern, who is chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, says a reduction in carbon emissions can be realized through the operation of carbon markets.

Carbon markets and trading are another bankster bubble scheme.

“This system would create whole new classes of financial assets, which financial firms could securitize, derivatize, and speculate on,” writes Eoin O’Carroll for The Christian Science Monitor. “Many critics are pointing out that this new market for carbon derivatives could, without effective oversight, usher in another Wall Street free-for-all just like the one that precipitated the implosion of the global economy.”

Wall Street is already on the move. The Center for Public Integrity noted in February that banks have been sending climate change lobbyists to Washington in earnest and are attempting to get the American Clean Energy and Security Act rammed through Congress. It passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 219-212 in June. It now moves to the Senate.  

The American Clean Energy and Security Act “is about profits, not environmental remediation,” writes Stephen Lendman. “Its emissions reduction targets are so weak, they effectively license pollution by creating a new profit center to do it.”

“Wall Street banks like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase, insurance companies like AIG and private equity firms had virtually no reps on Capitol Hill working on global warming policy in 2003; by last year, they had about 130 climate lobbyists, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis of Senate lobbying disclosure forms shows. About 20 additional lobbyists worked for firms and organizations wholly dedicated to carbon marketing last year,” writes Marianne Lavelle.

It is estimated that the “carbon market” and its securitized, derivatized, and speculated financial assets will ultimately be worth trillions a year to Wall Street and the bankers. It will inflate a massive bubble designed to burst like all the bubbles that came before it.

“If you think the housing and credit bubble diminished your financial security and your community, or the bailouts, or the rising gas prices did as well, hold on to your hat for what’s coming. Carbon trading is gearing up to make the housing and derivative bubbles look like target practice,” warns Catherine Austin Fitts.

“Carbon markets can and will be manipulated using the same Wall Street sleights of hand that brought us the financial crisis,” notes Rep. James Sensenbrenner.

Dennis Kuchinich cited Matt Taibbi’s Rolling Stone article on the Goldman Sach’s bubble machine: “Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression — and they are about to do it again.”

Goldman Sachs is confident Obama and Congress will pass cap and trade legislation. On October 12, The New York Times reported that Goldman Sachs has completed a $12 million carbon offsets transaction, described as “the largest deal of its kind in the United States.”

The “transaction reflects growing confidence in a regulated carbon market in the United States, even though the concept is still the subject of much debate in Congress,” according to the newspaper. 

Finally, Lord Stern is hardly a neutral observer merely concerned with climate change and the fate of the planet. On June 16, 2008, Dow Jones Financial News Online announced that Stern “is set to launch a rating service for carbon credits in an attempt to boost investment in the nascent market.”

EU Mulls Carbon Tax to Fight Climate Change

October 3, 2009

China View — European Union (EU) finance ministers on Friday discussed the idea of introducing a carbon tax across the 27-nation bloc as a way to help fight climate change.

“Today, there were few reactions, but all the reactions were positive,” Laszlo Kovacs, EU Commissioner for Taxation and Customs Union, told reporters after presenting the idea to EU finance ministers at an informal meeting in the Swedish port city of Gothenburg.

Swedish Finance Minister Anders Borg, whose country holds the EU rotating presidency, said there had been a constructive exchange of views and that the European Commission was encouraged to make a formal proposal, possibly next year.

He said a number of ministers welcomed the idea of introducing a carbon tax to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from sectors outside the EU Emission Trading Scheme.

The EU currently runs the world’s largest Emission Trading Scheme, which imposes emission caps on certain EU industries, including power generators and some heavy industrial plants, and requires them to buy extra permit if they want to emit more.

The new carbon tax is likely to be applied to transport, agriculture, forestry, households and others.

In fact, several EU member states have already introduced such tax on national basis.

Borg said Sweden’s carbon tax had proved “very successful” since it was introduced at the start of the 1990s.

Denmark, Finland and Slovenia also have taxes on household carbon emissions resulting from heating and electricity use. France is planning to introduce a carbon tax on gasoline or diesel fuel for cars next year, hoping it can bring more revenue for the government.

But Kovacs admitted it would not be easy to reach a deal since taxation is reserved for national sovereignty under EU rules and any change requires unanimity among 27 member states.

“Introducing a new tax in the EU has never been easy, and particularly it is not easy in the time of a financial and economic crisis,” he said.

“But it is evident that the climate change is an even more disastrous global challenge than the current financial and economic crisis. It’s a question of life or death for the population of the globe,” he added.

Kovacs said the tax would not only help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the EU, but also its revenues could be used in financing the fight against climate change in the developing world.

The revenues “should be used for climate change purposes (and) to finance the climate change efforts of the developing countries, because they need some support and we need revenues to support them,” he said.

EU finance ministers also had an “active and constructive” discussion on the issue of climate financing today, according to the Swedish EU presidency.

World governments are expected to reach a new deal on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to replace the Kyoto Protocol after it expires in 2012 at a United Nations conference on climate change in Copenhagen this December, but current negotiations have been deadlocked, with climate financing proving to be a stumbling block.

Developing countries have called for generous financial support from rich countries to help them cut greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the impact of global warming, for which industrialized nations are historically responsible.

In early September, the European Commission unveiled a blueprint for scaling up international finance to help poor nations, proposing that the EU would contribute some 2 to 15 billion euros (2.9 to 22 billion U.S. dollars) a year by 2020, a sum criticized by developing countries as not enough.

New Federal Report Paves the Way for Cap & Trade and Carbon Credit Exchange Markets

This federal report is timed perfectly for passage of the Climate Protection Act of 2013, introduced by Sanders and Boxer on February 14, 2013, which is currently before the Committee on Environment and Public Works. This bill will pave the way for a new carbon tax and cap and trade scheme.

Federal report: Warming disrupts Americans' lives

May 6, 2014
 
Associated Press - Global warming is rapidly turning America the beautiful into America the stormy, sneezy and dangerous, according to a new federal scientific report. And those shining seas? Rising and costly, the report says.

Climate change's assorted harms "are expected to become increasingly disruptive across the nation throughout this century and beyond," the National Climate Assessment concluded Tuesday. The report emphasizes that warming and all-too-wild weather are changing daily lives, using the phrase "climate disruption" as another way of saying global warming.

Still, it's not too late to prevent the worst of climate change, says the 840-page report, which the White House is highlighting as it tries to jump-start often-stalled efforts to curb heat-trapping gases.

White House science adviser John Holdren called the report, the third edition of a congressionally mandated study, "the loudest and clearest alarm bell to date signaling the need to take urgent action." Later this summer, the Obama administration plans to propose new and controversial regulations restricting gases that come from existing coal-fired power plants.

Some fossil energy groups, conservative think tanks and Republican senators immediately assailed the report as "alarmist." Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said President Barack Obama was likely to "use the platform to renew his call for a national energy tax. And I'm sure he'll get loud cheers from liberal elites — from the kind of people who leave a giant carbon footprint and then lecture everybody else about low-flow toilets."

Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana said the report was supposed to be scientific but "it's more of a political one used to justify government overreach."

The report — which is full of figures, charts and other research-generated graphics — includes 3,096 footnotes to other mostly peer-reviewed research. It was written by more than 250 scientists and government officials, starting in 2012. A draft was released in January 2013, but this version has been reviewed by more scientists, including twice by the National Academy of Science which called it "reasonable," and has had public comment. It is written in a bit more simple language so people can realize "that there's a new source of risk in their lives," said lead author Gary Yohe of Wesleyan University in Connecticut.

Environmental groups praised the report. "If we don't slam the brakes on the carbon pollution driving climate change, we're dooming ourselves and our children to more intense heat waves, destructive floods and storms and surging sea levels," said Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Scientists and the White House called it the most detailed and U.S.-focused scientific report on global warming.

"Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present," the report says. "Corn producers in Iowa, oyster growers in Washington state and maple syrup producers in Vermont are all observing climate-related changes that are outside of recent experience."

The report looks at regional and state-level effects of global warming, compared with recent reports from the United Nations that lumped all of North America together.

"All Americans will find things that matter to them in this report," said scientist Jerry Melillo of the Marine Biological Laboratory, who chaired the science committee that wrote the report. "For decades we've been collecting the dots about climate change, now we're connecting those dots."

In a White House conference call with reporters, National Climatic Data Center Director Tom Karl said his two biggest concerns were flooding from sea level rise on the U.S. coastlines — especially for the low-lying cities of Miami, Norfolk, Virginia, and Portsmouth, New Hampshire — and drought, heat waves and prolonged fire seasons in the Southwest.

Even though the nation's average temperature has risen by as much as 1.9 degrees since record keeping began in 1895, it's in the big, wild weather where the average person feels climate change the most, said co-author Katharine Hayhoe, a Texas Tech University climate scientist. Extreme weather like droughts, storms and heat waves hit us in the pocketbooks and can be seen by our own eyes, she said.

The report says the intensity, frequency and duration of the strongest Atlantic hurricanes have increased since the early 1980s, but it is still uncertain how much of that is from man-made warming. Winter storms have increased in frequency and intensity and have shifted northward since the 1950s, it says. Also, heavy downpours are increasing — by 71 percent in the Northeast. Heat waves, such as those in Texas in 2011 and the Midwest in 2012, are projected to intensify nationwide. Droughts in the Southwest are expected to get stronger. Sea level has risen 8 inches since 1880 and is projected to rise between 1 foot and 4 feet by 2100.

Climate data center chief Karl highlighted the increase in downpours, which are jumping by 30 percent to 60 percent elsewhere in the country besides the Northeast. He said last week's drenching, when Pensacola, Florida, got up to two feet of rain in one storm and parts of the East had three inches in one day, is what he's talking about.

"The projections for these kinds of changes are to continue as the globe continues to warm and the atmosphere is able to hold more water vapor," Karl said.

Since January 2010, 43 of the lower 48 states have set at least one monthly record for heat, such as California having its warmest January on record this year. In the past 51 months, states have set 80 monthly records for heat, 33 records for being too wet, 12 for lack of rain and just three for cold, according to an Associated Press analysis of federal weather records.

The report also says "climate change threatens human health and well-being in many ways." Those include smoke-filled air from wildfires, smoggy air from pollution, and more diseases from tainted food, water, mosquitoes and ticks. And ragweed pollen season has lengthened.

Flooding alone may cost $325 billion by the year 2100 in one of the worst-case scenarios, with $130 billion of that in Florida, the report says. Already the droughts and heat waves of 2011 and 2012 added about $10 billion to farm costs, the report says.

Related:

Climate Protection Act of 2013 (Boxer-Sanders) Will Increase the Price of Fuel and Other Goods and Services and Will Destroy Manufacturing

Government Policies Forcing Americans to Move to Cities

Obama’s Plans for the Suburbs: And How to Stop Them

March 18, 2013

National Review - Last Friday’s headlines focused on President Obama’s address at Argonne National Laboratory, where he proposed to spend $2 billion on an energy-security trust fund for renewable fuel research. Obama boldly pledged “to shift our cars entirely . . . off oil.”

How exactly is he planning to do that? Research will have an effect over time, but “entirely off oil” is either a greatly exaggerated or a very incomplete account of the administration’s energy plans. The New York Times story on Obama’s speech dryly notes that although the president “has vowed to make addressing climate change a priority in his second term . . . he has provided only scant details on how he intends to act.”

Look closely, however, and it’s possible to spot some troubling plans. The Times, and just about every other major news outlet, neglected to note that on the day of Obama’s Argonne speech, the Department of Energy released a series of coordinated reports called “Transportation Energy Futures” (developed in cooperation with Argonne). This DOE project explores a variety of strategies designed to curb America’s greenhouse gas emissions up to 80 percent by about 2050.

Arguably the most controversial of those reports covers the “effects of the built environment on transportation.” To put it plainly, the “built environment” report lays out strategies the federal government can use to force development away from suburbs and into cities, supposedly for the sake of reducing carbon dioxide emissions given off by all those suburban commuters. The Obama administration wants to force so-called smart growth policies on the country: get out of your car, stay out of the suburbs, move into small, tightly-packed urban apartment complexes, and walk or take public transportation instead of driving.

The Department of Energy’s built environment report lays out a scenario much like the one I described in Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities. The report highlights two policy options most likely to increase dense, Manhattan-style urban development, without exceeding the traditional limits of federal authority. Those options are eliminating the home-mortgage interest deduction and conditioning future federal aid of all kinds on local adherence to “smart growth” principles. Of these, I think the second is the most likely to be implemented. The built environment report also says that the most convenient bureaucratic channel through which to manage such federal pressure is the Partnership for Sustainable Communities.

The built environment report acknowledges that conditioning federal aid on population density would be political dynamite. And this, of course, is why Obama loudly touted his plans for an energy security trust fund, while downplaying the DOE’s report release. Essentially, the built environment report suggests that federal funding on new schools or roads might be held to population density criteria that would starve projects in suburbs in favor of those in cities. I’ve argued elsewhere that these so-called smart growth policies are about a lot more than greenhouse gases. The global warming issue serves here as a justification for wealth redistribution on a grand scale.

The other major, yet still largely unnoticed, energy story from last Friday was the Bloomberg report on the Obama administration’s plans to order all federal agencies to consider global warming (i.e. carbon dioxide emissions) before approving large projects. I’ve already discussed the potential of this new administrative order to block construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Yet the impact of these new Obama administration guidelines will likely be far wider.

The Bloomberg report notes that once carbon dioxide emissions can be invoked in court, not just oil pipelines but even highway construction can be delayed or blocked (all those suburban commuter fumes). So Obama’s new regulatory guidelines may shortly give environmental groups the power to call a halt to a whole series of suburban development projects.

How can these changes be fought? Publicity helps. Controversial policies like “smart growth” often operate under the public’s radar. Obama wants the energy debate to focus on benign-sounding research plans, while his administration’s interest in placing the massive power of federal funding behind urban densification strategies goes unnoticed.

The other way to block Obama’s plans is to have Congress cut funding for the Sustainable Communities Initiative. In particular, future funding for the Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant program ought to be eliminated. Although the cost of these planning grants is small, their potential impact is large, especially if the administration follows through with the built environment report’s option of conditioning a wide range of federal aid on local adherence to so-called smart-growth planning. (I described these troubling “sustainability” grants in “Obama’s Plan for Ohio.”)

Budget-cutting House Republicans were able to halt funding of Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grants in fiscal year 2012. Blocking that funding again with a targeted public campaign wouldn’t entirely end the program. There are still plenty of fully-funded planning grants out there. Even so, a successful public battle over future funding for these “Sustainable Communities” planning grants might discourage the administration from carrying through on the sort of anti-suburban proposals contained in the built environment report.

It may already be too late to prevent the administration’s new directive on carbon-dioxide pollution standards from sparking a series of court challenges to suburban highway construction, and perhaps other forms of suburban development as well. But it’s not too late to prevent the most powerful blow of all — the aggressive use of conditional federal funding to Manhattanize America.

Tea Party take note. You might want to encourage your representatives in Congress to block future funding for Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grants. A public battle on that issue just might discourage the administration from pulling the trigger on its most draconian anti-suburban plans.

Related:

Social Engineering is Forcing People into Cities Because It is Easier to Track and Control an Urban Population

Climate Protection Act of 2013: Get Ready for a Tax on Breathing

U.S. Policy: Carbon Pricing Proposals of the 113th Congress

April 2013

C2ES - Market-based policies that put a price on greenhouse gases can achieve cost-effective reduction in emissions while driving clean energy innovation. In the United States, attention has recently turned to the possibility of a carbon fee as an element of a broader package addressing tax or budgetary issues. Below is a comparison of a proposal that has been introduced in the U.S. Senate and a discussion draft released by a group of representatives and senators.

The following table compares the Climate Protection Act of 2013 (S. 332), as introduced by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) on February 14, 2013, and the Carbon Pollution Fee discussion draft, as released by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) on March 12, 2013. While both proposals would institute a fee on carbon (i.e., a carbon tax), the proposals differ on the coverage and scope of the respective programs. For instance, the Sanders-Boxer proposal would require certain upstream or midstream fossil fuel sources (i.e., coal mines, refineries, natural gas processing plants, or importers) to pay a fee on greenhouse gas emissions while the authors of the discussion draft would require the largest sources covered by the U.S. EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule to purchase permits for their direct greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition, the proposals differ on: the starting price of the carbon fee, how much to increase the fee each year (i.e., the escalation rate), and how to use the revenues. The Sanders-Boxer proposal would establish a $20 per ton carbon fee, rising 5.6 percent a year over a 10-year period, and would direct 60 percent of the revenues back to consumers through a rebate, and the rest towards investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency, and deficit reduction. The authors of the discussion draft are considering various initial carbon fee and escalation rates as well as uses for generated revenue.

The authors of the discussion draft are seeking public comments on a range of topics, including the use of revenues. Note that certain provisions in the discussion draft are bracketed, which suggests a number of provisions will be refined based on additional analysis and deliberation.

Policy Features	Sens. Sanders and Boxer's Climate Protection Act of 2013	Rep. Waxman, Sen. Whitehouse, Rep. Blumenauer, and Sen. Brian Schatz Carbon Pollution Fee discussion draft
Start Date	The earlier date of January 1, 2014, or the first calendar year beginning at least 180 days after enactment	January 1, 2014
Regulating Authority	Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)	Jointly administered by Treasury Department and EPA. EPA would implement and enforce emissions reporting under EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. Internal Revenue Service (Treasury) would assess, collect, and enforce the fee requirements.
Substances Covered Under a Carbon Pollution Fee	Carbon polluting substance defined as: coal, petroleum, petroleum products, or natural gas that when used, will release greenhouse gas emissions.	Carbon pollution defined as any greenhouse gas—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and other fluorinated greenhouse gases—identified in Table A-1 to Subpart A of the GHG reporting rule. Excludes from coverage: Emissions reported for products that are exported. Carbon pollution that is reported but is associated with a product that has non-emissive use. Quantities of carbon pollution that are attributed to a supplier of natural gas or oil, and are contained in a product that is transferred to an entity that reports direct emission from burning or releasing such product. Quantities of carbon pollution that are permanently sequestered in subsurface geologic formations. Quantities that are biogenic CO2 under the reporting rule (excluded through 2014) and carbon pollution from burning renewable biomass, as defined by the Secretary of Agriculture and the EPA Administrator through joint rulemaking (excluded starting in 2015). Requires any revisions to the U.S. EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule after the date of enactment of this Act to maintain or enhance the accuracy and completeness of the information required to be reported.
Point of Coverage (i.e, covered entity)	Any manufacturer (such as an oil refinery or natural gas processing facility), producer, or importer of a carbon polluting substance. (Sanders-Boxer estimate their proposal would cover 2,700 facilities, or 85 percent of the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions)	Covered entities are those required to report emissions under the U.S. EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule requirements of 40 CFR 98. This includes owners and operators of facilities (such as electricity generators) and suppliers of products (such as oil refineries). Facilities are not covered if they emit 50,000 metric tons or less of carbon dioxide equivalent per year in combined annual emissions from stationary fuel sources. Certain sources of fluorinated greenhouse gases are exempted where the associated carbon pollution is also reported by another covered entity. (The sponsors estimate their discussion draft would cover 7,000 facilities, or 85-95 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions)
Emission Targets and Timetables	Bill expresses the sense of Congress that the United States carry out activities to reduce emissions by at least 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.	Greenhouse gas emission targets and timetables not specified, except for a 90 percent reduction of emissions from HFCs attributed to specified entities.
Emission Allowance	N/A	A covered entity must purchase a carbon pollution permit for the compliance year by May 1 of the following year. Unless authorized by the Secretary of Treasury, permits are only valid for the specified calendar year and cannot be traded, sold, or banked.
Escalation Rate	Fee imposed on full carbon content of product (including fractional amount). The fee would start at $20 per ton of carbon dioxide content (including carbon dioxide equivalent content of methane) of the carbon polluting substance. In subsequent years, the tax increases by 5.6 percent (rounded to the nearest dollar) above the previous year's amount. Year Applicable amount 1 $20 2 $21 3 $22 4 $23 5 $24 6 $25 7 $26 8 $27 9 $29 10 $31 11 $33 12 or thereafter $35 Five years after enactment of this Act, the EPA Administrator would submit recommendations to Congress on how to best administer the carbon fee program after the 12th calendar year, including recommendations on a future fee schedule.	Fee imposed on carbon pollution emitted during, or attributed to, a compliance year (rounded to the nearest whole ton) as reported by the covered entity under the U.S. EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. Sets a carbon permit fee of [$15/$25/$30] per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent of carbon pollution emitted, or attributed, for 2014, increasing at a real rate [2%-8%] annually. Year Applicable amount (in 2014 dollars), (the low rate starts at $15 per ton with a 2 percent escalation; the high rate starts at $30 with an 8 percent escalation) 2014 $15.00 - $30.00 2015 $15.30 - $32.40 2016 $15.61 - $34.99 2017 $15.92 - $37.79 2018 $16.24 - $40.81 2019 $16.56 - $44.08 2020 $16.89 - $47.61 2021 $17.23 - $51.41 2022 $17.57 - $55.53 2023 $17.93 - $59.97 2024 $18.28 - $64.77 2025 $18.65 - $69.95 Sets an excess carbon pollution penalty of three times the applicable permit fee per ton of carbon pollution emitted (or for which it was attributed) without a permit.
Credits or Refunds	Not specified.	Requires the Secretary of Treasury to refund fees for any extra permits obtained by a covered entity for a compliance year.
Energy Intensive, Trade Exposed	Imposes a carbon equivalency fee on imports of carbon-intensive goods. This annual fee would be differentiated by classes of products and country of origin, taking into account the amount of greenhouse gas emissions released during the manufacture and transport of the carbon pollution-intensive good. This fee would expire when exporting countries adopt equivalent measures, or the EPA Administrator deems it no longer appropriate.	Exported products whose emissions are required to be under EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule are excluded from purchasing a carbon pollution permit.
Use of Revenue	60 percent of the revenues (not including the import fee) would be rebated to U.S. citizens and legal residents on a monthly basis. 40 percent of the revenues will be allocated to a Pollution Reduction Trust. For each of the first 10 years, this fund will allocate: $7.5 billion to mitigate impacts of the fee on energy intensive-trade exposed industries; $5 billion for weatherization of low income homes; $1 billion for clean energy job training; $2 billion for ARPA-E; and the balance would go toward deficit reduction. Carbon equivalency fee on imports would be evenly split between building/improving critical infrastructure and improving resiliency to climate change.	[To be supplied. Seeking comments on the use of revenues, such as: mitigating energy costs for low-income households, reducing the federal deficit, reducing the tax liability for individuals and businesses, protecting jobs of energy-intensive trade exposed industries, and investing in other activities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.]
Treatment of Existing State Programs	Not specified.	[To be supplied.]
Other	The bill would create a $5 billion Sustainable Technologies Finance program under EPA to provide financial assistance (i.e. loans, credits, loan guarantees) for eligible projects (e.g., renewables, energy efficiency, and advanced transportation projects) that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The bill would strengthen EPA's authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing, including requiring gas operators to disclose chemicals used in the fracking process. EPA would also be authorized to assess civil penalties for violations of those regulations up to $10,000 per day but capped at $125,000.	Does not affect the application of any other provision of law to a covered entity.

Other C2ES Resources:

Climate Debate in Congress

Carbon Tax Resources

Options and Considerations for a Federal Carbon Tax, February 2013.

Market Mechanisms: Understanding the Options, March 2012.

Australia's Carbon Price Mechanism, December 2011.

		The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) is an independent nonprofit organization working to promote practical, effective policies and actions to address the twin challenges of energy and climate change.
	2101 Wilson Blvd. Suite 550 Arlington, VA 22201 703-516-4146		C2ES.ORG

Congress Introduces Carbon Tax Bill, an Important Control Mechanism (See New World Order Checklist Below)

A Carbon Tax That America Could Live With (Excerpt)

August 31, 2013

NY Times - This summer, the Obama administration released the President’s Climate Action Plan. It is a grab bag of regulations and policy initiatives aimed at reducing the nation’s carbon emissions, which many scientists believe contribute to global warming.

[...]

The second approach is to use government regulation to change the decisions that people make. An example is the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards that regulate the emissions of cars sold. The President’s Climate Action Plan is filled with small regulatory changes aimed at making Americans live more carbon-efficient lives.  

[...]

In a free society, the government can’t easily regulate how close I live to work, whether I car-pool with my neighbor or how often I don a cardigan. Yet if we are to reduce carbon emissions at minimum cost, we need a policy that encompasses all possible margins of adjustment.

Fortunately, a policy broader in scope is possible, which brings us to the third approach to dealing with climate externalities: putting a price on carbon emissions. If the government charged a fee for each emission of carbon, that fee would be built into the prices of products and lifestyles.When making everyday decisions, people would naturally look at the prices they face and, in effect, take into account the global impact of their choices. In economics jargon, a price on carbon would induce people to “internalize the externality.”

A bill introduced this year by Representatives Henry A. Waxman and Earl Blumenauer and Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Brian Schatz does exactly that. Their proposed carbon fee — or carbon tax, if you prefer — is more effective and less invasive than the regulatory approach that the federal government has traditionally pursued. 

The four sponsors are all Democrats, which raises the question of whether such legislation could ever make its way through the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. The crucial point is what is done with the revenue raised by the carbon fee. If it’s used to finance larger government, Republicans would have every reason to balk. But if the Democratic sponsors conceded to using the new revenue to reduce personal and corporate income tax rates, a bipartisan compromise is possible to imagine.

Among economists, the issue is largely a no-brainer. In December 2011, the IGM Forum asked a panel of 41 prominent economists about this statement: “A tax on the carbon content of fuels would be a less expensive way to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions than would a collection of policies such as ‘corporate average fuel economy’ requirements for automobiles.” Ninety percent of the panelists agreed. 

Could such an overwhelming consensus of economists be wrong? Well, actually, yes. But in this case, I am confident that the economics profession has it right. The hard part is persuading the public and the politicians.

New World Order Checklist Includes a Carbon Tax: