EPA Will No Longer Sponsor the Annual Climate Leadership Awards

August 26, 2017

(Engadget via Reuters) - It's no secret that Scott Pruitt is a climate change skeptic, and the Environmental Protection Agency has been undoing Obama-era policies ever since he took office. The agency's latest move follows that trend: the EPA has announced that it's no longer sponsoring the 2018 Climate Leadership Awards program, which recognizes companies that take steps to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and publicly report their progress. As a result, the awards program itself and the Climate Leadership Conference that usually goes with it have both been canceled for next year.

EPA spokesperson Jahan Wilcox apologized but didn't explain why the EPA withdrew its support. As he told Reuters in an email "It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that [the EPA doesn't] plan to fund an awards ceremony on climate change." To start with, the administration's proposed budget for 2018 will see its funding cut by 31 percent, which will specifically affect its climate change and pollution initiatives. Even without the budget cut, though, it's hard to imagine the EPA supporting a climate change award in its current state.

Earlier this year, the agency pulled down its climate science pages to reflect the views of the White House. The president also signed an executive order rolling back climate policies approved by the previous administration. And let's not forget that the United States withdrew from the Paris Accord, an agreement between 142 countries to make an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

While the awards program for 2018 was canceled, the EPA's former co-sponsors, non-government organizations C2ES and the Climate Registry, intend to continue the tradition. They're now looking for a new co-sponsor willing to fund and host the program in the future.

The Government is Hiding the Fact That There Has Been No Global Warming for 58 Years

No Global Warming For 58 Years: What The Government Is Hiding

Investor's Business Daily
March 8, 2016

Junk Science: NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration seemed eager in January to declare that 2015 was the hottest year on record. But they left out data that tell a somewhat different story.

When comparing temperatures, it would seem instructive to include a lengthy timeline. That’s not what happened, though, when NASA and NOAA came together to scare the public with their announcement, according to a skeptical website.

“In their ‘hottest year ever’ press briefing, NOAA included this graph, which stated that they have a 58-year-long radiosonde temperature record. But they only showed the last 37 years in the graph,” says Real Science.

Why would NOAA do such a thing? Because the fuller story contradicts the man-made global warming narrative. The government was “hiding the rest of the data,” says Real Science, which “showed as much pre-1979 cooling as the post-1979 warming.”

Indeed, when temperature data going back to 1957 are attached to the front of the 1979-2015 trend line, a different story materializes. Temperatures fall from the late 1950s to the mid-1960s, then rise and fall throughout the next half century.

So, what does all this indicate?

One, federal agencies have a strong interest in keeping the climate change scare alive. It means more budget and research dollars for them, and it also increases Washington’s power, as the solutions offered to stop global warming are always based on handing more authority to government.

Two, it’s really impossible to say what the real global temperature is year to year, given the many different ways to measure it, the problems created by heat islands and the poor placements of weather stations. And there is also the data tampering by government functionaries and academics who are obsessed with proving something that can never be proved.

NOAA is not the only government outfit that appears to be trying to conceal the larger truth. It was researchers at Britain’s Climate Research Unit who wanted to “hide the decline” in temperature data, and NASA has been involved, as well, in making “adjustments” to the raw data which might, or might not be, trustworthy. Best to bet on the latter.

“This pattern of NASA making the past cooler and the present warmer has occurred repeatedly since NASA became chartered with proving global warming. The past keeps getting colder,” says Real Science.

Meanwhile, no one knows what the future will bring, especially those who have tried to alter or cover up the past.

The Judicial Branch Struck Back Against Obama's Overreach, But Because Justice Scalia's Death Invalidates His Opinions in Pending Cases, Everything is Now Tipped in Obama's Favor

Justice Scalia heard and potentially already cast votes in several high-profile cases. Scalia’s votes in those cases will be invalidated, sending the justices back to the drawing board to renegotiate those decisions. His death will likely also lead to 4-4 splits on some key issues, with the remaining four liberals and four conservatives facing off against each other. When the court splits down the middle on a case, it does not create a binding legal precedent for the country. Whatever the lower court decided is affirmed, and that ruling only applies to their circuit — leaving legal conflicts among circuits unresolved. Or the court can put the case over for re-argument, essentially telling both parties to try again when the court is back to a full bench.


Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia poses with his family in his chambers before court ceremonies on Sept. 26, 1986, in Washington. Pictured are, front row, from left: Margaret Jane; Justice Scalia, Christopher and Mary. In the back are, from left: Maureen Scalia, Ann Forrest, Catherine, Matthew, Eugene, John and Paul. (Bob Daugherty/Associated Press)

Justice Antonin Scalia’s son spoke of his father's influence on his family at his funeral Feb. 20. Rev. Paul Scalia said "God blessed dad with a love for his family." Click here for video. 

The legislative and judicial branches strike back against Obama’s overreach

“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” - Newton’s Third Law of Motion 

By George F. Will, Opinion Writer at The Washington Post

February 19, 2016

  

Notice the Newtonian physics of America’s Madisonian system. Barack Obama’s Wilsonian hostility to the separation of powers, expressed in his executive authoritarianism, is provoking equal and opposite reactions from the judicial and legislative branches.

The Supreme Court has inflicted on Obama a defeat accurately described as the court’s most severe rebuke of a president since it rejected Harry Truman’s claim that inherent presidential powers legitimated his seizure of the steel industry during the Korean War. The court has blocked Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which rests on the rickety premise that the Clean Air Act somehow, in a way unsuspected for four decades, empowers the Environmental Protection Agency to annihilate the right of states to regulate power generation.

It is unprecedented for the Supreme Court to stop a regulatory regime before a lower court has ruled on its merits. This is condign punishment for the EPA’s arrogance last year after the court held that it had no authority for a rule regulating fossil fuel-fired power plants in Michigan. The EPA snidely responded with a gloating statement that the court’s decision came too late to prevent it from imposing almost $10 billion in costs under the illegal rule.

The legislative branch, too, is retaliating against executive overreach. Consider the lethal letter Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) sent to the Education Department concerning its Office for Civil Rights.

Obama Vetoes Two Measures That Would Have Stopped His Plans to Implement Carbon Policies

Notice that the establishment media is now calling CO2 "carbon pollution." 

CO2 is Carbon Dioxide: A heavy odorless colorless gas formed during respiration and by the decomposition of organic substances; absorbed from the air by plants in photosynthesis.

CO is Carbon Monoxide: An odorless very poisonous gas that is a product of incomplete combustion of carbon (the burning of Gasoline, Kerosene, Propane, Fuel Oil for Trucks and also home heating, and wood burning).

It is CO emissions which need to be reduced and eventually eliminated to the lowest limits possible, not CO2 which is what all animals exhale and all plants, flowers and trees absorb and convert to Oxygen. 

Botanist studies show that WE NEED MORE CO2 TO HAVE A GREEN EARTH. Anti-scientists (unfortunately, our president) associate CO2 with the smoke from chimneys and truck exhausts because they are totally ignorant of science. CO2 IS A CLEAR, ODORLESS, COLORLESS, TASTELESS GAS THAT COMBINES WITH SUNSHINE AND WATER IN PHOTOSYNTHESIS TO CREATE GREEN PLANTS.

The carbohydrates in plants are at the base of the food chain. Less CO2 = less life on Earth. Also, warmer temperatures oxidize Earth's plant matter to increase CO2, rather than more CO2 causing warmer temperatures.

Now that the Earth is cooling, on average, the scare tactics of climatologists who are on the research-funding gravy train, are seen as false. Only those benefiting from such scare tactics are clinging to such absurd claims that go against the current and historical data. But such "climatologists," making money based on the fears they spread, have destroyed data that didn't fit their predictions and are selecting data from hot airport tarmacs and asphalt paving areas in cities to claim warming.

IN FACT, THE EARTH OVERALL HAS BEEN COOLING SLIGHTLY SINCE 1999. Historical data show that about 2022 we will know definitely that a Maunder Minimum is setting in. North America and Europe will cool at a faster rate. MOVE SOUTH NOW AND AVOID THE RUSH (when Obama is exposed as an anti-science demagogue who has been taken by a conspiracy of "climatologists"). SCIENCE IS NOT VERBAL ARGUMENTS TO MAKE YOUR SIDE WIN A DEBATE (scientifically ignorant lawyers do that)!!! [Source]

Once everyone thinks of carbon dioxide as a pollutant, the fight is over. Republicans should just roll over and let the Democrats destroy the country. 

Obama vetoes anti-climate change measures passed by Congress

December 19, 2015

AP - President Barack Obama has vetoed two measures that would have blocked steps that his administration is taking to address climate change.

One would have nullified carbon pollution standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency. The second would have voided a set of national standards designed to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas pollution from existing power plants.

In a letter notifying Congress of his decision, Obama says climate change is a "profound threat" that must be addressed.

Some Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates scoff at the climate science [man is not the cause of climate change].

Obama has made addressing climate change a priority. He recently praised a new international climate agreement reached at a Paris conference and credited his administration as being a driving force behind the deal.

He rejected the measures through a rare "pocket veto," intended to be used when Congress has adjourned, as it did Friday for the year. A pocket vote essentially takes effect when the president fails to sign a bill within 10 days.

Nearly 200 Nations Adopt Climate Agreement at COP21 Talks in Paris; UN Deal Requires $16.5 Trillion in Spending on Renewable Energy Through 2030; Carbon Policies Through "Markets or Taxes" Will Be Needed, Says Chief Economist

In what supporters are calling a historic achievement, 196 nations attending the COP21 climate meetings outside Paris voted to adopt an agreement Saturday that covers both developed and developing countries. Their respective governments will now need to adopt the deal. The agreement sets the goal of limiting the world's rise in average temperature to "well below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius." Reporting on details of the deal, NPR's Christopher Joyce says, "To help developing countries switch from fossil fuels to greener sources of energy and adapt to the effects of climate change, the developed world will provide $100 billion a year."
He adds that the 1.5-degree cap was sought by island nations. Under the agreement, the Obama administration says that for the first time, all countries will be required to report on "national inventories of emissions by source" and also to report on their mitigation efforts. President Obama spoke on the agreement late Saturday afternoon, saying the agreement was a strong one, showing what is possible when the world stands as one. [Source, December 12, 2015]

Climate Deal Requires $16.5 Trillion Investment to Cut Pollution

December 13, 2015

Bloomberg - The deal struck at United Nations climate talks requires an overhaul of historic proportions for energy policies worldwide and a huge investment in cleaning up the pollution now damaging the Earth’s atmosphere.

Targets outlined in the agreement on Saturday, involving 195 countries, will require $16.5 trillion of spending on renewables and efficiency through 2030, according to the International Energy Agency.

To accomplish that, governments will have to offer incentives for clean energy production, scale back support for fossil fuels like oil, make emissions more costly, and reduce deforestation. The changes will touch industries from transport to construction, and encourage people to change their behavior.

“The strength of the agreement is that it allows a thousand policy flowers to bloom,” Paul Bledsoe, a climate aide during U.S. President Bill Clinton’s administration, said in an interview in Paris, where the deal was sealed. “This sends a powerful economic signal that fossil fuels will be saddled with financial and legal premiums to remain part of the energy mix, and clean energy will enjoy subsidies.”

The deal aims to limit the global temperature increase since the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), while calling on nations to “pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees.” That more ambitious goal implies vast cuts to emissions from burning fossil fuels.

“Politically as well as technologically, this is no walk in the park,” said Ottmar Edenhofer, chief economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research Institute near Berlin, and a lead author of the UN’s most rigorous assessment of climate economics. The target may trigger “a fundamental shift of investments towards renewables, energy efficiency, and carbon capture and storage,” he said.

Tree Planting

Policies such as carbon pricing through markets or taxes, and planting trees while burning biomass rather than fossil fuels, will also be needed, and in a 1.5-degree scenario, they’ll need to be stepped up, Edenhofer said.

UN Climate Change Deal is a Transfer of Wealth from Public Treasuries [Funded by Income Taxes and a Future Carbon Tax] to "Private Investors" (the Power Elite) Through the Breakthrough Energy Coalition, the Emissions Innovation Program, and the Clean Tech Initiative Announced by Bill Gates on November 29, 2015

NOTE THAT GATES CLEARLY STATES THAT THE COALITION IS A GROUP OF "PRIVATE INVESTORS;" THEY ARE THE TINY ELITE THAT WILL PERSONALLY BENEFIT FROM A CARBON TAX WHICH WILL IMPACT ALMOST EVERY ASPECT OF OUR LIVES

“Only our governments have the mandate to protect the public interest as well as the resources and mechanisms to do this,” says a statement released early Monday in Paris by the private investors in the Breakthrough Energy Coalition. “However, current governmental funding levels for clean energy are simply insufficient to meet the challenges before us.” [Source, November 30, 2015]

After announcing the Mission Innovation program to convince nations to double their clean energy investment budgets, Bill Gates has launched another massive initiative at the United Nations Climate Change conference in Paris. The Breakthrough Energy Coalition is backed by a who's who of tech leaders, including Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Jack Ma and Richard Branson. The idea is to develop new green technology that will increase the world's energy output -- especially in poor countries -- without contributing to global warming. Such tech, however, poses a risk that regular investors might shy away from. "We need the basic research, but we need to pair that with people who are willing to fund high-risk, breakthrough energy companies," said Gates. [Source, November 30, 2015]

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates is set to reveal a massive clean energy project on Monday, during the first day of the United Nations climate change summit in Paris. According to Reuters, which originally reported the news, the French government has confirmed that the ex-CEO-turned-philanthropist will launch the Clean Tech Initiative, a push to commit countries to double their budgets on clean energy tech research and developments by 2020. But Gates won't be working on this multibillion dollar fund alone: The US, Australia, Canada, France, India, Indonesia, Norway, Saudi Arabia and South Korea will all be backing the plan, a person familiar with the matter told Reuters. The Clean Tech Initiative is also said to involve private investors, such as Gates himself, where they're expected to boost their contributions to help the cause. [Source, November 27th 2015 ]

From The Associated Press on November 29, 2015:

A big sticking point at the climate talks in Paris will be money: how much rich countries should invest to help poor countries cope with climate change, how much should be invested in renewable energy, and how much traditional oil and gas producers stand to lose if countries agree to forever reduce emissions.

Government and business leaders are banking on clean energy technology to fight global warming, kicking off this week’s high-stakes climate change negotiations by pledging billions of dollars [from income taxes and a future carbon tax] to research and develop a technical fix to the planet’s climate woes.

Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates, President Barack Obama and French President Francois Hollande will launch a joint initiative on Monday after a diplomatic push in recent weeks ahead of the Paris climate conference.

At least 19 governments and 28 leading world investors, including Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, billionaires George Soros and Saudi Prince Alaweed bin Talal, and Jack Ma of China’s Alibaba, have signed on so far.

The new initiative is twofold: a public-private project called Mission Innovation, led by governments, and the Gates-led investor group called the Breakthrough Energy Initiative.

The governments pledge to double their spending [of public treasuries funded by taxing citizens] on low or no-carbon energy over the next five years, according to Brian Deese, senior adviser to Obama on climate and energy issues. They include leading energy producers and consumers, such as the U.S. China, India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Canada, France and Norway. They currently invest about $10 billion a year total, about half of which comes from the U.S. [taxpayers], Deese told reporters in Washington.

Gates committed $1 billion of his money and was the “intellectual architect” behind the effort to get investors involved, U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said. The business leaders are making their pledges conditional on governments also pledging more money, said a former U.S. government official who is familiar with the plan.

President Barack Obama, who arrived in Paris late Sunday night, wrote on his Facebook page that “we'll work to mobilize support to help the most vulnerable countries expand clean energy and adapt to the effects of climate change we can no longer avoid.”

The money would focus on research and development of technologies such as energy storage, which could make better use of clean power from wind and solar regardless of the vagaries of weather. It will also look at farming and transport.

But a multinational research effort combining the investments of governments, corporations and private individuals could create intellectual property problems.

The Global Warming Cycle Ended in 1998

In a Geological Society of America abstract by Dr. Easterbrook, data showed we were in a global warming cycle from 1977 to 1998, at which time we entered into a new global cooling period that should last for the next three decades. The Pacific Ocean has a warm temperature mode and a cool temperature mode, and in the past century has switched back and forth between these two modes every 25-30 years. This is known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO. In 1977 the Pacific abruptly shifted from its cool mode (where it had been since about 1945) into its warm mode, and this initiated global warming from 1977 to 1998. The PDO typically lasts 25-30 years and assures North America of cool, wetter climates during its cool phases and warmer, drier climates during its warm phases. The establishment of the cool PDO in 1998, together with similar cooling of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), virtually assures several decades of global cooling and the end of the past 30-year warm phase.  

PDO typically lasts 25-30 years:

1. 1945 - 1977: PDO cool phase (27 years)
2. 1977 - 1998: PDO warm phase (21 years)
3. 1998 - 2028: PDO cool phase (30 years)

[Source]

 

Water vapor is the overwhelming greenhouse gas [it is 30 to 50 times more important than carbon dioxide (CO2)], and CO2 attributed to man is minuscule. Yet government-paid scientists claim HUMAN-INDUCED CO2 is the primary climate driver and must be eliminated to save the earth. Of course man is prideful enough to think he is a major player when in actuality man is an insignificant producer of CO2.

The greatest amount of CO2 is locked up in plants, rocks and the oceans. It should not be surprising that these each contribute more CO2 emissions than any other sources. This is a good thing, since there is a relatively stable and finite amount of both oxygen and carbon on this planet.

If it weren’t for carbon dioxide, the earth could well be a frozen ball in space, and life, as we know it, would probably not be able to survive.

The largest emitters of carbon dioxide are volcanic eruptions, forest and wild fires, and natural decomposition of plants and animals. Thankfully, ocean water has a great propensity for absorbing this gas, and, as ice melts, it means that the oceans can take in a great deal more CO2.

1. The biggest source of CO2 emissions is volcanic eruptions. At any given time, according to agencies such as the USGS, there are about 13-17 volcanoes erupting somewhere on Earth.

2. Next in line for emissions is the natural decomposition of plant life.

3. The next biggest emitter of carbon dioxide is probably the ocean.

4. Other large emitters of carbon dioxide are forest and wild fires.

A person may wonder where man and animals fit into all of this. Animals and mankind breathe in oxygen and breath out CO2, and their bodies also contain CO2 and carbon, which is released when they die and decompose. Man burns fossil fuels, which release CO2 as a byproduct. Animals and mankind don’t produce nearly as much carbon dioxide as the major producers, with the possible exception of the death and decomposition of animals.

The instrument temperature records since 1850 or so (until satellite measures started in the 1970s) which are used to prove human-induced global warming (AGW) have been shown to be inaccurate, unreliable, and tainted by numerous errors. Dr. Don Easterbrook, Professor of Geology at Western Washington University, suggests that since the IPCC climate models are now so far off from what is actually happening, that their projections for both this decade and century must be considered highly unreliable.

No Global Warming for 17 Years, 6 Months – (No Warming for 210 Months)

March 4, 2014  

Lord Christopher Monckton, Climate Depot - Seventeen and a half years. Not a flicker of global warming. The RSS satellite record, the first of the five global-temperature datasets to report its February value, shows a zero trend for an impressive 210 months. 

The graph above shows no global warming at all for 17 years 6 months (as of March 2014):

Monctkon analysis: 

1: This graph is highly topical. It is right up to date. Remote Sensing Systems, Inc. (RSS) is one of the two satellite-based datasets (the other is the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). And RSS is one of the five standard global temperature datasets, which include the two satellite datasets and the three terrestrial datasets – Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS); the Hadley Centre/CRU dataset, version 4 (HadCRUT4); and the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). As this month, RSS is usually the first to report, and its latest monthly value, for February 2014, became available just hours ago. 

2: The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which not only measure temperature at various altitudes above the Earth’s surface via microwave sounding units but also constantly calibrate themselves by measuring the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations of the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe enabled the age of the Universe to be determined: it is 13.82 billion years.

Bureaucrats Seriously Discussing Use of Carbon Tax or Carbon Credit Trading Scheme to Control Emissions in the "Battle Against Global Warming"

Six years ago lawmakers, business leaders, and economists seriously discussed using a carbon tax or carbon credit trading scheme to control emissions in the "battle against global warming." The House in 2009 approved a bipartisan “cap and trade” bill designed to impose ceilings on industrial carbon emissions, while allowing utilities and other businesses to swap credits to meet their targets. But the bill authored by former Democratic Reps. Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts – now a senator – was defeated "among general fears about a faltering economy."

However, last month, in June 2015, Democratic Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Brian Schatz of Hawaii unveiled the American Opportunity Carbon Free Act, a bill that would impose a $45 per metric ton fee on carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel. The proposed tax reflects the federal government’s latest estimate of the “social cost of carbon” – its measure of the alleged damage climate change causes to the environment, public health and the economy. With world leaders, environmentalists and even Pope Francis clamoring for tough action to "slow the rate of growth of greenhouse gas emissions," which the government claims to be a major factor in climate change, the idea of imposing a tax on industrial carbon emissions and pollutants is getting a fresh look.

Whitehouse and Schatz contend that their proposed tax – which would be increased by two percent per year – along with government credits for carbon sequestration, could cut U.S. emissions by at least 40 percent by 2025 – a reduction far greater than the 26 percent to 28 percent the United States has pledged to achieve through regulatory changes over the same period. Rep. John Delaney (D-MD) is promoting a similar version of a coal tax.

The Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution and other think tanks have begun promoting a carbon tax as a "vital component of comprehensive tax reform." While it’s unlikely that Congress will take on major tax reform until after the 2016 presidential election, proponents say they want to get an early start in building support for a "versatile tax that could generate tens of billions of dollars that could be used for an array of worthy causes."

“The resulting revenue could finance tax reductions, spending priorities or deficit reduction – policies that could offset the tax’s distributional and economic burden, improve the environment, or otherwise improve Americans’ well-being,” economist Donald Marron and researchers Eric Toder and Lydia Austin wrote in a new report for the Tax Policy Center.

Global warming is nothing but a hoax to enact a carbon tax. Move to the city...Right!!! Let's increase density so the elite can take the remaining rural properties, farms and pastures while the rest of mankind lives like sardines in a can. People need to wake up to the fact that central banks and their international corporations run almost the entire planet, that wars are waged to gain more money and control, and that ultimately the goal is a One World Government under a oligarchy where mankind will be no more than workhorses crammed together into a small footprint of land while the statists/elitists roam freely over the rest of it. We are like sheep being led to the slaughter.

Water vapor is the overwhelming greenhouse gas [it is 30 to 50 times more important than carbon dioxide (CO2)], and CO2 attributed to man is minuscule. Yet government-paid scientists claim HUMAN CO2 is the primary climate driver and must be eliminated to save the earth. Of course man is prideful enough to think he is a major player when in actuality man is an insignificant producer of CO2.

The greatest amount of CO2 is locked up in plants, rocks and the oceans. It should not be surprising that these each contribute more CO2 emissions than any other sources. This is a good thing, since there is a relatively stable and finite amount of both oxygen and carbon on this planet.

If it weren’t for carbon dioxide, the earth could well be a frozen ball in space, and life, as we know it, would probably not be able to survive.

The largest emitters of carbon dioxide are volcanic eruptions, forest and wild fires, and natural decomposition of plants and animals. Thankfully, ocean water has a great propensity for absorbing this gas, and ,as ice melts, it means that the oceans can take in a great deal more CO2.

Carbon Tax (or Cap-and-Trade) is Coming to Us All

Our planet is dynamic and climate change is real; however, blaming CO2 is a political agenda not based on science.

Carbon taxes will raise a bunch of revenue for the government; i.e., take a bunch of money out of the economy, without actual benefit.

Politicians propose to stop climate change by "developing the undeveloped nations," which would be financed by imposing carbon trading schemes on developed nations; aka, redistribution of wealth on a global scale. Of course, development on such a scale will increase overall CO2 emissions....but don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain.

The world elites are forcing this upon us to jack the rest of the money from our cold, dead hands. We're already taxed cradle to grave in the US. We resemble 16th century England these days. Oligarchy and all.

A carbon tax would correspond to a lump-sum transfer that also affects the poor, so we would have to compensate them with higher social benefits or something for their otherwise reduced purchasing power; in general, nullifying the overall impact for government revenues. So the tax not is also about control. The ones to benefit financially will be the investors running the climate exchanges.

Flashback: UN and IMF Push for Global Financial Transaction Tax and Carbon Tax to Finance World Government

Globalists Push World Transaction Tax At UN Summit

Final move for world government and destruction of middle class begins

September 19, 2010

Prison Planet.com - Globalists representing 60 nations will meet at the UN this coming week to push a tax on world financial transactions in the name of solving poverty and climate change, formally launching a massive program to bankrupt the middle class and enrich the coffers of global government.

“Spearheaded by European Union countries, the so-called “innovative financing” proposal envisages a tax of 0.005 percent (five cents per $1,000), which experts estimate could produce more than $30 billion a year worldwide for priority causes,” reports CNS News.

As Ira Stoll, editor of FutureCapitalism.com, points out, new taxes always start off small so as to not be resisted by the people forced to pay them, and are then always gradually increased.

“When people suggest taxes, they always start out ‘small,” said Stoll.

“But once the door is opened to the idea of ‘global taxes,’ you can bet they won’t end small. Never mind all the issues about whether development aid actually helps poor countries or just winds up empowering corrupt local dictators and their cronies.”

The call for a global transaction tax arrives in the aftermath of a leaked UN blueprint which outlined how elitists plan to re-brand global warming in an effort to dismantle the middle class by instituting a “global redistribution of wealth” via carbon taxes.

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

Flashback: Robin Hood Tobin Tax is an Transaction-Tax Scam

Robin Hood Tax: Occupy Movement Now Marching Straight into the Globalist Trap

The Robin Hood Tax is an identical transaction-tax scam to the one proposed by globalists at the 2009 UN COP15 Climate Summit in Copenhagen

October 25, 2011

Patrick Henningsen, Infowars.com - It was inevitable that a movement which has struggled to agree on a manifesto, in the end, would do the bidding of the very elite globalist powers that they are demonstrating against to begin with.

Instead of achieving freedom from Central Bank debt enslavement, naive Occupiers appear to have taken the bait, pulling the mob towards endorsing a global taxation system, and one to be administered… by a brand new global government body.

As the Occupy Movement sets its sights on the upcoming G20 Summit in France on November 3-4, its globalist handlers behind the scenes have succeeded in carefully directing its crowds towards the Holy Grail of all socialist super-states — the celebrity supported, trendy “Robin Hood Tax”, also known as a Tobin Tax, a financial transaction tax levied on all transactions involving shares, bonds and derivatives.

It’s likely that such a blanket tax will eventually end up on the end of things like cash withdrawals and the like.

They claim that the resulting funds, counted in the hundreds of billions of dollars per year, would go toward popular Bono-led liberal heart-string fantasy causes like ‘reducing poverty in the third world’, social programs and— surprise, surprise — “combating climate change” and perhaps even saving polar bears — a move that would surely please desperate men like Al Gore (but a complete waste of money seeing that man-made global warming has already been thoroughly discredited).

The rallying cry for this globalist wet dream is coming directly from the supposed brain-child of the Occupy Movement, the globalist foundation-funded organization, Ad Busters, quietly shepherding its flock towards one of the biggest revenue spinning and control scams ever conceived.

Reuters reported yesterday:

“Canada-based Adbusters wants the Occupy Wall Street protest movement against economic inequality to take to the streets to call for a 1 percent tax on such deals ahead of a November 3-4 summit of the Group of 20 leading economies in France.

“Let’s send them a clear message: We want you to slow down some of that $1.3 trillion easy money that’s sloshing around the global casino each day — enough cash to fund every social program and environmental initiative in the world,” the activist group said on its website, www.adbusters.org.

Adbusters put out the initial call for Occupy Wall Street and since protesters set up camp in a park in New York City’s financial district on September 17, they have inspired solidarity demonstrations and so-called occupations around the world.”

In many ways, the Robin Hood Tax is an identical transaction-tax scam to the one proposed by globalists at the 2009 UN COP15 Climate Summit in Copenhagen, where a number of new taxes on financial transactions and new carbon taxes would be put into a giant “slush fund” to be handled by none other than the World Bank.

Ultimately, any Robin Hood Tax will most likely end up in a giant fund to “ensure that banks are adequately capitalized”, and one which will be used to bailout, or insure big bank losses and trillions in gambling derivative bets gone bad.

In reality, a Robin Hood Tax does just the opposite of what its name represents. Rather than stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, it is designed to steal more money through taxation from working people — money which will end up directly in the hands of institutions like the US Federal Reserve and its cartel of Wall Street banks.

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.