Carbon Credits, Whats in store, England Now USA soon

Master Blaster

New member
You just cant make this stuff up, here is waht Barack Obama, Goldman Sachs and their special interests have in store for US citizens, when they are elected, and some here think this is a great idea:

Every adult in Britain should be forced to carry 'carbon ration cards', say MPs
By David Derbyshire
Last updated at 1:08 AM on 27th May 2008


Every adult should be forced to use a 'carbon ration card' when they pay for petrol, airline tickets or household energy, MPs say.

The influential Environmental Audit Committee says a personal carbon trading scheme is the best and fairest way of cutting Britain's CO2 emissions without penalising the poor.

Under the scheme, everyone would be given an annual carbon allowance to use when buying oil, gas, electricity and flights.

Anyone who exceeds their entitlement would have to buy top-up credits from individuals who haven't used up their allowance. The amount paid would be driven by market forces and the deal done through a specialist company.

MPs, led by Tory Tim Yeo, say the scheme could be more effective at cutting greenhouse gas emissions than green taxes.

But critics say the idea is costly, bureaucratic, intrusive and unworkable.

The Government says it supports the scheme in principle, but warns it is 'ahead of its time'.

The idea of personal carbon trading is increasingly being promoted by environmentalists. In theory it could be used to cover all purchases - from petrol to food.

For the scheme to work, the Government would need to give out 45million carbon cards - each one linked to a personal carbon account. Every year, the account would be credited with a notional amount of CO2 in kilograms.

Every time someone makes a purchase of petrol, energy or airline tickets, they would use up credits. A return flight from London to Rome would, for instance, use up 900kg of CO2 credits, while 10 litres of petrol would use up 23kg.

Enlarge MP Tim Yeo MP, says the scheme could be more effective at cutting Britain's greenhouse gas emissions
Mr Yeo, chairman of the committee said personal carbon trading rewarded those with a low carbon footprint with cash.

'We found that personal carbon trading has real potential to engage the population in the fight against climate change and to achieve significant emissions reductions in a progressive way,' he said.

'The idea is a radical one. As such it inevitably faces some significant challenges in its development. It is important to meet these challenges.

'What we are asking the Government to do is to seize the reins on this, leading the debate and coordinating research.'

The Government is committed to cutting CO2 emissions to 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2010.

The Climate Change Bill going through Parliament aims to cut emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. The Government has said it backs the idea in principle, but it is currently too expensive and bureaucratic.

Environment Minister Hilary Benn said: 'It's got potential but, in essence, it's ahead of its time. There are a lot of practical problems to overcome.'

A Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report into the scheme found it would cost between £700million and £2billion to set up and up to another £2billion a year to run.

Tory environment spokesman Peter Ainsworth added: 'Although it does have potential we should proceed with care. We don't want to alienate people and we want everyone to be on board.'

But critics say the idea is deeply flawed. The scheme would penalise those living in the countryside who were dependent on their cars, as well as the elderly or housebound who need to heat their homes in the day.

Large families would suffer, as would those working at nights when little public transport is available.

It would need to take into account the size of families, and their ages. There is huge potential for fraud.

Matthew Elliott of the Taxpayers' Alliance said the cards would be hugely unpopular. 'The Government has shown itself incapable of managing any huge, complex IT system.' he said.

HOW THE SCHEME WOULD WORK

Every adult in the UK would be given an annual carbon dioxide allowance in kgs and a special carbon card.

The scheme would cover road fuel, flights and energy bills.

Every time someone paid for road fuel, flights or energy, their carbon account would be docked.


A litre of petrol would use up 2.3kg in carbon, while every 1.3 miles of airline flight would use another 1kg.

When paying for petrol, the card would need to swiped at the till. It would be a legal offence to buy petrol without using a card.

When paying online, or by direct debit, the carbon account would be debited directly.

Anyone who doesn't use up their credits in a year can sell them to someone who wants more credits. Trading would be done through specialist companies.

I wonder how many carbon credits a pound of smokless powder and a box of primers will cost.:barf:
 
I would favor simply increasing tax on fuel. It would have the same effect of reducing demand, with much less bureaucratic mumbo jumbo.

However, if such a plan comes to pass, I would certainly want to own stock in the companies involved in trading carbon credits. Warren Buffet thinks this is a good investment, and he is usually right.
 
To understand what Global Warming hype is all about, you must first understand this;

-- Global warming is about taxation.
-- Taxation is about control.

Acceptance of the human contributed global warming theory means that our government will tax the corporations for spewing out too much CO2 emissions. Of course, the corporations will pass the cost of the tax down to.... the consumer.... to you and me. Any taxation of a corporation is an indirect tax on a person who consumes products or services from that corporation.

So, when John McCain and Obama say they want to tax corporations because they believe in Global Warming... what they are saying is they want to tax "you" for global warming.

What about Carbon credits? Where will the money go when a corporation is forced to purchase carbon credits from another company in order to meet their quota? Here is an example of how it will work.

------------ Example -----------------
Company A in the USA must purchase a certain amount of carbon credits to meet their quota. To offset this cost, they raise the price of their products and services which is passed down to you and I. So, money from your pocket (from your purchases of products at increased prices... from Company A) goes into a "fund" at company A to pay for the carbon credits.

Company A searches around and finds a company in a third world country such as Guatemala who has some carbon credits for sale. So, they take the money out of their carbon credit fund (the money they got from the US consumer) and pay it to a company in Guatemala that will not exceed its CO2 quota and which has so-called "carbon credits" to spare.
------------------------------------

What did Company A get for this purchase besides a document saying that they are now in compliance? -- nothing. Company A got nothing of substance at all from the Guatemalan company. The only thing that has really happened is, money from the US consumer, via Company A, has left the USA and has gone to Guatemala.

In other words, Global Warming is a liberal/Socialist scheme to re-distribute wealth from the rich nations to the poor nations with absolutely no gain for the rich nation. This policy will bleed the Western nations of their wealth, and will contribute to the eventual destruction of the middle class in the USA. You and I will get poorer, my friends. Of this, there must be no disillusion. It is a Socialist scheme. And, yes, it is a Communist scheme.

I bet you thought we defeated the Communists back in the 80's and 90's.

Lenin said it best.... "We will purchase the very rope from the Westerners which we will use to hang them."

That is what the global warming scam is about. And both Barack Obama and John McCain support this scam. The question is, do you support Obama and McCain?
 
Follow the money....

Creators of carbon credit scheme cashing in on it

By Judi McLeod

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

There's an elephant in global warming's living room that few in the mainstream media want to talk about: the creators of the carbon credit scheme are the ones cashing in on it.

The two cherub like choirboys singing loudest in the Holier Than Thou Global Warming Cathedral are Maurice Strong and Al Gore.

This duo has done more than anyone else to advance the alarmism of man-made global warming.

With little media monitoring, both Strong and Gore are cashing in on the lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming.

http://adognamedkyoto.blogspot.com/Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as "the world's first and North America's only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil."

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.

To hear the saving-the-earth singsong of this dynamic duo, even the feather light petals of cherry blossoms in Washington leave a bigger carbon footprint.

It's a strange global warming partnership that Strong and Gore have, but it's one that's working.

Strong is the silent partner, a man whose name often draws a blank in the Washington cocktail circuit. Even though 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 a beleaguered Kofi Annan, the Canadian born Strong is little known in the Unites States. That's because he spends most of his time in China where he works to make the communist country the world's next superpower. The nondescript Strong, nonetheless is big cheese in the world of climate change, and is one of the main architects of the coming-your-way-soon Kyoto Protocol.

Gore is the glitzy, media approved front man in the partnership, the flashing neon lights on the global stage warning the masses of the end of Earth, as we know it, and Hollywood's poster boy for greening the silver screen.

The skeptics of man-made global warming believe that Gore and Strong have made climate change "the new religion". Climate change is not the first religion both parties have tried to make stick. Along with former Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev, Strong, currently president of the Earth Council, has been boasting of replacing the Ten Commandments with the Earth Charter, a golden rule guide for how the masses should treat the environment.

Gore, who has given sermons at the United Nations sponsored Cathedral of St. John the Divine Church in New York City, is a promoter of the religion known as Gaia.

The two environmental gurus also share a belief in radical Malthusian population reduction. According to them, too many people, particularly in the U.S. are polluting the planet, emitting excessive Freon through their refrigerators and jacking up the air conditioning.

But the conduct of Al Gore and Maurice Strong in the capitalist world is one for the books. It's a side of them that may have remained unknown had it not been for the investigative talent of the Executive Intelligence Review (EIR).

The tawdry tale of the top two global warming gurus in the business world goes all the way back to Earth Day, April 17, 1995 when the future author of An Inconvenient Truth traveled to Fall River, Massachusetts, to deliver a green sermon at the headquarters of Molten Metal Technology Inc. (MMTI). MMTI was a firm that proclaimed to have invented a process for recycling metals from waste.Gore praised the Molten Metal firm as a pioneer in the kind of innovative technology that can save the environment, and make money for investors at the same time.

"Gore left a few facts out of his speech that day. First, the firm was run by Strong and a group of Gore intimates, including Peter Knight, the firm's registered lobbyist, and Gore's former top Senate aide," wrote EIR.

"Second, the company had received more than $25 million in U.S. Department of energy (DOE) research and development grants, but had failed to prove that the technology worked on a commercial scale. The company would go on to receive another $8 million in federal taxpayers' cash, at that point, its only source of revenue.

"With Al Gore's Earth Day as a Wall Street calling card, Molten Metal's stock value soared to $35 a share, a range it maintained through October 1996. But along the way, DOE scientists had balked at further funding. When, in March 1996, corporate officers concluded that the federal cash cow was about to run dry, they took action: Between that date and October 1996, seven corporate officers--including Maurice Strong--sold off $15.3 million in personal shares in the company, at top market value. On Oct. 20, 1996--a Sunday--the company issued a press release, announcing for the first time, that DOE funding would be vastly scaled back, and reported the bad news on a conference call with stockbrokers.

"On Monday, the stock plunged by 49%, soon landing at $5 a share.By early 1997, furious stockholders had filed a class action suit against the company and its directors. Ironically, one of the class action lawyers had tangled with Maurice Strong in another insider trading case, involving a Swiss company called AZL Resources, chaired by Strong, who was also a lead shareholder. The AZL case closely mirrored Molten Metal, and in the end, Strong and the other AZL partners agreed to pay $5 million to dodge a jury verdict, when eyewitness evidence surfaced of Strong's role in scamming the value of the company stock up into the stratosphere, before selling it off.

In 1997, Strong went on to accept from Tongsun Park, the Korean man found guilty of illegally acting as an Iraqi agent, $1 million from Saddam Hussein, which was invested in Cordex Petroleum Inc., a company he owned with his son, Fred.

In that year, Gore, still U.S. vice president, was making news for "taking the initiative in creating the Internet."

The leaders of the man-made global warming movement, you might say, get around.

Meanwhile Jumbo's still in global warming's living room, but the duo with the tiniest carbon footprints on earth continue to just tiptoe past him.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm
 
The oil companies do all the exploration and drilling and make 10 cents on the gallon. The Federal Government does absolutely nothing and makes 18 cents per gallon of unleaded and 24 cents on diesel. Who's screwing who?

The atmosphere on Mars is primarily Carbon Dioxide, but the temperature ranges from -207F to 80F.

How is raising taxes on anything going to help anything? Fooling with the market or creating false demands in the form of Ethanol mandates is what got us here in the first place. Ethanol takes more fuel to produce than gasoline.

Al Gore is not a scientist and his movie was found to have several inaccuracies or even flat out lies regarding climate change. Most of our politicians are not scientists.

31,000 scientists signed a letter refuting global warming.

Hillary Clinton wants to make the oil companies pay the difference. The oil companies will simply raise the price of oil and gas to pay for the increase in taxes.

More government intervention means more taxes, more government control over the lives of Americans.

The government is passing and proposing all kinds of bills to fight global warming, and they don't have a single piece of solid evidence to prove that it even exists. The polar bears were put on the endangered species list, but their numbers have doubled, not decreased, since 1985.

I have a book written in 1971 about the "green revolution" and how reason would be thrown out the window in support of this environmentalist propaganda. Nobody would listen to the facts, but supported it because it sounds good. Nearly 40 years later, it has come true.
 
Last edited:
Hillary Clinton wants to make the oil companies pay the difference. The oil companies will simply raise the price of oil and gas to pay for the increase in taxes.


The same with minimum wage! Some people just don't understand the concept! :cool:
 
We need more supply, especially domestic supply and alternative fuels (not ethanol) so our economy and the world economy can continue to grow. If economies can't grow, they will stagnate causing unemployment and recession/depression.

The promise of more oil in the future, will lower the price today as the speculators and market will discount it back to today. Its the market's and traders' perception that supply will decrease that is causing the huge run up in the price of oil.
 
Pilot, not everyone is convinced that we are experiencing a supply and demand issue. Many think the idea of a shortage of supply is contrived to drive up the price. Others may want to elaborate on the issue... I've gotta go out for awhile.
 
It would be nice to have a viable alternate fuel source, the problem is there isn't one. We have plenty of oil, let's use it to at least supplement what we get from other countries.

France gets most of their power from Nuclear power instead of coal, but our omniscient Senators won't let us develop nuclear power. They want wind and solar instead. The problem is they don't work at night or if the wind ain't blowing.

Right now, the Senators are all concerned with leaving a better planet for generations to come. The problem is they don't have a clue about how to do it, and their only ideas are completely unrealistic and have a crippling effect on the economy and food supplies. It's arrogance on the part of the government.
 
Self-sufficiency is the only saving grace we will have as americans.

I'm not talking about everyone "running off into the hills" to start their own micro-farm, hunt, and live off the land.

I'm talking about suburban self-sufficiency. Start building a solar array. They're expensive to buy flat-out, but if you build it one component at a time a month over a year, they are affordable. Get energy that you OWN the production rights to, so you can't get hit with a communist ponzi tax scheme.

If you've got a little corner of yard, start a garden. Hard to tax food that you grow yourself. If you're new to gardening, start really small this year. Like ten feet by ten feet square. Double that if you do well this year, apply the knowledge you gain.

This doesn't affect your vehicle at all, and that's a hard nut to crack, but inventive people make their own way.
 
Hello! Your going to be seeing $7.00 a gal not long from now! Are you for real?

I realize taxation is never a politically popular idea. It is a better idea than rationing though. However, I think a hefty tax on gas would ultimately reduce demand, and help spur development of alternatives. It would decrease unnecessary consumption. $7 a gallon may or may not be enough to accomplish this. I think oil is still extremely undervalued and way too cheap. If it too expensive, we would have already seen a big drop in consumption and demand.
 
Both of our Presidential Candidates are evident believers in the whole Global warming farce. While I beleive that Mccain would have more flexibility in his solutions to the alleged problem, instead of the rigid Luddite driven anti capitalist solutions that would be promulgated by Obama, nevertheless, it is imperative that in your state elections, you pay careful attention to that issue.


WilditallaboutcontrolAlaska ™
 
Now that both candidates have accepted Global Warming as fact, it no longer matters whether or not it is real. Perception is reality.

Carbon credits are coming soon. Nothing will stop it. Protest if you want, but I would still buy stock in the companies that will be trading credits.
 
Rationing? There's not even a shortage! The only shortage is that we're not allowed to produce our own, and not allowed to build any refineries. It's a man made shortage, not a shortage of natural resources.

The government got us into this mess by sticking their dirty fingers into it to push agendas. The best thing they could do is get out of the oil business. Many of our politicians have never run anything, yet they think they can run the entire oil industry or healthcare or anything else and have zero experience or knowledge.

George Washington was elected president, and one of the biggest reasons for uniting the colonies was protection. Safety in numbers. He had fought in two wars. Relevant experience.

John McCain, admittedly has little knowledge of economic theory. Hillary Clinton, no experience working in healthcare or oil and gas, and has proven she's a failure in healthcare. Barak Obama, no experience in anything. Al Gore, no background in science, energy, etc. BUT HE HAS PLENTY OF INVESTMENTS IN GREEN ENERGY COMPANIES AND CARBON CREDIT ORGANIZATIONS!!! (There's a conflict of interest for ya!)

I encourage everyone to go watch the Disney movie "Johnny Tremain" and see how much our government has become like the tyranny the colonists fought against to build our country.
 
I would favor simply increasing tax on fuel.

I think oil is still extremely undervalued and way too cheap. If it too expensive, we would have already seen a big drop in consumption and demand.

The marketplace should determine the price. Prices should not be manipulated by some fool politician who believes that taxation is the way to force people to behave the way you want them to.
 
I encourage everyone to go watch the Disney movie "Johnny Tremain" and see how much our government has become like the tyranny the colonists fought against to build our country.

Not to be critical, but Disney movies have no relevance to life, history or reality. I am sure there are books you can read, other than Johnny Tremaine, which I read in 3rd grade:rolleyes::p

WildbacktoyourregularlysheduledrantsAlaska ™
 
It would be no different than what our terrorist supporting Saudi "friends" are doing to us. They've cut production by 1 million barrels to put us in a pinch.

If the price keeps going up, it will only make things really bad. Will people stop driving to work? The average American's commute is 23 minutes. I couldn't ride my bike that far everyday (or any day). I work 6 miles from home and I can't telecommute. What do I do when I can't afford gas? It's not like there's a suitable job on every corner. How will we stop using so much gas? Just never leave the house? How about we mandate that our elected officials must fly commercial instead of private jet? Or how about a law that says you may only have 1000 sq ft of house for each person who lives in it? I don't know that ANY of our Senators would pass those tests.

The biggest supporters of this global warming hysteria and controls over "big oil" and carbon credits are also the biggest offenders. They're hypocrites with no intent of changing their ways. If they were truly concerned, they'd be the first in line to have smaller houses, fly commercial, and take the metro instead of a limousine. They're creating standards that they aren't willing to follow.
 
Reading the comments here, it seems that the average Joe gets it. Just pump more oil. Or, stop "talking" about Solar and actually "do" something with the technology. The fact is, yet again, it is the government that is in the way.

The people of America seem to understand where the problem lies. Why is it, you think, that the government will not do anything? It is not the American people who are benefiting from the high price of oil. Who then is benefiting?

Answer that question and you will know the source of our common problem. I'll give you a hint... it's not just Exxon/Mobil and BP.
 
Back
Top