The buying, selling, and trading of carbon credits will not remove one molecule of CO2 from the atmosphere.
The big buzz in the political world is "cap and trade." What is cap and trade and where did this idea come from?
The cap and trade concept came from the UN's Kyoto Protocols. Cap and trade is based on the flawed premise that anthropogenic activities (humans) are causing global warming by increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. The American Physical Society (APS), which represents nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its previous position on climate change. APS editor Jeffrey Marque said, "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the ICCP (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution." The UN IPCC computer modeling contains numerous exaggerations and extensive errors which led to the global warming hoax.
Virtually all human activities (work and play) result in the release of CO2. A cap and trade scheme would limit the release of CO2 that countries, corporations, and individuals could emit. Those that exceed this arbitrary carbon cap would be required to buy or trade a carbon credit from a country, corporation or individual that did not exceed the arbitrary cap. A carbon credit is a permit that allows a country, corporation, or an individual to emit a specified amount of carbon dioxide. These credits are bought and sold on carbon trading markets just like stocks. Contrary to stocks that have an actual value, the value of carbon credits is artificially created by governments for the sole purpose of generating income from a commodity that has no actual value. In a free market economy no one in their right mind would pay good money for a commodity that has no value without government coercion.
The buying, selling, and trading of carbon credits will not remove one molecule of CO2 from the atmosphere. But, the purpose is not to eliminate CO2, it is to generate income for the government, redistribute wealth, and control the people. Yet Obama said, "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it – whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers."
According to the Congressional Budget Office this new energy tax will cost businesses and individuals trillions of dollars. In addition, legislative analysts have predicted that millions of jobs will be lost if legislation implementing the cap and trade proposal is passed. Once these schemes are allowed, the government will be able to regulate and control all carbon emissions. This will give the government complete control over travel, lifestyle and whatever businesses and citizens consume and produce. This is the change Obama desires.
Cap and trade advocates chose the Hegelian Dialectic to sell this draconian plan. Georg Hegel's theory of the dialectic was used by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels to sell their economic theory of Communism. The Hegelian Dialectic is used to guide thoughts and actions that lead to a predetermined solution. Here is how it's done:
-
First, create a problem of monumental proportions.
-
Second, stir up hysteria by every means possible.
-
Third, when people hysterically demand a solution to the contrived problem, offer predetermined solutions that will take away rights, cost considerable money, and put more power in the hands of the power-grabbing bureaucrats.
Global warming zealots are using the Hegelian Dialectic to push their environmental agenda to the detriment of the American people. People are being brainwashed into believing the planet is being threatened by global warming. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi even claims that she was elected to "save the planet." Al Gore, the self-appointed high priest of global warming, lectures everyone to reduce their energy consumption. But don't be fooled. Neither Peolsi nor Gore walks the walk. Both are multi-millionaires who live in energy-gobbling mansions.
These elitist Liberals want to re-create a serf/royalty society, with liberals representing the royalty class. You will know when this global warming hype is for real when Gore, Pelosi, and their ilk give up the amenities of the "rich and famous" and live in 1,600 sq. ft. houses, fly coach, and use mass transit. Until then, their hot air is the cause of global warming. Every aspect of your life will be adversely affected if our politicians are allowed to implement any of these fraudulent cap and trade schemes.
As I recall just a few days prior to the election an interview between PEBO and the SF Gate was released, wherein PEBO, pretty much said he would “bankrupt” the coal industry. I would venture here to say that he will do that to any energy company or at best, if such a thing could be called better, and as mentioned above, pass along huge costs to the consumer.
As I am composing this post, earlier today there was a piece at MSN.COM titled “Myths of Global Warming” one of the so-called “myths” was how the fight against it would wreck the economy. The author went on to suggest that if we amass our talented people and enlist them in this fight we will create new “green jobs”, all of which will of course be overseen by an already bloated government. Just what we need another government agency creating jobs paid for by the taxpayers.
Just as a side note, does one honestly believe that the feds will allow these people to “unionize”? But that is a another issue left for another day.
You focus on the cost of a CO2 cap-and-trade, yet the cost is not relevant to this argument. If CO2 is not causing global warming, then no expense is appropriate. If CO2 IS the primary cause of global warming, and cap-and-trade is the only viable solution, then money is no object. The only discussion where cost becomes relevant is a comparison of potential solutions to global warming.
You really ought to explain to the reader how you made the logical jump from “The buying, selling, and trading of carbon credits will not remove one molecule of CO2 from the atmosphere.” to “But, the purpose is not to eliminate CO2, it is to generate income for the government, redistribute wealth, and control the people.” This sounds like a blanket application of a conservative talking point, not an argument. Nobody claims that carbon credits would remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The goal of the program is to reduce future emissions, under the assumption that more CO2 will result in warmer temperatures.
How exactly will this result in a redistribution of wealth? The increase in energy cost will effectively be a regressive tax, not a progressive one, since everyone pays roughly the same amount per unit of energy used regardless of income. You pay for what you use.
Yes, a carbon tax would in a sense be a form of the government “control[ling] the people.” In the same way national forests prevent us from chopping down trees in certain areas. In the same way pollution controls prevent companies from (cheaply) dumping their toxic chemical waste into the nearest river, and instead force them to pay extra for safe disposal.
Re-reading, at one point I referred to carbon cap-and-trade as a “carbon tax.” I’m not sure why I did that, as it is not a tax in the traditional sense.
Spiff,
You criticize Mr. Ward for not explaining “ how you made the logical jump from “The buying, selling, and trading of carbon credits will not remove one molecule of CO2 from the atmosphere” to “… the purpose is not to eliminate CO2 [but] to generate income for the government, redistribute wealth, and control the people.” ”; and disparage this as a ‘conservative’ talking point. Yet in the paragraph just preceding your, yourself, fail to explain how you arrive at “If CO2 is not causing global warming, then no expense is appropriate. If CO2 IS the primary cause of global warming, and cap-and-trade is the only viable solution, then money is no object.” Both presume the proximate audience is sufficiently conversant in the arguments for or against anthropogenic global-warming (AGW), and that further exposition would simply be tedious repetition. If this is true, your criticism becomes no more than a distraction from the debate.
While I grant your assertion is the one more logically complete (of these two statements only), it is entirely dependent on certain physical ‘truthes’ not in evidence. Mr. Ward’s assertion, in the absence of proof of AGW, requires no such evidence. I reason thus: your proposition depends on:
> a) conditional assertion CO2 is primary cause of global-warming
> b) cap-&-trade will solve (i.e., reduce CO2 and/or reduce the bulk planetary temperature)
> c) there are no other [viable] solutions to cap-&-trade (at least none you would tolerate), and
> d) money being no object is entirely unsupported as
>> 1) achieving the desired goal (i.e., you left out an important stipulation that it would) and
>> 2) the cost of not doing cap-&-trade is, in some fashion, the costlier option
Therefore, you are as guilty of incompleteness as Mr. Ward and have depended on your audience to supply the deficit. Like Mr. Ward, you made “logical jumps”. To be fair, it is nigh impossible in such a complex issue as AGW to avoid making some jumps, but I will catalogue some of the ones you left out anyway just to show how difficult it is covering all the bases.
1. it has never been shown CO2 has any substantial planetary warming effect other than in computer models for which there is no physical corroboration; models have further been shown to be woefully inadequate, biased, and manipulated; rather than leading warming historically, CO2 is known to lag by several hundred years and the fact human production in some small measure reverses this natural sequence does not show the atmosphere will warm; discovery of oceanic heat vents (relief valves) may soon end all debate the models have any validity whatsoever (none of the models take into account such mechanisms, nor are they capable of adjusting for them)
2. the success of cap-&-trade depends on there being a real physical correlation between man-made CO2 and planetary warming (see #1); if no such correlation exists, then there is no possibility whatsoever cap-&-trade can ‘fix it’; cap-&-trade assumes (along with all other ‘fixes’):
a. CO2 level determines climate
b. human CO2 (as opposed to natural sources) adds to warming disproportionately
c. this disproportionality is one-sided in the direction of greater warming
d. climate is hypersensitive (i.e., unstable, not self-correcting)
e. effects of a slightly warmer climate are provably disastrous
If any of the above is untrue, then cap-&-trade is incapable of solving what reduces to a non-problem
3. saying there are no other solutions ignores still more draconian solutions than cap-&-trade (i.e., we declare it so important that everything else must take second place to it); the only way to make sure no one exceeds his/her fart quota is to establish a government so powerful and oppressive as leaves nothing to chance; assuming the situation is this dire, it would make sense the only solution is to create a one-world dictatorship; this only leaves the question whom to anoint as King of Farts
Over at Junk Science, they put together a carbon-footprint calculator (http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/offset_calc.html ) based on IPCC models to give an idea just how miniscule the human impact on climate is. Just for laughs, I inputted the entire U.S. CO2 emissions rate of 6-million metric-tons/year to get a temperature reduction of only 0.00000259°C at a cost of $116-trillion per deg-C. We can take this further knowing the U.S. currently burns about 1/4 of world fossil fuels to further reduce planetary temperature by eliminating all man-made CO2 to arrive at 0.00001036°C. Yet IPCC gives us 100-year projections of 3-5°C (hmm, something fishy here). At that cost rate, we would spend only $300-million, but of course that only accounts for per capita costs of carbon credits. Cap-&-trade costs about a million times this and is levied on business. Regardless the outcome, the cost is prohibitive unless you think it acceptable imposing an economic collapse as would make the Great Depression look positively benign. IPCC is pushing for 80% reduction in total CO2 over 1996 levels by 2050 and has us spending trillions of dollars, which would seem to eliminate all sources exceeding late 19th century conditions.
As you can see, you made a great many assumptions and left it to readers to fill in the blanks. More than that, you framed your statements as can only lead to particular if unsupported conclusions. Climate-change is a theory is built on the entire body of human physical knowledge, requiring a great deal of discussion even to discuss other than to make broad statements of belief or position. Therefore, it is hardly fair taking every essayist to task for failing to make the whole case; which takes at least a book or two to do properly.
Richard,
You said regarding MSN’s Myths article, “… one of the so-called “myths” was how the fight against it would wreck the economy. The author went on to suggest that if we amass our talented people and enlist them in this fight we will create new … jobs”. In fact, if previous scams give us any idea what to expect, the MSN author is probably right it will create new jobs … it just won’t fix something that isn’t actually broken.
Consider some of the mega-scares we’ve had in the last 40 years. First we had ‘China Syndrome’ which ended all growth in nuclear power but, nonetheless, created a bunch of new regulatory positions and businesses for doing cleanup, hyper-managed waste storage, PR, and keeping tabs on radiation. Next came asbestos, which, while legitimate (my dad was one of the few to actually die from it, but then his exposure was massive and his two-pack-a-day smoking habit didn’t help), launched a mostly unnecessary cleanup effort to agitate the stuff out from its quiet resting places as fast as possible. The initial cleanup was so haphazard we’ll probably be getting lawsuits well into the 22nd century. The cleanup from asbestos launched HazMat businesses that are still thriving; likewise workplace exposure to chemicals, paints, and ground/water/air pollution. Hardly a company in America does not have a bevy of lawyers and safety/hygiene specialists on its payroll or as consultants. Declare Alar a health hazard and the price of apples soars for many months (more than compensating the initial loss and waste; despite which growers demand reparations at taxpayer expense).
Then there was the goldmine of ‘ozone-hole depletion’. At first, the big CFC makers like DuPont and Dow fought the hysteria. However, not being stupid, they found opportunity in adversity – they got to work devising a replacement. The moment they had R-134A, they did an about face joining the ranks of ozone depletion defenders. Why? Because they knew there is a lot more money selling replacement refrigerants than they ever made selling the old industry standards (R-12 & R-22). HVAC contractors, after briefly howling at Dupont for its duplicity, realized how much more they also stood to make. Naturally, they learned to keep quiet and most deny they ever resisted. Not only did the refrigerant have to be replaced, but also a heck of a lot of equipment and infrastructure unsuited to the new refrigerant. Even most HVAC engineers (my profession) have compromised integrity realizing they a) won’t be listened to, b) aren’t appreciated rocking the boat, and c) have more to gain from going along than not.
That is just one industry gaining from the con. Global-warming already has more gold-mine potential than the ozone-hole hype ever had and to a much wider array of hypsters, especially as it has been deliberately coupled to energy alternatives. As there is no real or immediate crisis, the harm is simply absorbed by resources depleted that much sooner and in blithe disregard it increases rather than decreases the impacts against which it is hyped. As all monetary gain is the product of some form of exploitation (natural resource, labor, turnover, assurance, &c), no real economic principle is violated by such an exploitation. Partnered with these scam riding entrepreneurs are researchers, salesmen, university professors, journalists, tax accountants, oil companies, brokers, politicians, environmentalists, cab drivers, bottlers, &c. For every thing lost, disrupted or blocked by environmentalism, some opportunity is created exploitative of the problems it creates. In fact, there are darn few of us who haven’t felt some slight monetary gain as a direct or indirect result of this … and, therein, lays the dirty little secret of environmentalism and why it is not more openly opposed – most of us recognize the fraud, but also that it is a fraud from which we, each, profit despite it being destructive, wasteful and really stupid.
[...] Cap and Trade Fraud Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy [...]